John from the GTA

jkrealm said:
Also, from what I know (and I openly admit to not being the most educated on the matter), there is nothing in the Canadian constitution/charter of rights that establishes the right to bear arms. The US has the 2nd amendmant, which is fine. It grants them that right. In Canada, I've always thought it similar to owning and operating a car: a privaledge, not a right.
.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the only "rights" that you have are those that OTHERS place on paper?

Really?

That said there is historical claim that can in fact be traced that support a Canadian "right" to own firearms.

However..........I do not claim that right based upon that or any other scrap of paper.

I claim my rights for the simple reason that I am a sentient being. Nothing can take those rights away.
 
jkrealm said:
I'm new to the gun ownership thing, and I hope no one mistakes my comments as inflammatory or personal attacks. Usually when I ask questions (like what do you need a fully auto rifle for?), I'm looking for actual reasons for owning one, not trying to discredit those who would want to. Would you own one because you think they're cool, because you are a collector of militaria, or for home defense?
Also, from what I know (and I openly admit to not being the most educated on the matter), there is nothing in the Canadian constitution/charter of rights that establishes the right to bear arms. The US has the 2nd amendmant, which is fine. It grants them that right. In Canada, I've always thought it similar to owning and operating a car: a privaledge, not a right.
Click to expand...

Welcome to CGN, enjoy your stay here. :feedTroll:
 
jkrealm,

The Canadian constitution explicitly states that rights existing before this constitution was enacted are not abrogated because they are not stated in the constitution.

As I quote from CSSA material:

"Our right to keep and bear arms in our own defence comes from exactly the same place as the American one--English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and other. All these laws became part of Canadian law upon our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the BNA Act."

The only reasons the Americans inserted 2A is because the British occupying force (the Americans would say) were ready to confiscate American firearms. When Paul Revere took his famous ride to Lexington he yelled "The British Are Coming." What revisionist textbooks leave out is that the British were coming to take the American's guns. He meant, "The British are Coming To Take Our Guns."

Then, on April 18, 1775, British General Thomas Gage sent 700 trained troops to Concord, Massachusetts. On the dawn of the 19th, 70 men — farmers, clerks, storekeepers — stood fast and faced the British advance guard at Lexington Green. History does not know who fired the first shot, what Ralph Waldo Emerson called ...the shot heard round the world.
And what sin, what transgression did the British commit to bring on armed conflict? They had come for their guns. Their own government had come to disarm them. The first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought over...gun control. It is, I believe, the first and only revolution in history borne of a government's attempt to remove weapons from its citizenry.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira119lw.html​


The other reason is that The Americans had to wrest their freedom by force. They had enough of tyranny and monarchy. They wanted to ensure that in the future, if government ever went sour again, the citizens would be able to rid themselves of it.

Canada never revolted, or rebelled as British Subjects would say. But, they never lost their right to keep and bear arms, either.

This is why a conservative government is so essential. It means, hopefully, that judges would be appointed who understand and will protect our basic rights, and not sacrifice them to the fads of self-righteous do-gooders.


______________________________________________________________
 
chrisco said:
Welcome aboard.
On that note: No one needs a car that can travel faster than 110km/hr either.
(I believe this is the max you will find within Canada)
And cars kill far more than any firearm.
Click to expand...

This is true, however one cannot deny the fact that those deaths are incidental - a car, unlike a firearm, is designed to kill.

As long as we contine to demonstrate responsible ownership, I don't think we need to fight the objections based on morality rather than rights and freedoms (which is the position those on the left usually take).
 
XcentricK said:
This is true, however one cannot deny the fact that those deaths are incidental - a car, unlike a firearm, is designed to kill.

As long as we contine to demonstrate responsible ownership, I don't think we need to fight the objections based on morality rather than rights and freedoms (which is the position those on the left usually take).
Click to expand...

So do cops carry guns to kill people or save people?
 
XcentricK said:
a car, unlike a firearm, is designed to kill.
Click to expand...

I'll be charitable here, and ask if you want to re-phrase that?.......:yingyang:

XcentricK said:
The cop's role is to serve and protect the public. The firearm he carries is a means amongst others, to perform that role effectively.
Click to expand...

So we agree that a firearm is an effective means of (pre)serving social order and protecting the law-abiding? :cool:

I've never heard a better argument as to why all law-aboding citizens ought to carry loaded guns!....:cheers:
 
XcentricK said:
Well, there are two separate things here. The cop's role is to serve and protect the public. The firearm he carries is a means amongst others, to perform that role effectively.
Click to expand...

Welllll, maybe. However, the PC and his Glock will be several minutes away, whereas my family and I need his service and protection right now!

Canadian criminals know this. However, American criminals know that their potential victims may not assume a fetal position and beg for their lives. American potential victims actually can use equalizing force to protect their lives and property.

As a result, according to FBI stats and Stats Can, the rape rate per 100,000 is much lower in the U.S. The burglary with people at home rate in the U.S. is a small fraction of what it is in Canada. etc. etc.

Why am I feeding a troll? Am I that bored?
 
Guys,

Don't get me wrong here - I'm the last person to advocate putting 100% reliance on police services for my own protection and well-being. Like many things, we all know:

a) How it is that we define something (in this case, the role of police services);
b) How it actually plays out (i.e. effectiveness), or what ends up happening.

I'm with you. My only point was to make the clear distinction between the car and the firearm argument, which I don't think is really defensible. On their own, without human intervention, they're both quite harmless - once a human has assumed utility, the results will depend on the actions of that human. I think most people would agree with that statement.

The problem arises when attempting to compare the intended use of these objects (i.e. car vs firearm) in an argument over death statistics, simply because of what these tools are designed for in the first place.

On my comment on 'designed to kill', I don't think it's inaccurate, if I accept that firearms are essentially defined as weapons. I am 100% for the right for Canadians to bear arms, but am under no misapprehension about what firearms are.

BTW - It's not my intention to cause offense to anyone, so apologies in advance if I have done so. I do try to understand the left's side of this debate as best as I possibly can.
 
Last edited:
XcentricK said:
My only point was to make the clear distinction between the car and the firearm argument, which I don't think is really defensible. On their own, without human intervention, they're both quite harmless - once a human has assumed utility, the results will depend on the actions of that human. I think most people would agree with that statement.
Click to expand...

Sounds much like any inanimate object....:wave:

XcentricK said:
The problem arises when attempting to compare the intended use of these objects (i.e. car vs firearm) in an argument over death statistics, simply because of what these tools are designed for in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's discuss what each was designed for.

A car is designed to be driven. A firearm is designed to be shot. A knife is designed to cut. Just what will be driven over, shot at, or cut is at the (inanimate object's) user's discretion. :yingyang:

It all ties to the early Greek concepts of ergon, agathos and arete - concepts that far preceded any willy-nilly arguments about "designed to kill".

XcentricK said:
On my comment on 'designed to kill', I don't think it's inaccurate, if I accept that firearms are essentially defined as weapons. I am 100% for the right for Canadians to bear arms, but am under no misapprehension about what firearms are.
Click to expand...

We ought to be intellectually honest and admit that "designed to kill" is not akin to "designed to shoot/be shot".

XcentricK said:
BTW - It's not my intention to cause offense to anyone, so apologies in advance if I have done so. I do try to understand the left's side of this debate as best as I possibly can.
Click to expand...

The left's side, however, may be - at best - classified as "incomplete", if not egregiously unsound.....:(
 
Last edited:
Good to hear, Dan. I'm excited to check it out. Is that where your Youtube vids are shot?

I agree with xcentrix.

Cars and all their ancestors, buggys, wagons etc, were designed to transport things across distances. All their decendants (cars, dump trucks, trains, space shuttles, etc) still, primarily, do that. Collisions and vehicular manslaughter aren't their intended design, but a possible consequenses of automobile use.

Knives were designed as a utility tool. Whether it was cutting fibres, meat, wood, etc, its primary function has always been to cut. They can be straight bladed, serrated, shearing, etc. They can be a weapon, and kill, but that's not what they are necesarily designed for.

Guns, were designed to fulfill the purpose of killing things at a distance. It has usually been military advancements that have prompted development, so it wouldn't be crazy to suggest they were designed for specifically killing humans. They can also be used for hunting, which fills a huge niche. In fact, guns are so integral to modern hunting, we should consider it another primary function of guns. So we have 1a) Killing humans 1b) Killing prey. Not to capture or slow, their primary function is killing.

That's why police carry them. That's why people use them for home protection. That's why soldiers use them. If you are ever faced with a life or death situation, they give you access to the ability to end someone else's life to save your own/family's/comrade's life.

And there's nothing wrong with that. If someone physically threatens my life, I'd like to have the ability to at least even the odds. Guns are the best equalizer.

But no one is fooling anyone when they claim that a gun's primary function isn't to kill. You can shoot at paper or metal, but they were designed to be shot at living creatures, killing them.
 
Negative, my youtube vids are shot at Target Sports Canada. Orono Fish & Hunt club is an outdoor facility with covered shooting ranges - nothing beats being outside on a sunny day shooting some guns!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom