Educate the Canadian on 'Bearing arms'!

[JDenver]

hi everyone -

I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.

The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'. Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all. We think things like;
- well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle
- it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation
- 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits

I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.

Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!

thanks!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

hi everyone -

I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.

The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'. Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all. We think things like;
- well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle
- it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation
- 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits

I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.

Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!

thanks!

Let me see if I can help.

The first, and most important thing to understand about the US Bill of Rights is that it is not a list of what a US citizen's rights are. In fact, the rights of citizens are never enumerated - we are assumed to have all possible rights, and furthermore, to have received them from 'our Creator', without having had them conferred on us by the government - any government. That may seem like a small thing, but in reality, it is huge. And a whole lot of Americans don't understand it either, or they would not say such stupid things as "Oh yeah? Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to XYZ (replace XYZ with whatever)."

What the Bill of Rights does instead is list the rights that the US federal government (and by extension for some of them, the various states) are PROHIBITED from infringing. And you can see that if you read them carefully. They usually end in some language like "shall not be infringed." So the Bill of Rights does not tell us what rights we have, it tells the federal government what rights they may not infringe upon.

OK, having said that - yes, there are limits to every right. As you mentioned, the right to free speech. But - and this is important - a right can generally only be abridged or curtailed when it infringes on ANOTHER right of citizens. One example is the old saw "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." One may have the right to free speech, which the federal government may not infringe upon, but if that speech negatively impacts the rights of another, then it CAN be infringed upon - the classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Doing so can be restricted, because a direct line cause-and-effect can be shown between uttering those words and inciting a panic that leads to dead citizens, trampled on their way to the exits.

As to the 2nd Amendment, it can be infringed, and has - based on a variety of issues, some of which may be re-examined some day by the Supreme Court, some of which may not be. For example, a convicted felon may not own a firearm - that right is permanently stripped from them. The courts have held that felons, even ex-felons, represent a threat to the lives of their fellow citizens in perpetuity. In some states, such rights can be restored by government, in some, the right is never restored. The same, by the way, is true of voting for some felons.

However, in general, if one is going to restrict the 2nd Amendment to a class of people (felons, drug addicts, registered sex offenders, domestic abuse convicts, fugitives from justice, mental defectives, etc), then the reason given must reflect a direct threat to the rights of other citizens. How clear that 'direct threat' must be varies from year to year as different political parties hold sway in the USA.

Now, as to your second point - about how some laws are simply considered outmoded and hence not worth following anymore - US law doesn't work like that. Every law - all of them - are required to pass constitutional muster. If challenged, they must not only reflect the Will of the People as expressed by the legislative system, but they must also not infringe upon rights protected by the Constitution (Bill of Rights). This is the actual purpose of the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS). They have two jobs. The first is to determine the Will of Congress in cases where laws appear unclear or vague. The second is to determine if challenged laws violate the restrictions placed on the government by the Bill of Rights.

Now, there are some who view the Constitution as a living, breathing, document, one which must change with the times, and one which should be interpreted by comparison to the zeitgiest (Spirit of the Times). There are also those who believe that the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution based upon what the Founders meant - and nothing to do with what the ziegiest might happen to be.

The former is considered a liberal viewpoint in the USA, the latter a conservative viewpoint - although there is some bleed-over. For examples, liberals in the US tend to want the 1st Amendment interpreted strictly, whilst conservatives in the US tend to want the 2nd Amendment interpreted strictly - both are less concerned with the other amendments in general, IMHO.

As a conservative, I take the viewpoint that the Constitution and the included amendments known as the Bill of Rights and the later amendments to be sacrosanct, and that they should be interpreted based upon the perceived Will of the Framers of those amendments. I don't much care about the zeitgeist, because I see it as a Will O' The Wisp, here today and gone tomorrow. The USA is not a leaf to be blown about upon the winds of the common whim, with our laws interpreted this way today and that way tomorrow, based upon how most of us 'feel' about things. In fact, I view this as absolute folly - and I wish liberals could see that as well. What if things go your way today, and twenty years from now, racists rule the popular perception? Shall we then reinstitute slavery, because that's what's hip and cool twenty years from now, or 100 years from now? No.

I believe that our US Constitution was carved in stone, and is not to be interpreted any way but the way our Framers intended, and their intent is clearly known through historic scholarship. We have a method whereby we can override the Will of the Founders, and that is by a new amendment. It is hard to do - on purpose. But it exists and it can be used anytime, if enough of us feel strongly enough about it. That is the ONLY way in which the Constitution should be modified, and the only method by which new interpretations should be reached, in my humble opinion.

Of course, others may disagree with my assessment.

I hope you found this helpful.

 

[Rich Parsons]

hi everyone -

I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.

Hi

The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'. Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all. We think things like;

- well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle

What does timing of loading have to do with self defense and protecting oneself?

- it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation

Yes the gun is obsolete as we have nuclear bombs now. You might want to tell that to those who lost their lives and or were injured or served or are serving since the invent the H Bomb.

But that is military, and one should trust your government, so why do civilians need to be armed.

They need to be armed for self defense be it from others or from the government.

- 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits

Having and owning a firearm has limits today.

If you are a felon you cannot own one.

In many cases the gun has to be inspected by the local sheriff's office and they also record the serial number.

To carry in public concealed you have to get a special permit.

It is illegal to shoot people.

It is illegal to kill people.

It is illegal to rob or steal from people.

So there are limits similar to Free speech.

I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.

Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!

thanks!

In Ontario where guns are not allowed and for hunting have to be stored at a storage and licensed facility, has all crime be removed? Has all gun crimes gone away?

My guess, based upon news reports is that now that the government has taken away the firearms from the subjects/citizens of Ontario, Canada, only the criminals have firearms.

Similar to England. They went from no guns even for the bad guys but no blades are illegal and Chiefs have to have special care with their blades and have them locked up when not in direct use (* read from article so this could be wrong, with recent changes *), as blade assaults have gone up. To the point they even call it an epidemic.

 

[Gordon Nore]

My guess, based upon news reports is that now that the government has taken away the firearms from the subjects/citizens of Ontario, Canada, only the criminals have firearms.

First, there are no 'subjects' of Ontario or Canada. You might be thinking of a British Subject, which is different from being a Canadian citizen, or a resident of Ontario.

The government has not taken away guns from Canadians per se -- however, yes there are more restrictions and limitations on what one can own. What is unique here...

• a national firearms registry, which no longer includes long guns
• personal carry permits are virtually impossible to obtain -- a civilian must have very unique needs in order to get one

So it is possible for me to own a rifle for collecting, hunting, or sports shooting. It is possible for me to have a handgun; however, I would be restricted from carrying it on my person. There is an awful lot of paperwork and compliance associated with gun ownership, more so than in many US jurisdictions; however, a Canadian can own gun or many guns.

Yes, we do have gun crime.

 

[chinto]

it is simple really people. the Canadians have always had the English culture and government system. there the Government and the law are their own justification and NOT limited by anything!

the United States Constitution is a LIMIT on the governments actions and power! We the people are the Sovereigns! Not the President or Congress or any other government entity.

the Second Amendment to the Constitution is designed to make sure that the Sovereigns of the United States Of America have the weapons to enforce that right and power and if necessary stop the government from over stepping their bounds.

Yes boys and girls, the second amendment is not about hunting, its about the right to stop the US Government from doing things if we decide we must, and do so by force of arms if it comes to it! ( if you doubt this, please go read the federalist papers, and other documents written by the founding fathers of the United States. )

 

[tellner]

Or you could choose to be more polite and less condescending. My opinions on firearms are different than those of the average Canadian. It doesn't mean they're ignorant or stupid and in need of education. It means we have a difference of opinion which might be resolved by discussion. Or it might be best if I kept my pie-hole shut and didn't tell other people how to run their country without an invitation.

 

[JDenver]

Or you could choose to be more polite and less condescending. My opinions on firearms are different than those of the average Canadian. It doesn't mean they're ignorant or stupid and in need of education. It means we have a difference of opinion which might be resolved by discussion. Or it might be best if I kept my pie-hole shut and didn't tell other people how to run their country without an invitation.

Yet I'm the one who is wanting the education. I want to learn, which SHOULD signal to you that I consider your opinion and knowledge important and more informed than mine. I posted many times about my sincerity. What a shame that you had to jump all over me.

On the upside, I'm loving what folks have posted about the American constitution and its interpretation. Very interesting.

 

[Ken Morgan]

As a Canadian political junkie, I’ve been involved at a serious level for some years….

Canada was founded on three principles, “Peace, order and good government.” That’s it; it says nothing about individual rights.

Not judging our cousins to the south, we’re just based on different philosophies. I’ve never had any problems in the States or the UK, if you close your eyes, except for some small differences, when you open them again, you could be in any of the three countries. All the English speaking countries are founded on the same basic principles.

I have guns, and I follow the rules laid out by the law. I’m allowed to buy a handgun, and use it, but there are tonnes of paperwork to go through.

The biggest firearms problem up here is the illegal guns coming up from the states. I even knew a guy years ago who would brag about the money he made reselling guns up here, he didn’t care where they ended up. We ship marijuana south, they ship guns north.

 

[Gordon Nore]

The biggest firearms problem up here is the illegal guns coming up from the states. I even knew a guy years ago who would brag about the money he made reselling guns up here, he didn’t care where they ended up. We ship marijuana south, they ship guns north.

Yes and no. I know where you're coming from. The federal CSIS report, released to the CBC a couple of years ago under FOI, shows that approximately half of crime weapons seized by police were illegal imports; thus approximately half of weapons came from legal sources, were stolen, misused, etc. In larger cities, like Toronto, we find that more than half of weapons used in street crime are illegal imports.

The gun problem that we do have is people shooting at eachother, regardless of where the guns came from.

I would argue that we can do no more in the name of controlling legal guns until we address an obvious problem with our own border security.

I've posted about this a number of times, but I'm going to bore people with it again. The Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, has mused repeatedly about making the city a gun-free zone, or hand-gun free zone. Given the presence of illegal weapons, it's a peculiar stance. He's attempted to close down gun clubs operating on city property -- this back-fired (pun intended) when a Canadian Olympic shooter revealed that she depended upon one of the clubs to continue her training.

As to the Constitutional/legal issues, as a number of people have pointed out, there is a cultural divide between Canada and the USA. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protects individual rights. The notion of inalienable individual rights doesn't work the same way in Canada.

Our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms was only written and enacted into law in the 1980s under PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Previously the constitution had been known as the British North America Act and resided in Britain. Trudeau repatriated the act and created the new constitution. When it was created, Britain was an ally -- so it's a very different circumstance from the US constitution.

As I see it, there is not a constitutional debate about guns in Canada -- although there surely is an important debate. The US Constitution, on the other hand, does, in the form of the second ammendment, have language that addresses the rights of citizens to "arm" themselves -- against an oppressive government or, as I understand, an invader.

Never fear, my American cousins. We shan't be invading anytime soon.

 

[jarrod]

the short answer is that if you own modern firearms, it's much more difficult for others to impose their will on you unjustly. this includes criminals as well as the government.

jf

 

[chinto]

the short answer is that if you own modern firearms, it's much more difficult for others to impose their will on you unjustly. this includes criminals as well as the government.

jf

yep that is true! and if you doubt it go ask a convicted bugler if he worries more about cops or a home owner who has a gun and will use it?

I have asked this question of such people.. guess what .. they are terrified of the armed citizen, and the cops are just kinda dismissed with a sniff.

 

[Gordon Nore]

yep that is true! and if you doubt it go ask a convicted bugler if he worries more about cops or a home owner who has a gun and will use it?

I have asked this question of such people.. guess what .. they are terrified of the armed citizen, and the cops are just kinda dismissed with a sniff.

Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."

 

[elder999]

Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."

True dat, since nearly 96% of all burglaries go unsolved.

"Convicted burglar"= definition of "dumbass". :lol:

hi everyone -

I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.

The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'. Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all. We think things like
Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!

thanks!

The funny thing about guns is that in many countries outside the U.S. they're a symbol of oppression and strife, and here, they're a symbol of freedom. Others have said, as well as or better than I have in the past, that the key reason behind the 2nd Amendment is to enable us to overthrow the government-and that's true, though somewhat outdated, like the things you originally posted about. The bottom line, though, is that the concept isn't at all outdated: people shouldn't fear their government-government should exist in constant fear of the people.

 

[sgtmac_46]

hi everyone -

I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.

The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'. Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all. We think things like;
- well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle
- it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation
- 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits

I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.

Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!

thanks!

To understand the 2nd Amendment, and what we believe about it, you have to understand the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, and what the founders intended. A good start is James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

Okay, but why is that important....

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." -James Madison

Okay, but wouldn't a powerful standing army be a better defender of the 'state'?

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." -James Madison

Interesting.....so the very tools of foreign defense, i.e. the military, has historically been the tool of domestic despotism....

Surely government's can be trusted....

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." -James Madison

Hope that helps as a primer.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."

You're misjudging the issue......they do have immediate forethought, i.e. immediate consequences.......they just believe in (wrongly) their ability to escape undetected from future consequences.....future potential consequences are more abstract than immediate consequences to the human mind......that's why the risk of smoking is not perceived the same as a poisonous snake in close proximity.

In that sense, the risk of immediate death is a much greater deterrent than the risk of potential future incarceration as a deterrent to burglary.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The funny thing about guns is that in many countries outside the U.S. they're a symbol of oppression and strife, and here, they're a symbol of freedom. Others have said, as well as or better than I have in the past, that the key reason behind the 2nd Amendment is to enable us to overthrow the government-and that's true, though somewhat outdated, like the things you originally posted about. The bottom line, though, is that the concept isn't at all outdated: people shouldn't fear their government-government should exist in constant fear of the people.

+1

As you rightly point out the reason that guns in particular, and private arms in general, have long been the proprietary tools of the state is, because to allow those tools to be held by individuals is to take away the states monopoly on power.

The two inventions that had the most impact on creating a modern society built on concern from individual liberty and freedom were the printing press......and the individual rifle.

 

[lklawson]

Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."

I recall a study which questioned violent offenders in prison as to firearms. They were generally less concerned with LEO, but were concerned about armed citizens and, in particular, other armed criminals and, when actively seeking to acquire firearms, did so in order to protect themselves against those.

• 56% said that they worry more about armed victims than about police.
• 58% said that a store owner with a gun will get robbed less.
• 58% said that a gun is most important to me to use for self-protection.
• ONLY 28% said that a gun is most important to me to use in a crime.

Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous; and D.E.S. Burr, Handgun Regulation (Tallahassee: Florida Bureau of Criminal Justice and Planning)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[JDenver]

I recall a study which questioned violent offenders in prison as to firearms. They were generally less concerned with LEO, but were concerned about armed citizens and, in particular, other armed criminals and, when actively seeking to acquire firearms, did so in order to protect themselves against those.

• 56% said that they worry more about armed victims than about police.
• 58% said that a store owner with a gun will get robbed less.
• 58% said that a gun is most important to me to use for self-protection.
• ONLY 28% said that a gun is most important to me to use in a crime.

Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous; and D.E.S. Burr, Handgun Regulation (Tallahassee: Florida Bureau of Criminal Justice and Planning)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

But wouldn't this be the natural set of answers from violent criminals?

 

[lklawson]

As you rightly point out the reason that guns in particular, and private arms in general, have long been the proprietary tools of the state is, because to allow those tools to be held by individuals is to take away the states monopoly on power.

Is that still true in modern U.S.?

The State has access to fully automatic rifles and shotguns, highly trained street and entry teams, advanced supply lines, specialized training and equipment specifically designed to be effective against civilian insurgency, and, importantly, a decade of experience in the middle east against just such a scenario.

I've got several WWII pieces, including a semi-auto M1 Carbine, shotguns, pistols, etc. But I don't have a SAR, M203, or a full auto, drum fed shotgun loaded with HE and Frag rounds. I'd wonder whether a freaking Company of civvies armed as I would have a chance against a modern Entry Team or two.

I mean, let's be honest here. Even if the average civvie collector had a M16 or a AK47/74 would he be a match in either equipment or training? Especially considering that in most cases DUE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION those would not be at a parity in rate of fire with what the State Actors would have. And that's without considering that the average civvie here in the U.S. frequently is restricted from LEO grade body armour, has no chance at an up-armored Hummer, or anything approaching modern HE or Frag. Heck, we'd have no chance at access to technology DECADES out of date such as an RPG-7. Heck, we can't even (legally) have a functioning Bazooka and that's WWII technology.

Think about what this means to the theory that an armed civilian populace in the U.S. has the capacity to prevent government tyranny. I contend that the reality is that said capacity has been effectively legislated away in slow increments. We can debate whether or not it's necessary in modern society, whether or not civilian access to such "advanced" weapons would represent a greater danger to the public weal, and any/all of the other arguments that crop up with allowing civilian parity with modern military infantry men, but the fact remains, that the parity is a myth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

But wouldn't this be the natural set of answers from violent criminals?

Doen't mean it's not true. Why on earth would they lie about it? In fact, it'd probably make more sense for them to lie the other way.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk