Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"In the US a child cannot buy a firearm, or the ammo for it. And of coarse neither can felons, the mentally unfit etc... though criminals aren't likely to obey the law anyway. A man w/ a functioning IQ of 17 isn't going to go into the local Wal Mart and buy a shotgun."
"I have no wish to drag this thread into a gun control discussion either, but as an expression of liberty, I think it's timely and relevant. Should the right to 'bear arms' be restricted or is this an assault to individual liberty? If not, and I choose not to own guns, is my liberty not a risk because I might ultimately end up living beside someone who clearly should not own a gun?"
To make something very clear, most Americans who own guns do so for hunting purposes as well.
The right to bear arms is restricted those who are "unfit" such as the mentally unstable, criminals and children have no reason to own firearms. And in the US children and for the most part the mentally unfit don't. The problem is that of criminals... they don't have the right to own firearms. And a criminal is not necessarily any less dangerous because he doesn't own a gun. No store owner will bat an eyelash at his buying a baseball bat... But criminal don't let trivial illegalities stop them and they don't purchase them legally. At what point should liberty be infringed? Yes I refer to legal gun ownership by a citizen as a liberty because it is liberty that helps to guarantee others. But at what point am I to be disarmed? When will they decide people over a certain age shouldn't own a firearms either, or below a certain income bracket etc. At what point will they deny me the librty to defend myself and my loved ones. Because that is what will happen here if the gun control crowd ever wins.
THe problem is that I am far too aware of history; perhaps too well versed in it for my own good. When I realize that one of the first actions of the New Nazi Regime in the early 1930's was draconian gun control... I look to the words of some of the existing US gun control crowd and realize that their words and threats are almost identical to those of the nazis.
I also have no doubt that in 1776 our founding fathers realized that without the men who had arrived in the Continental Army w/ their own arms... their necks would most likely have been stretched.
Survival on the American frontier against hostile Indians, predatory animals and criminalistic white men required a use of a firearms. If you think I'm wrong ask the James gand what happened to them in Northfield.
Today a firearm isn't as necessary, there aren't roving War parties of bands of outlaws that rape and murder w/ impunity because we have a fairly effective police force. But then again if the news reports are to be believed New Orleans proved that firearms are a guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
A year ago there was a meth lab a few miles from my home, the operator obviously wasn't following the law and he was armed well enough that if the police made a raid there was a good chance he wasn't going to jail; morgue yes, jail doubtful. A problem arose when some of his buyers started using his merchandise in a field just off his property. Well lo and behold there happens to be another farmhouse just down the road and a couple of these brilliant individuals decided they could rob the place and get enough for some more meth. They didn't care that anyone was home they obviously intended to do some harm and they were no Robin Hood types these. Lets just say they went through the back door and waited very calmy for the police to arrive. Not because of any sudden humanity that snuck back into their soul but because the owner (a really nice 70 year old retiree) made it very clear that if they moved he wasn't certain his old hands wouldn't accidently pull the trigger on that Rem 870.
The Union that is the US allows me via the 2nd Amendment the liberty to protect my other liberties.
Would that Union exists today w/out that liberty? Not a chance.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Okay. Most of the individuals who own guns in Canada do so for hunting purposes.
Dear Dawna,
Actually, this part "....and the idea of gun ownership to protect property is inconceivable to us, and with all due respect, laughable." is the collective part I thought not consistent with individual liberty. I contend that you speak for many a Canadian who does not think it is inconceivable or laughable.
"I'm all for finding a way to keep guns out of the hands of those people who would harm themselves and others. Surely the richest and most powerful nation in the world can create a charter that would not only shelter the rights of those who find it necessary to protect their families; but at the same time ensure the safety and liberty of citizens from irresponsible and unsafe gun ownership."
If you are puzzled by the resistance to gun control measures, it is perhaps because of its consistently historical result. I am not aware of any slope that is more slippery than this one. Your Prime Minister's promise to ban all handguns is further evidence of the political alternative to protecting liberties, and an expected lack of public outcry is a poor guardian of those liberties. Consider all the rights that could have been stamped out over the decades because of political will and lack of public outcry.
"But there are millions of adult North Americans who unfortunately live in a 'permanent child-like state.' Since these people are generally not licenced to drive a car, should they own a hand gun or rifle?"
These people you refer to must all be living in Canada and Mexico. I think its misleading to compare an inalienable right with a government granted privilege. You are only licensed to drive a car on public highways. On private property, I can own and drive a car without a license, registration, insurance, speed limits, or sobriety. I can do this on private property because it is none of the government's concern....the basis of individual liberty.
"Our Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that if he's reelected in the January elections, he will ban hand guns. I can assure you that there will be little public outcry to Mr. Martin's new regulation."
Wouldn't you say that the rural folks living in Northern Ontario have little political clout, and are entirely regulated by the densly urban population of Southern Ontario? I can tell you that many a northern outdoorsman's speech is reduced to bitter grumbling when discussing the regulations and prohibitions laid on him by the politics controlled in urban Southern Ontario. A similar situation exists today in Alaska, where its conceivable for instance that trapping could be banned statewide if the urban citizens of Anchorage happen to 'lack any public outcry.' When I consider the offensiveness to hearty Ontarians and Alaskans of having their livelyhood controlled by the politics of metropolitan Toronto and Anchorage respectively, and I consider the similar offensiveness to Southerners of exposing their livelyhood to control by Black Republicans, I wonder if the rights to absolute self-government are championed here equally for both groups.
"I have no wish to drag this thread into a gun control discussion either, but as an expression of liberty, I think it's timely and relevant. Should the right to 'bear arms' be restricted or is this an assault to individual liberty?"
The right to bear arms is restricted to citizens who have lost certain rights because of due process. Examples are felons, mentally unstable, or anyone for that matter that a judge may deem for just cause ineligible. An assault to individual liberty is to abolish everyone's right as the means of prohibiting rights to a minor percentage of the population....a percentage that is already chiefly prohibited from ownership. An assault on the idea of individual liberty is to advocate that "we all need to do this" or "we all need to do that" or "we all musn't have that."
"If not, and I choose not to own guns, is my liberty not a risk because I might ultimately end up living beside someone who clearly should not own a gun?
Hmmm. Should we all be prohibited from owning gasoline and BIC lighters so as to protect my liberty to not be at risk of ending up living next to an arsonist?
I may be off base on some of my writing here, but I really cannot discern from your posts if you value an individual right to "bear arms" or if you prefer prohibition of all firearms for all. It seems you have made statements which support both.
At what point should liberty be infringed? Yes I refer to legal gun ownership by a citizen as a liberty because it is liberty that helps to guarantee others. But at what point am I to be disarmed? When will they decide people over a certain age shouldn't own a firearms either, or below a certain income bracket etc. At what point will they deny me the librty to defend myself and my loved ones. Because that is what will happen here if the gun control crowd ever wins.
Shane:
I would think the point that liberty must be infringed upon is when the right to life and liberty is no longer dovetailed to meet the standard of "civilization." And if you're not mentally competent (for whatever reason) to own a gun then it's logical that perhaps you shouldn't.
I'm fascinated by this subject Shane because it seems to me that liberty has already been sacrificed/compromised when you live in an atmosphere of such fear...that of ordinary citizens needings guns for defense.
Actually, this part "....and the idea of gun ownership to protect property is inconceivable to us, and with all due respect, laughable." is the collective part I thought not consistent with individual liberty. I contend that you speak for many a Canadian who does not think it is inconceivable or laughable. Cedar
Cedar:
Seventy-five percent of Canadians support firearms regulation, Ontario being the second highest province to support the law; and a recent poll indicates that the majority of Canadians oppose gun ownership by general public, but majority still prefers stricter gun laws.
"Wouldn't you say that the rural folks living in Northern Ontario have little political clout, and are entirely regulated by the densly urban population of Southern Ontario? I can tell you that many a northern outdoorsman's speech is reduced to bitter grumbling when discussing the regulations and prohibitions laid on him by the politics controlled in urban Southern Ontario. A similar situation exists today in Alaska, where its conceivable for instance that trapping could be banned statewide if the urban citizens of Anchorage happen to 'lack any public outcry.' When I consider the offensiveness to hearty Ontarians and Alaskans of having their livelyhood controlled by the politics of metropolitan Toronto and Anchorage respectively, and I consider the similar offensiveness to Southerners of exposing their livelyhood to control by Black Republicans, I wonder if the rights to absolute self-government are championed here equally for both groups."
Banning hand guns in Ontario would not affect the livelyhood of Northern Ontario outdoorsman.
"The right to bear arms is restricted to citizens who have lost certain rights because of due process. Examples are felons, mentally unstable, or anyone for that matter that a judge may deem for just cause ineligible. An assault to individual liberty is to abolish everyone's right as the means of prohibiting rights to a minor percentage of the population....a percentage that is already chiefly prohibited from ownership. An assault on the idea of individual liberty is to advocate that "we all need to do this" or "we all need to do that" or "we all musn't have that."
I'm not suggesting that everyone's rights should be abolished, and I'm setting aside my own personal feelings on the issue of gun ownership as it relates to freedom, as my prurience for liberty leads me to believe that the 'freedom to choose' is the only true liberty we have. But I am equally expressive regarding 'responsible liberty' and at what point individual liberty should be forfeited. Should it not be seriously questioned when that 'liberty' entails the ability to kill another human being with something as symbolic as a gun?
"Should it not be seriously questioned when that 'liberty' entails the ability to kill another human being with something as symbolic as a gun?" [Dawna #214]
and
"I'm fascinated by this subject Shane because it seems to me that liberty has already been sacrificed/compromised when you live in an atmosphere of such fear...that of ordinary citizens needings guns for defense." [Dawna #213]
Dawna -
I think I can understand what you're getting at, but people have always been capable of killing each other with or without guns. You could theoretically remove all dangerous objects in an environment, and there is still inherent 'danger' and 'fear' in one form or another. Obviously, it's gets to the question of just how much can you protect people from themselves?
I'm not suggesting a position for or against gun control, but if I'm not mistaken, statistics show that gun control does not reduce crime (nor fear, for that matter). While perhaps a little trite, I think there's something inherently true in the notion that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. One could suggest that religion is dangerous because of how it causes people to think...and I'm not just talking about fundamentalists either. Consider the group suicide carried out by a few nice enough folks that believed that killing themselves was something they needed to do in order to go meet the divine spaceship....or whatever it was. While I recognize that selecting such an example produces something of a skewed analysis given the extremity of the act; nevertheless, should those people be protected from themselves so that they don't commit suicide and they're not a danger to themselves? And, as a result of such act, actually be denied their 'right' to freedom of religion because it's too dangerous for them? I'm not suggesting I have the answer, I just think it's a tough question. If you continuously move in the direction of 'protecting' people from themselves, then you squeeze out individual liberties one by one because there's always going to be some nincompoop in the crowd that submerges the hair dryer under water, so to speak (i.e., someone that lacks common sense or rational capacity...or is just plain stupid..or perhaps fundamentally deviant).
Obviously, the restraint as well as the provision of individual liberties is a difficult minefield of sorts to navigate through. I think that one has to be careful when determining that it's some external object (a gun or religion) that actually has a causal link to bad things happening. I'm not so sure that it's the availability of the gun or the religion that causes people to act as they do; they have to have something not quite right with them in the first place before they reach for the gun or the religion as a means of killing and destroying.
I would think the point that liberty must be infringed upon is when the right to life and liberty is no longer dovetailed to meet the standard of "civilization." And if you're not mentally competent (for whatever reason) to own a gun then it's logical that perhaps you shouldn't.
I'm fascinated by this subject Shane because it seems to me that liberty has already been sacrificed/compromised when you live in an atmosphere of such fear...that of ordinary citizens needings guns for defense.
Dawna
Dawna, knifeings happen every day as do beatings. A gun is symbolic as a weapon only because those who wish to make certain they are removed as a whole from the public have made them so.
I agree that the mentally unstable should not own a firearm, never said they should. If an individual has been institutionalized he/she can't legally.
A firearm is a tool, and history in the US at least has shown it to be a tool of the protection of liberty. Countries that have increadibly stringent gun control laws have not seen a decrease in crime; its still there and it's still a problem. The difference is that the law abiding citizens are at the disadvantage.
That is said, Neil has asked that we not let this thread turn into a Second Amendment debate. Points and counterpoints have been made; we could probably drop the subject of Gun Control and go one w/ a discussion about Librty & Union.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
That is said, Neil has asked that we not let this thread turn into a Second Amendment debate. Points and counterpoints have been made; we could probably drop the subject of Gun Control and go one w/ a discussion about Librty & Union.
Actually Shane, I thought we were having a discussion with respect to responsible liberty, security and liberty, and gun ownership as it relates to liberty. And it wasn't I who introduced 'gun ownership' into this conversation.
But since Americans are very passionate about the Second Amendment (I would guess that most U.S. members here agree with this Amendment) and I come from a country where the majority of people do not support gun ownership; I considered this discussion both fascinating and a learning experience for me.
If Neil sees this opportunity as a derailment from the original intent of his thread, then I of course will respect his wishes.
Dawna:
I tend to follow your argument in that the second amendment discussion does follow the liberty aspect of the thread -- define liberty. Although the amendment, by itself, is only a piece of the picture, its discussion puts a piece of the jigsaw puzzle into place. In fact, a similar discussion of each amendment would add more pieces.
We'll likely never reach a consensus on the definition of liberty, but that inability also defines liberty, does it not?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I tend to follow your argument in that the second amendment discussion does follow the liberty aspect of the thread -- define liberty. Although the amendment, by itself, is only a piece of the picture, its discussion puts a piece of the jigsaw puzzle into place. In fact, a similar discussion of each amendment would add more pieces.
Ole:
I think so too. It's the puzzle pieces and the weaving of the thread that is so intriguing to me, and how they ultimately and individually complete the tapestry.
We'll likely never reach a consensus on the definition of liberty, but that inability also defines liberty, does it not?
Having always had it, I've never given thought to a definition. I can define what it isn't, but I'll have to defer a definition until I've thought about it.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I think its misleading to compare an inalienable right with a government granted privilege. You are only licensed to drive a car on public highways. On private property, I can own and drive a car without a license, registration, insurance, speed limits, or sobriety. I can do this on private property because it is none of the government's concern....the basis of individual liberty. 
Linear Mode
