xanthuos

I wasn't disputing that it's upheld as the law - I was saying I disagree with the conclusion...I don't believe that felons don't have the right to actively participate in their country, their government, regardless of the crime that they committed. It's sometimes possible to get voting rights back post-incarceration, but it's not an automatic thing.

__________________
Regards,
Matthew

bluepea

I honestly don't feel most Americans feel they need to own a gun to survive. I mean, I don't think I'd be unsafe without owning a firearm, but I do like the thought of having it. I'm a young female and when I aquired it, Jake and I were living WAY out in the boonies (you had to drive about a tenth of a mile down our driveway to see our house) and he was working in the evenings. Perhaps it's partly parnoia drawn up by the media, but I honestly feel safer, not more in danger, by owning a firearm.

__________________
~~ Jamie ~~
You give me the most gorgeous sleep That I've ever had And when it's really bad I guess it's not that bad




Have some general questions such as whether or not to get a rail pass or how much money you'll need? Visit here!

First time travelers/travelers with a lot of questions - this forum is for you![b]

Joker

Not to take this off-topic, but wouldn't you agree that if you have done something so as to violate society's rule of law, your rights ought to be relinquished based on your disregard for other's rights, or the disregard for the law in general?

Maybe thats purely rhetorical, but I think its valid.

__________________
Misadventures of a Crazed Kitchen Pirate

"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Y'know, I'm talking about Steve McGarrett, alright? Steve Austin, Steve McQueen. Y'know, he's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living, man. He never, ever tries to impress the women but he always gets the girl."

LiveFreeorDie

This has been a great thread. It's nice to see a discussion on such a major issue not turn into a flame war or name calling. Cheers to all on that regard!

I will just say that to understand the American perpsective on guns is to understand that our country was founded/created through the employment of militias...essentially armed citizens. Were it not for the militias, the Revolutionary War could never have been conceived, never mind actually be succesful. A society that was formed via a violent conflict with an oppressive regime will naturally be very sensitive about EVER being in the position of being oppressed in the future. That concept and ideal has carried through to the modern day. Yes - this concept often gets twisted, but it was not long ago when Americans had a real fear of a major conflict with the USSR to the extent that actual invasion, whether through Canada or otherwise was something that was on people's minds - as well as the threat of nuclear war. I can remember as a kid people would talk about how the U.S. having an armed populace would be a huge deterrent to ever being occupied by the Soviets or anyone else. Was that a far-fetched fear looking back...sure...but nonethelss the concept is still valid today and you never know what tomorrow may bring. (Hopefully that doesn't sound like a paranoid rant...I am far from paranoid...but no one knows what will happen 10 or 20 years from now).

I grew up with guns and gun education and agree with everything that Joker and Monsignor have said on this issue. Could there be improvements in gun laws...yes. Do the NRA the gun manufacturers have too much power over politics....perhaps...but it is a work in progress. At the end of the day, I couldn;t support a major change to our ability to bear arms.

__________________
\\Jamie\\



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

"The plural of anecdote is not data"

voyd

Well, the strength of a democracy lies in the character and wisdom of its voters.

Someone who apparently cannot abide by the core laws of any civilized society and has committed:

aggravated assault
arson
burglary
murder
rape

likely lacks those qualities and would thus make a poor voter. I don't know if they should be denied suffrage, but I probably don't have much of a problem if they are...

__________________
To find a Buddha all you have to do is see your nature. - Bodhidharma
Help find terr0rists!
Be a p@triotic citizen!
Party like a B-list TV star!

horsepuppy

Hey guys and gals...I'd just like to thank everyone who's offered a pro-gun arguement on this thread I am personally all for very strict gun control laws. Everyone's arguements have been really well laid out and insightful...well, they at least gave me some insight into a unique facet of the American cultural identity.
In the US, though, the gun laws/regulations are more "protection" oriented (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) - citizens are allowed to use/own guns (albiet under very specific circumstances) in order to protect themselves, family, property, etc. This is in addition to the obvious recreational uses of firearms (hunting, ranges, etc.)

The gun laws/regulations in Canada are more "recreation" oriented (at least it seems to me) - citizens are allowed to use guns for recreational purposes under very controlled conditions. They aren't moronic, just suited for different conditions and circumstances.

Tadpole

He read a book called "No Such Thing As Doomsday". That didnt detail how to build a safe room but it talked abotu different thigns and what protected what and how long and other things. If someone feels todays world will never change or wont change in their lifetime than this book isnt the best for him or her. Unless they are open minded. When I aksed what he is worried about he looked at his safe room, and said "Nothing anymore..."


~~

Keep in mind that even having a gun doesnt mean you can kill someone. If somone his trying to high jack your car you dont have the legal right to kill them. You have to try to drive off first. Then if he sticks a knife to your thraot you can shoot.

There are three rules:
1)The person is a threat
2)The person has a weapon within harmful proximity
3)You have executed every oppurtnity to get out of the situation, including escape.

If someone is walking outside with a mask and a an axe outside your house and you take him down, geuss who is going to jail...

You really have to be backed into a corenr and no other options including runnign away before you have legal right to kill someone. You cant say to the court you were holding your ground so you shot him when he came for you.

If someone ever asks you, "are you threating me?" And you answer yes, you may feel like a hardass but you just gave that guy reason for 2 of the 3 rules. Now all he has to do is wait till he feels he has no other option but shoot.

__________________
"Sundace, I can't help you now."
~Butch Casady

TheJake

well the guy with the axe thing, just make sure his body lands inside the door! than your cool

__________________

Tadpole

haha, thats the truth. The old saying, the victor tells the story.
Or something of that sort.

__________________
"Sundace, I can't help you now."
~Butch Casady

Joker

Thanks, its what I'm trying to explain to our Irish friend MeTurk. :D Frankly, I'm impressed that we've held it together. Kudos to the TPunk community on this one.

I can agree completely with that to the last lines: very concisely, the Constitutionalist members have explained the reasoning behind the "right to bear arms" as being that true power in the US lies with the people, not the government, and our Founding Fathers clearly understood that fact.

In fact, its why the Constitution (COTUS) was ratified in 1791, given the fact that this country formally declared its independance in 1776. Therefore, 15 years transpired, and a weak Articles of Confederation that attempted to maintain a decentralized Federal government for fear it would evolve into an absolute monarchy exactly like what the Colonies had just fought for liberation from. In fact, prior to Franklin Roosevelt, (and the 22nd Amendment, in 1951) no US president, including George Washington served more than 2 terms. Washington clearly did not want to as is credited to him, for fear that without a change of presidential terms, a dictator could potentially rise to power and waylay the Republic.

COTUS history lesson aside, and in short: The Founding Fathers clearly understood that to allow power to remain with the people, they would have to retain the ability by arming themselves to potentially overthrow the government- and they wrote the Second Amendment in.

Moronic is a harsh word. I take it back. Draconian is more appropriate.

As I stated prior, the exact reason for a gun, though I may choose to use mine recreationally, is to kill what it is aimed towards. Plain and simple. The fact that one cannot defend himself or herself properly (and from what I read from Canadian friends, so take this at will) to me is moronic. Personal opinion time there But since this is not a critique of individual countries and their respective laws, I'll leave it at that.

__________________
Misadventures of a Crazed Kitchen Pirate

"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Y'know, I'm talking about Steve McGarrett, alright? Steve Austin, Steve McQueen. Y'know, he's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living, man. He never, ever tries to impress the women but he always gets the girl."

benna2

I'm probably not the best person to even be posting on a thread about guns...I have only held one in my life and that was when I was living in Texas and a neighbour brought over his handgun so we could shoot an armadillo that was chewing up our garden....(and before I get any flames about being mean to animals, we were only shooting to scare it, not actually to hurt it!)

BUT...I really don't know where I stand on the issue. Overall I am not a huge supporter of any kind of violence. But there is also something to be said for someone who carries a gun and actually knows how to use it and that it isn't there to be a little play toy. It is a little strange though, going from a fun little gun happy state like Texas to Canada.

__________________
"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." ~St. Augustine"

Come visit me in the DR!
www.sosuavacationrentals.com

MeTurk

There where adds in Papers around Europe that where about something like this from some Miami group. They where warning tourist to Miami that there was a law on the way in that said if you threatned someone they could legaly shoot you. Was that what they where on about?

Well my curiosity has mostly been satisfied, I can see where your comming from. You don't fuck with an arned general public, I still can't agree with it but hopefully most the gun owners over there have the same level of respect for the power of the gun as you guys.

Just one more thing though, Many guns users may be responcible with there guns and others saftey around their guns, but there will always be irresponcible people, misguided people or people who just make simple mistakes. Wouldn't it be more responcible to the community at large to give up your guns and take them out of the hands of people who can't handle the responcibility. Which could be anyone, even a responcibile user could flip.

__________________
"It's nice to have a nun around. Gives the place a bit of glamour." Fr Ted
Couchsurfer (:_irritainment_

Killer Cyborg

Those holding up America as some sort of paragon of firearm virtue need a slap

Switzerland has the highest gun ownership numbers per head of capita (>1:1) and has the lowest gun crime
rates in the world.

It's not really the 'gun control' question, it's the 'gun culture' The controls are useless when the culture behind it is suspect

Ther US has fostered some unsavoury elements about gun ownship in it's controls and in it's media for some time. Therein lies the problem... not too many Rambo or Commando movies coming out of Europe, is there ??

Joker

It was a misinformation campaign propagated by the Brady foundations amongst others, IE some of the most rabid anti-gun folks around. I will expound when I get home from work.

Just like automobile owners, boat owners, sword collectors, dog-owners, etc etc etc!

Cyborg-- attempts at turning this into a flame war will not be met with kindness in turn. Watch yourself. If you don't have anything constructive or intelligent to add, please don't hit "reply."

__________________
Misadventures of a Crazed Kitchen Pirate

"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Y'know, I'm talking about Steve McGarrett, alright? Steve Austin, Steve McQueen. Y'know, he's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living, man. He never, ever tries to impress the women but he always gets the girl."

berwin

Being the avid hunter that I am (I'm so pissed that I'm missin deer season right now, but living in Holland for a year is so worth it) and growin up around guns, I think there is nothin wrong with ownin a fire arm, as long as you have had the proper trainin on how to shoot and handle it. And I do believe that A LOT people in this world should not be alowed to own guns, and I think that we should have stricter laws on obtainin guns. But that's just my two cents.

__________________
life isn't about finding yourself. life is about creating yourself.

believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, unless it agrees with your own reason, and your own common sense</span>

my life, my love, my world (the ramblings of a young traveler)

<span style=\'color:red\'>what would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?

The Monsignor

The ads about the gun law in Florida changing are seriously misleading. It was an attempt by a gun control organization to get a law that was just passed reversed. The law, known as a 'stand your ground' law, made it so that someone who used deadly force wasn't required to run away, hide in a corner, and have nowhere to run to before using deadly force. The law didn't change the circumstances by which homicide would be considered "excusable", it just meant that if you were threatened in your home, you didn't have to try to jump out the window to avoid having to shoot someone. It simplified the defense of someone who, say, shot a burglar who broke into their home. They didn't have to try to run away, leaving (for example) their children in the house at the mercy of the burglar. (First degree burglary of an occupied home is usually not a robbery, rather it is a precursor to rape, kidnapping or some other crime - burglars stay out of occupied houses).

The ads made it sound that if someone didn't like you on the street, or got in a fight with you, they could legally shoot you.

You still have to prove that the person was :

a)capable of committing murder of serious bodily harm to you. (or some other crime on the list - rape, kidnapping, etc) meaning they had to have some means of doing you harm - weapon, a whole gang of people, etc. (ability)

b)intended to commit bodily harm to you (intent)

c)you had reason to fear for your life (or rape, kidapping, etc) (motive)

The whole myth about dragging the body into the house is crap - forensics can easily tell if a body has been moved after they'd been shot, and it makes a straightforward self-defense case suspicious (what were they trying to cover up?)

If you get in a bar fight, and then decide to shoot someone, you're not gonna get out of it in court...

__________________
"A bad carpenter always blames his tools!" - Grandpa Boris

Make war, not love! It's safer!

xanthuos

The fact is that you're never going to be able to get rid of guns completely. Even gun-control advocates in this thread have argued that "you can always get guns if there's a need" such as having to uprise against the government. If that's the case, don't you think criminals will always be able to get guns when they have a need? I think that the biggest reason criminals in Canada and other countries commit robberies, rapes, and things of that like without guns is because they rarely have to fear being met themselves with the business-end of a handgun. Therefore, they don't go through the hassle and expense of illegally acquiring a firearm to use in the commission of their crimes.

With all that being said, why should a responsible and law-abiding gun-owning citizen have to give up their firearms, which they could potentially use in self-defense, when it's not going to change whether the criminals stop commiting crimes or whether they're armed?

__________________
Regards,
Matthew

horsepuppy

There was a thread about that law in Florida...Revised Gun Law...

Killer Cyborg

I'm very much 'Pro Gun' in theory, gun controls regardless (unless they are financial which discriminates on wealth grounds) shouldn't put off the avid gun user/owner, they should understand that the society they live in needs checks and balances as only those worthy should possess guns, there are many people already listed that shouldn't be allowed near guns

The Swiss case is that all the Swiss population have to do national service which instills discipline and good gun ownship practices, much like in Israel.. gun ownership is high but the relevant gun crime (using legal weapons!)/death rates rates are low.

Too many European countries have outlawed guns on a knee jerk reaction like the UK after the Dunblane massacre (and historically the Hungerford one which seen semi auto and assualt rifles banned). It's was the lack of controls that took guns out of the hands of responsible users there.

It's gotten so bad they are trying to ban air rifles & pellet guns, the reason, shit controls and laws surrounding their ownership. (good for the vermin control industry)

Not wanting to start flame wars but controls is the easy argument for the anti gun lobby to pick apart, if that was closed out Gun owners would have a watertight case, most crime is carried out with illegal firarms but like the abortion issue the anit gun lobby sensationalize the exception cases (Daddys gun killed the kid)

Gun crime in the UK is on the rise many years after legal guns were taken away. I'm under no illusion that legal guns aren't the problem... they can become if inadequate controls are in place, those controls have to follow a directly proportional relationship to the state of the society in question. It's not a fixed constant.

MeTurk

Ya, you can go down that line but those things aren't designed to kill, apart from the swords, but there's a big difference between shoting someone and stabing tham to death. It's also alot easier to kill someone by accident with a gun than any sort of stabby weapon.

It looks like a case of each to his own and I fully accept the self defence arguement. If I was in charge in the us even though I'm against guns I couldn't justify taking them away from people.

Just this week a gangmember in Dublin got shot, aparently gun crime is on the increase between the big guys. Which brings your argument home for me, it seems here the people we have laws to prevent getting guns can get them easily while the general public is locked up for defending their home. They only use the guns on eachother though which is something.

Better get me some gun training done, get ready for the fuppers coming in me window.

__________________
"It's nice to have a nun around. Gives the place a bit of glamour." Fr Ted
Couchsurfer (:_irritainment_