Trying to understand gun rights supporters...

[Federalist]

You and a crowd of others carrying guns does not negate the power nor responsibility of an elected official.

But it does. Since political power grows from the barrel of a gun, the question of who has guns is a very important component in the balance of power between the government and the people. Ultimately, the only way for rights to exist and be protected is through force of arms.

 

[Canadian Joe]

To own an object that can instantly end human life with so much as a pull of your little finger...you should have to go through a fair amount of gun training, and safety training, as well as psychological testing, along with every year or so, going for more training and another psychological review to renew what should be a permit to even own the gun at all. you can say thats restricting gun rights etc, but, again, its one of the most destructive forces every invented in the history of mankind, so yes, all of the above, and maybe more, should be how we deal with guns. for crying out loud, even well trained policemen make mistakes and accidentally shoot civilians from time to time.

I need to call you on this. This comment is not in the spirit of the purpose for which I created this thread.

But I will respond nonetheless to your post. I have mentioned several times that I support keeping a tight control on guns in my own country (I don't have a right to comment on the American side), HOWEVER, even from the perspective of someone on the "left":

1. Your suggestion of some kind of battery of super-testing for gun ownership is totally impractical; the resources to do that, in the current economy especially, would never be feasible.
2. It would be a complete violation of the rights of privacy of the individual. I see that, and I'm even on the SAME END on the spectrum on this issue as you!
3. The testing would never achieve what would be intended. You can't test for the things you want to test for.
4. As Harlow and others have pointed out already, there are many other things that carry greater risks, that we wouldn't dream of giving such levels of testing for. Driving cars indeed being one of them. I would argue that given the damage inflicted on children by some incompetent (or worse) parents in the world, "parenting" in a sense poses far greater risk to do harm in society, and we wouldn't possibly give the government the power to test us to allow us to have and keep our children.

My own opposition to changing Canadian law is based on a much more specifically-focused argument, which I have alluded to briefly elsewhere in this thread, but again, I don't want to focus on that here, because this thread is not meant to serve that purpose. I specifically wanted a conversation in which gun rights supporters would explain their perspective without being judged for it, as many have done here very effectively, not for us (gun opponents) to start an argument about those views.

 

[Goshin]

If you read everything I've written throughout this thread, and still don't believe I am sincere about wanting to have an open, respectful conversation, then I doubt anything I say will persuade you. But I came on this thread (the 2nd one I've participated in, to answer your question), openly admitting that the first one had not gone as I would have wanted. This one has. I was transparent about my position, but genuine in saying I wanted to hear the other side. Nobody has thrown their arms open and given me hugs here (wasn't asking for that), but I count at least 12+ people who have given me really good responses to my original post.

I have admitted on here that my original position has been shifted slightly but importantly. In effect, in doing so, I am admitting that my initial position was, in my eyes now, "wrong" in some ways. The only reason I've been persuaded to soften that position is because of the answers I've received from so many here. They've given reasonable opinions in a totally respectful manner. I don't have to agree totally with someone to respect them. Those folks are welcome by my campfire any day.

You obviously have no belief in the sincerity I was bringing to this conversation; if you've read this entire thread and everything I've posted on it, then I would have hoped you'd see my intent was genuine (and that my admission that I've changed my position would be clear evidence of that). This thread has now been read by quite a few people -- I doubt I'm the only one whose opinion has been shifted a little by this exchange. I think that's worthwhile, and I hope you might agree with that.

On the whole it has been a very good thread, with much opportunity for civil and rational discussion and the exchange of ideas.... and very little ranting and namecalling, comparatively. I'm glad we had an opportunity to talk like this, far too many of these threads quickly devolve into both sides "shouting" at each other instead.

 

[Maenad]

excellent-you have had some training. I have done some extensive training with the rattan stick (Escrima)

yeah jab the sucker with that thing

One of my best friends was worried about the safety of her daughters who commuted through some bad areas on their way to the private school they attend. but the older daughter was all league in softball and the younger daughter had one of the fastest tennis serves in the state

so I got them a couple of these to stash in their vehicle

great self defense weapon
and the girls can easily say its for their sports.=the oldest girl used it for batting practice at a cage

and both have the strength to really beat on some jerk if need be



Brooklyn Smasher - 92BS - 34" Overall Length

Another alterantive: Wear an antique hat pin as part of your attire.

I have done this on many occasions and no one was any the wiser. They are long and sharp and can be used to jab an attacker in the eye, ear, or temple. It would not be very comfortable for the attacker.

 

[Maenad]

no, it's still about fear. it's a rational fear, that the founding fathers embodied in the 2nd amendment: people, sometimes governments, will attempt to violently attack others at some point in the future. due to this rational fear, we should make sure americans always have the right to self defense. that's the logic behind the 2nd amendment, a rational fear, but a fear nonetheless and i challenge you to dispute this rationally.

Which country is it that requires all of its citizens to be armed? Sweden? Switzerland? One of those small landlocked countries doesn't have a good military and requires all citizens to be armed. I don't recall which.

 

[Maenad]

Fear to you, not to me.

Denial to you.

 

[Maenad]

again, you're missing the point, but feel free to keep denying that you have any fear. doesnt change the reality that the 2nd amendment is founded on a rational fear, a fear that remains just as rational today as it was in the 1780's.

In those days it was essential to own firearms for the purpose of hunting game. They didn't have a Piggly Wiggly with meat all processed and wrapped in celophane! LOL. Smart people lived near the salt marshes because they were rich with fowl. Where I live many families bag that deer and other wildlife for their freezers. We have so much wild game here, if it wasn't hunted you couldn't drive on the roads.

 

[Maenad]

Here is where I would not expect a Canadian to understand.

The U.S. was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant. This took guts, it took courage, and it took guns.

Canada was founded in grovelling and cowering before this very same tyrant. No guts, no courage, no guns required.

What we have here is someone from a culture based on cowering and grovelling, who is trying to understand a culture based on standing up and fighting for one's rights and freedoms.

And Canada remains cowering before this tyrant who, according to their Constitution, has the power to do away with any representation the people have and take them over. They live in denial about this as well, and think the monarch is merely a 'figurehead.' Silly people.

 

[Goshin]

Another alterantive: Wear an antique hat pin as part of your attire.

I have done this on many occasions and no one was any the wiser. They are long and sharp and can be used to jab an attacker in the eye, ear, or temple. It would not be very comfortable for the attacker.

There were actually pop-culture references to the perils of annoying women with hat-pins in the 19th and early 20th century, including a line in a song I can't recall offhand.


Gotta mind full of junk... :mrgreen:

 

[Maenad]

It will not help you in the least . Note that the first post after yours admonished you informing you of this



You see my friend, nobody had invented hunting yet in 1789. And while there were firearms, they were never ever used to kill animals for food or any other reason. So get rid of any delusions who may have treasured that guns and hunting have anything to do with each other. :roll:

And good luck to you. You are gonna need it.eace

You clearly have not visited any of those historic places on the east coast. People have been killing and eating game since they have been in this country. Hunting wasn't 'invented' it was the way of life. My original ancestor who came here in the 1600s lived near a salt marsh because of the richness of the wildlife available for food. And it is clear that you don't know the history of guns:

1232: The Chinese who invented gunpowder (black powder) first used it in a weapon - gunpowder filled tubes aka rockets
1364: First recorded use of a firearm - shooter lit wicks by hand that ingnited gunpowder that was loaded into the gun barrel.

Timeline - The History of Guns Rifles and Machine Guns

 

[Maenad]

there were actually pop-culture references to the perils of annoying women with hat-pins in the 19th and early 20th century, including a line in a song i can't recall offhand.


gotta mind full of junk... :mrgreen:

lol. ...

 

[Goshin]

And Canada remains cowering before this tyrant who, according to their Constitution, has the power to do away with any representation the people have and take them over.

None of the Canadians I know appear to be cowering before the armed might of Queen Elizabeth II. I'm reasonably sure that if she tried to exercise that very hypothetical authority that Canada would say, oh so very politely but firmly, in the inimitable Canadian manner, "Sorry old girl, but that just isn't going to happen you know, eh?"

 

[Maenad]

None of the Canadians I know appear to be cowering before the armed might of Queen Elizabeth II. I'm reasonably sure that if she tried to exercise that very hypothetical authority that Canada would, oh so very politely but firmly, in the inimitable Canadian manner, "Sorry old girl, but that just isn't going to happen you know, eh?"

Most of the Canadians I know, have left Canada for greener pasteurs. Including my SIL! But their constitution does give all the power to the monarch. I'm sure that is passed over during the course of their education.

The constitutional powers of the monarch
The Queen herself retains four key constitutional powers. Only the Queen herself may exercise these powers. No minister or advisor may exercise these powers on her behalf.
The power to appoint the Prime Minister

Legally, the Queen has the power to appoint whomever she wishes to be the Prime Minister. Equally, if she so decided, she could appoint nobody to the office and could keep it vacant. There is no legal requirement even that the person appointed as Prime Minister be a Member of Parliament. Conventionally, however, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons. As long as there is such a majority, and as long as the party concerned has a clear leader, the Queen will have no real choice. But these things are not always so clear.

In 1957, when the Conservative party was in office, it was not clear who should succeed Eden as leader of the party and Prime Minister. The Queen effectively chose Macmillan over Butler. In 1963, when Macmillan was too ill to continue, the Queen, in the words of her biographer, allowed herself to be 'duped by' Macmillan into once again ensuring that Butler did not become Prime Minister, inviting Sir Alec Douglas Home to form a Government. The Queen's biographer describes this as 'the biggest political misjudgement of her reign'. Finally, in 1974 when there was a Hung Parliament no one party commanded a majority of seats in the Commons. This time the party leaders acted wisely, effectively keeping the Queen out of it until it had become clear that Harold Wilson should be invited to form a minority administration. Shockingly, there is no guarantee that this would necessarily happen again.

The power to dissolve Parliament

A dissolution of Parliament is the device that triggers a General Election. Only the Queen can dissolve Parliament and she has the power so to act at any time, for any reason, or for none. Normally the Queen will dissolve Parliament only on the advice of the Prime Minister. But Edward VII insisted on a dissolution in 1910 before he would agree to act on certain policies preferred by the Prime Minister of the day (Asquith). A full constitutional crisis was prevented only by the King's death and his replacement by George V.

In 1974 Prime Minister Harold Wilson called a second election following a very narrow victory over his Conservative opponents a few months earlier. It has been made clear since that the Queen was under no obligation to grant this request for an election. The Queen had the power to tell Wilson that the people had only recently been asked to vote and that their decision should be respected, that it was up to him to find a way to make his minority government work. In the event she granted his wish and he was returned with a small majority.

In 1990, when Margaret Thatcher was going through her prolonged removal from office at the hands of her parliamentary colleagues, there were real fears that she would out-maneuver them by calling an election. The Queen would have been within her 'rights' to deny such a request on the grounds that it was self-serving, and not in the interests of the country.

The power to dismiss the Government

Legally, the Queen has the power to dismiss the Government at any time and for any reason or for none. No exercise of this power could be struck down by any court of law. This power was last exercised in the United Kingdom by William IV in 1834, but it remains in place. It was exercised with devastating effect in 1975 in Australia.
The power to withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament

No Bill can become a legally binding Act of Parliament unless and until it receives the royal assent. This means that the Queen has a veto on all legislation passed by Parliament. She has the power to withhold her assent to any legislation for any reason or for none. Were she to exercise this power no court could hold it illegal. This is an astonishing power. It was last exercised in the United Kingdom by Queen Anne in 1708 but has been threatened to be exercised several times in the twentieth century, not least, it is reported, by the current heir to the throne, Prince Charles.

The powers are very real

Even if some of these powers have not been exercised in the United Kingdom in many years, do not be fooled. Legally, they still exist. Several of them have been much more recently exercised by the Crown in Australia (where the Queen's appointed representative dismissed the democratically elected Government of the day in 1975) and in Canada (where the Queen's appointed representative prorogued Parliament for several weeks in late 2008, preventing it from performing its democratic and constitutional functions).

http://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/The British Constitution/index.php

 

[Goshin]

Most of the Canadians I know, have left Canada for greener pasteurs. Including my SIL! But their constitution does give all the power to the monarch. I'm sure that is passed over during the course of their education.

:shrug: The Canadians I know still live there. While they have their beefs with their government just as we do, (the overzealous gun control being one of them, among my friends), they still love their country and are largely content with remaining Canadians.

There aren't too many places to go in this world that are better than either Canada or the USA. Almost anywhere else you might move your citizenship is either has a much more restrictive and nanny-like government, or else severe poverty, or both. Then there's Switzerland, which has its own issues, among them that it is extremely difficult to become a naturalized Swiss citizen unless you're wealthy.

 

[Maenad]

:shrug: The Canadians I know still live there. While they have their beefs with their government just as we do, (the overzealous gun control being one of them, among my friends), they still love their country and are largely content with remaining Canadians.

There aren't too many places to go in this world that are better than either Canada or the USA. Almost anywhere else you might move your citizenship is either has a much more restrictive and nanny-like government, or else severe poverty, or both. Then there's Switzerland, which has its own issues, among them that it is extremely difficult to become a naturalized Swiss citizen unless you're wealthy.

I did amend my post to include powers of the monarch. Likely you missed it. But it should be noted. IMO Canadian citizens either don't know about it or they live in complete and utter denial.

I have to agree that Canada has lovelycountryside. Parts of it look a lot like Kentucky. And like Kentucky, those parts that are so beautiful offer very little in the way of making a living. I'm speaking of the Gatineau River area.

 

[Goshin]

I did amend my post to include powers of the monarch. Likely you missed it. But it should be noted. IMO Canadian citizens either don't know about it or they live in complete and utter denial.

I have to agree that Canada has lovelycountryside. Parts of it look a lot like Kentucky. And like Kentucky, those parts that are so beautiful offer very little in the way of making a living. I'm speaking of the Gatineau River area.

I'm not an expert in Candian law and government, but I strongly suspect that if Queen Elizabeth decided to muck about with their government in ways they didn't like, Canadians would act to put a stop to it.

If they prefer to remain a part of the Commonwealth and recognize the Crown, that's their business... I am not Canadian.

It's not like Queen Elizabeth II is some bloody-handed tyrant like George III you know.

 

[haymarket]

But it does. Since political power grows from the barrel of a gun, the question of who has guns is a very important component in the balance of power between the government and the people. Ultimately, the only way for rights to exist and be protected is through force of arms.

Guns DO NOT determine who wins elections.

Guns DO NOT determine who wins public policy debates.

How do guns pretend to make a difference in political arena's such as these?

 

[ttwtt78640]

In those days it was essential to own firearms for the purpose of hunting game. They didn't have a Piggly Wiggly with meat all processed and wrapped in celophane! LOL. Smart people lived near the salt marshes because they were rich with fowl. Where I live many families bag that deer and other wildlife for their freezers. We have so much wild game here, if it wasn't hunted you couldn't drive on the roads.

In those days it was necessary to defend yourself and family from criminals, and no reliable 911 service or police force can match capability today. Having a military (standing army) or police force does not preclude the need for self defense and, like insurance, it is hoped not to be needed but foolish to do without, simply hoping for the best rarely works out well.

More shots being fired at Georgia officers than before | jacksonville.com

Spike in assaults leads US violent crime rate to first increase since '93 - CSMonitor.com

Austin

 

[haymarket]

You clearly have not visited any of those historic places on the east coast. People have been killing and eating game since they have been in this country. Hunting wasn't 'invented' it was the way of life. My original ancestor who came here in the 1600s lived near a salt marsh because of the richness of the wildlife available for food. And it is clear that you don't know the history of guns:

As I have already explained , I was being sarcastic in response to the post from White in which he stated that hunting was irrelevant to the issue of the Second Amendment and it was all about killing people and not animals.

The 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, at its root, is about people killing other people whenever such a thing may be necessary
Thus, any discussion regarding huniting has no relevance whereas discussion regarding preparedness to exercise the right in its root is.

In post 23 where I said that I followed the statement with two emoticons the rolling eyes and the winking eye indicating that the comment was sarcastic.



I fully realize hunting has been around as long as man searched for food. And as I said I have no doubt that far more guns have been used to kill animals in hunting than in the slaying of humans.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Guns DO NOT determine who wins elections.

Guns DO NOT determine who wins public policy debates.

How do guns pretend to make a difference in political arena's such as these?

If you are dead then you can neither debate nor vote. Austin, TX brags of its third lowest violent crime rate (for cities), yet still has more than one per day.

Austin

 

[Crossroads]

I need to call you on this. This comment is not in the spirit of the purpose for which I created this thread.

But I will respond nonetheless to your post. I have mentioned several times that I support keeping a tight control on guns in my own country (I don't have a right to comment on the American side), HOWEVER, even from the perspective of someone on the "left":

1. Your suggestion of some kind of battery of super-testing for gun ownership is totally impractical; the resources to do that, in the current economy especially, would never be feasible.
2. It would be a complete violation of the rights of privacy of the individual. I see that, and I'm even on the SAME END on the spectrum on this issue as you!
3. The testing would never achieve what would be intended. You can't test for the things you want to test for.
4. As Harlow and others have pointed out already, there are many other things that carry greater risks, that we wouldn't dream of giving such levels of testing for. Driving cars indeed being one of them. I would argue that given the damage inflicted on children by some incompetent (or worse) parents in the world, "parenting" in a sense poses far greater risk to do harm in society, and we wouldn't possibly give the government the power to test us to allow us to have and keep our children.

My own opposition to changing Canadian law is based on a much more specifically-focused argument, which I have alluded to briefly elsewhere in this thread, but again, I don't want to focus on that here, because this thread is not meant to serve that purpose. I specifically wanted a conversation in which gun rights supporters would explain their perspective without being judged for it, as many have done here very effectively, not for us (gun opponents) to start an argument about those views.

Everything I mentioned is already enacted in different countries around the world. Switzerland for example requires mandatory military service for all eligible males, and have yearly mandatory gun training. but I'm sorry for throwing in something off topic on this thread, it was late and I was kinda 1/4th asleep

 

[Canadian Joe]

I'm not an expert in Candian law and government, but I strongly suspect that if Queen Elizabeth decided to muck about with their government in ways they didn't like, Canadians would act to put a stop to it.

If they prefer to remain a part of the Commonwealth and recognize the Crown, that's their business... I am not Canadian.

It's not like Queen Elizabeth II is some bloody-handed tyrant like George III you know.

Thanks for that... I would definitely HOPE we'd pull out of any affiliation with Britain damn quick if the Crown veto were ever exercised. I am TOTALLY opposed to that authority... I think it's ridiculous that my fellow Canadians have not moved to become a Republic a long time ago. I argue for that constantly, but the very reason the argument falls on deaf ears here in Canada is that nobody thinks the Crown would ever have the nerve to exercise that symbolic right. Despite that, I continue to argue for us to cut this tie, because if there ever were a hypothetical conflict between Britain and Canada that caused Britain to exercise that power, we'd have a hell of a constitutional crisis on our hands. No, we wouldn't submit to British authority in such a case, but our own internal system would be sent into a hell of a tailspin in a crisis. It doesn't make sense for a modern independent nation (and yes, Maenad, we ARE independent) to be in that position.

As to the Commonwealth side, my own family is dual culture (French/English... I personally was raised English and now speak mainly French in the home), and my own support for Québecois society and culture causes me to seriously question any affiliation with the Commonwealth, even if it symbolic. To be sure, I recognize we have a partially-British heritage, but I don't see why that should be put above the heritage of our French, Aboriginal, East European, Asian, etc., citizens.

 

[Maenad]

As I have already explained , I was being sarcastic in response to the post from White in which he stated that hunting was irrelevant to the issue of the Second Amendment and it was all about killing people and not animals. I guess the next time I employ sarcasm I will use this emoticon..........

I fully realize hunting has been around as long as man searched for food. And as I said I have no doubt that far more guns have been used to kill animals in hunting than in the slaying of humans.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. Perhaps you should try satire, the highest form of humor.

 

[Maenad]

Thanks for that... I would definitely HOPE we'd pull out of any affiliation with Britain damn quick if the Crown veto were ever exercised. I am TOTALLY opposed to that authority... I think it's ridiculous that my fellow Canadians have not moved to become a Republic a long time ago. I argue for that constantly, but the very reason the argument falls on deaf ears here in Canada is that nobody thinks the Crown would ever have the nerve to exercise that symbolic right. Despite that, I continue to argue for us to cut this tie, because if there ever were a hypothetical conflict between Britain and Canada that caused Britain to exercise that power, we'd have a hell of a constitutional crisis on our hands. No, we wouldn't submit to British authority in such a case, but our own internal system would be sent into a hell of a tailspin in a crisis. It doesn't make sense for a modern independent nation (and yes, Maenad, we ARE independent) to be in that position.

As to the Commonwealth side, my own family is dual culture (French/English... I personally was raised English and now speak mainly French in the home), and my own support for Québecois society and culture causes me to seriously question any affiliation with the Commonwealth, even if it symbolic. To be sure, I recognize we have a partially-British heritage, but I don't see why that should be put above the heritage of our French, Aboriginal, East European, Asian, etc., citizens.

You depend on us for your defense. Why would you even bother! DUH! If my country had such an arrangement, I'm sure we would choose impotence too~!

 

[Federalist]

Guns DO NOT determine who wins elections.

Guns DO NOT determine who wins public policy debates.

How do guns pretend to make a difference in political arena's such as these?

I never said that guns determine who wins elections.

The point is that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Rights don't magically enforce themselves. We only have the rights that we have the ability to defend, and therefore guns play a very important role in the balance of power between the government and the people. For example, in a society in which the people were completely disarmed, the people would have a reduced ability to defend their rights against government oppression.