Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 445911 times)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1050 on: May 03, 2016, 06:19:07 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Is this a huge concern, generally?  We don't prohibit bilateral arm amputees from purchasing rifles either, even though they would not be able to use one effectively or safely either.  Not a great concern to the public health on a probability scale.

Though I agree, if you are deemed unable to manage your own affairs, you probably should not be granted a ccw.  Owning a firearm in your house? Not sure I'm so scared of grandpa who can't remember where he parked his car driving down to the gun store and filling out paperwork for a several-hundred dollar weapon...
The problem most likely will be with senile seniors who already have guns and may have owned them a long time. Have to depend on family (if they have one) to remove any firearms from the home (like they'd remove the car keys) if the person suffered dementia.

That's a quitter's attitude! Wouldn't it be better, and we'd all be safer, if we made laws that forced people to do that?

But seriously, an accident under those circumstances would be tragic. For reals though, I don't know if the risk of such an incident could be legislated away...

This is an area where requiring a license to own a firearm that gets renewed every few years with a competency test, and keeping a list of what firearms are owned by what license holder makes an awful lot of sense.  Then if the license expires, or if the person can't pass the test, the weapons can be confiscated or legally transferred to someone who has a valid firearms license.

My grandmother has dementia and has slowly declined over the past fifteen years.  The disease does weird stuff to the way that people behave.  At one point early on, before we really knew what was happening she decided out of the blue that my mother (who was regularly visiting every other day to do grandma's laundry and help around the house) was stealing her clothing.  Grandma attacked my mom with a broom when she came in the house, and we needed two people to physically restrain her.  I'm really glad that she didn't have a gun.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1051 on: May 03, 2016, 06:40:19 AM »
I guess you've failed to convince me that the benefits of this system outweighs the costs. Outside of hypotheticals and the occasional annecdotes, there are so few instances where this law would be enforced that I can't see it being worth the effort. The families that care enough to remove firearms from granny gun-toter are going to do it. Those that don't, aren't, no matter if there is a law that says they can. It wouldn't be any different under the law, except in the incredibly rare case where well-meaning family members attempt to remove weapons from individuals who aren't competent enough to own them, but are competent enough to use a lawyer to stop them.

If your driver's ID or vehicle insurance lapses, no one comes and confiscates your car. You're still allowed to own it, even though you may back it through your garage door or take out your mailbox. You're just not allowed to drive it on the streets. Pretty much the same as the current CCW laws; they (almost?) all lapse every few years, and must be reapplied for.  Grandpa's rusty hunting rifle stuffed in the back of the closet is hardly a danger to anyone, and making a law that says you could take it from him (when you already can) doesn't make anyone safer.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1052 on: May 03, 2016, 08:15:10 AM »
I guess you've failed to convince me that the benefits of this system outweighs the costs. Outside of hypotheticals and the occasional annecdotes, there are so few instances where this law would be enforced that I can't see it being worth the effort. The families that care enough to remove firearms from granny gun-toter are going to do it. Those that don't, aren't, no matter if there is a law that says they can. It wouldn't be any different under the law, except in the incredibly rare case where well-meaning family members attempt to remove weapons from individuals who aren't competent enough to own them, but are competent enough to use a lawyer to stop them.

If your driver's ID or vehicle insurance lapses, no one comes and confiscates your car. You're still allowed to own it, even though you may back it through your garage door or take out your mailbox. You're just not allowed to drive it on the streets. Pretty much the same as the current CCW laws; they (almost?) all lapse every few years, and must be reapplied for.  Grandpa's rusty hunting rifle stuffed in the back of the closet is hardly a danger to anyone, and making a law that says you could take it from him (when you already can) doesn't make anyone safer.

I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

Miss Piggy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1053 on: May 03, 2016, 09:36:26 AM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1054 on: May 03, 2016, 02:21:05 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1055 on: May 03, 2016, 02:23:45 PM »

This is an area where requiring a license to own a firearm that gets renewed every few years with a competency test, and keeping a list of what firearms are owned by what license holder makes an awful lot of sense.  Then if the license expires, or if the person can't pass the test, the weapons can be confiscated or legally transferred to someone who has a valid firearms license.

My grandmother has dementia and has slowly declined over the past fifteen years.  The disease does weird stuff to the way that people behave.  At one point early on, before we really knew what was happening she decided out of the blue that my mother (who was regularly visiting every other day to do grandma's laundry and help around the house) was stealing her clothing.  Grandma attacked my mom with a broom when she came in the house, and we needed two people to physically restrain her.  I'm really glad that she didn't have a gun.
How do you account for the 300 million guns currently owned? Most people will not register them. Hundreds of thousands of NY and CT residents became felons overnight rather than register their "assault rifles".  Many American rather die than have their firearms confiscated.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4372
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1056 on: May 03, 2016, 02:40:35 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.
No, actually this was something that many people opposed.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1057 on: May 03, 2016, 02:41:22 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.
No, actually this was something that many people opposed.

If I recall correctly, that was opposed by the pro-gun-control posters.  I could be mistaken.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1058 on: May 03, 2016, 03:14:03 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1059 on: May 03, 2016, 03:16:45 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.

A substantial portion of the arguments presented in this thread were regarding requiring training to prevent accidental injury/death.  If someone accidentally shoots self/family how is that any different than their child falling into the pool when nobody's looking?

Miss Piggy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1060 on: May 03, 2016, 03:38:11 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.

Thanks for the summary. :)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1061 on: May 04, 2016, 07:17:42 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.

A substantial portion of the arguments presented in this thread were regarding requiring training to prevent accidental injury/death.  If someone accidentally shoots self/family how is that any different than their child falling into the pool when nobody's looking?

Well said. The vast majority of gun deaths are inflicted upon oneself. Less than 1/3 of yearly gun deaths are purposeful killings of another person.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2523
  • Location: WDC
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1062 on: June 03, 2016, 02:20:23 PM »
BlueHouse, do you keep a loaded pistol under your pillow?

Sorry, Scottish. I purposely didn't come back to this thread until I registered my gun.  The answer is, yes, on occasion, but very infrequently now because I live in a safe house with an alarm system.  And the floors don't creak.  It is a double-action revolver.  There is no way to accidentally pull the trigger (you have to squeeze quite hard for both actions).

I have to say, this is really impressive.   Pretty much every gun owner in this thread (not sure about blue house who just made one short post) is a fervent believer in firearms safety and takes all reasonable precautions with their weapons.
I didn't read the whole post about what constitutes safety, but I don't let kids in the house unless it's in the safe. 
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1625
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1063 on: June 06, 2016, 11:53:46 AM »

Unfortunately for grandma I can't watch her 24/7.  She certainly shouldn't use a gun if she's not capable, the same way she shouldn't drive a car.  If she IS capable, then I think she should be allowed to defend herself effectively.

I truly hope you're right and no private citizens ever need to be armed again for the rest of time.  History tells us that's probably not going to happen, but then again who knows.  Personally I think giving some power to the people rather than the government will help keep the government in its place.

Maybe grandma should just move to a safer place.  Like, out of the south.  I get why southern people are paranoid, its a shitty place to live.  Instead of a buying her a gun, buy her luggage:



Frugalite in training.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1064 on: June 06, 2016, 01:06:03 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.

A substantial portion of the arguments presented in this thread were regarding requiring training to prevent accidental injury/death.  If someone accidentally shoots self/family how is that any different than their child falling into the pool when nobody's looking?

Well said. The vast majority of gun deaths are inflicted upon oneself. Less than 1/3 of yearly gun deaths are purposeful killings of another person.

And most of those involve handguns.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1065 on: June 06, 2016, 03:17:56 PM »
Yea, I'm thinking the 19,000 gun suicides, 800 accidental shootings, and 12,000 gun homicides (the vast majority by handgun)  are quite an acceptable carnage to trade for our liberty and to fend off the tyranny of our government.  How could it be any other way?

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1066 on: June 06, 2016, 03:55:26 PM »
Yea, I'm thinking the 19,000 gun suicides, 800 accidental shootings, and 12,000 gun homicides (the vast majority by handgun)  are quite an acceptable carnage to trade for our liberty and to fend off the tyranny of our government.

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion. The United States of America is nation that was created by a bunch of people who viloently revolted from their oppressors and then wrote and ratified a document that constitutionally gave them the rights to do it again if the need ever arises. So far, having lots of armed, trained and experienced gunmen, with skin in the game, has been worked out pretty well for us.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1067 on: June 06, 2016, 04:16:50 PM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.   

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1068 on: June 06, 2016, 04:26:16 PM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

Do you live near Seattle, Northwestie?

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1069 on: June 06, 2016, 04:37:20 PM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials. It's disrespectful to want to play make believe with my rights, I don't take human rights lightly. But in the end I suppose you're probably just locked in your little echo chamber somewhere and love to tell yourself how right you are.

The people cited in the following study were raised to believe their governments would protect them from bad people. They had no constitutional rights to bear arms and their own communities felt that they shouldn't either. They never thought of their right to defend themselves because they never knew they had it. Many lived horrifying lives and were tortured and raped before being killed.


"This is a report of the statistical results from a project on comparative genocide and mass-murder in this century. Most probably near 170,000,000 people have been murdered in cold-blood by governments, well over three-quarters by absolutist regimes. The most such killing was done by the Soviet Union (near 62,000,000 people), the communist government of China is second (near 35,000,000), followed by Nazi Germany (almost 21,000,000), and Nationalist China (some 10,000,000). Lesser megamurderers include WWII Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, WWI Turkey, communist Vietnam, post-WWII Poland, Pakistan, and communist Yugoslavia. The most intense democide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where they killed over 30 percent of their subjects in less than four years. The best predictor of this killing is regime power. The more arbitrary power a regime has, the less democratic it is, the more likely it will kill its subjects or foreigners. The conclusion is that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely."

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.ART.HTM

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1070 on: June 07, 2016, 06:58:30 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1071 on: June 07, 2016, 08:47:39 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials. It's disrespectful to want to play make believe with my rights, I don't take human rights lightly. But in the end I suppose you're probably just locked in your little echo chamber somewhere and love to tell yourself how right you are.


Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.

And I certainly think that there is no paranoia associated with thinking that, any minute now, the Federal Marshals will be kicking down doors all over the country to get our guns.  More likely, Canada will take a break from the NHL championship and the Hoards from the North will come rolling over the boarder because.......... oh, yea, they like Trump so much.  And lastly, there's the teenage boy wet dream fantasy that a group of gun-totin' locals can defeat the Red Army when they show up.  Ho-lee Crust!!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 08:50:05 AM by Northwestie »

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1072 on: June 07, 2016, 09:07:36 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1073 on: June 07, 2016, 09:13:57 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1074 on: June 07, 2016, 09:20:14 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

SCOTUS has voted that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute - thus stepwise restrictions are allowed.  As is modification of the Amendment itself via process set forth in Article V.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1075 on: June 07, 2016, 09:21:22 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Well you're making a semantic (vs. substantive) argument.  I would think we should all agree that giving freedom to those who didn't previously have it is the expansion of rights, not the reduction of rights. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1076 on: June 07, 2016, 09:26:11 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Well you're making a semantic (vs. substantive) argument.  I would think we should all agree that giving freedom to those who didn't previously have it is the expansion of rights, not the reduction of rights.

It's the expansion of rights for black people.  It was the reduction of rights for white slave owners.  My point is, the reduction of certain rights can pretty uncontroversially be a greater good.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1077 on: June 07, 2016, 09:42:13 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Well you're making a semantic (vs. substantive) argument.  I would think we should all agree that giving freedom to those who didn't previously have it is the expansion of rights, not the reduction of rights.

It's the expansion of rights for black people.  It was the reduction of rights for white slave owners.  My point is, the reduction of certain rights can pretty uncontroversially be a greater good.

Clearly you're right...but I think reducing 2nd amendment rights is about as far from "uncontroversial" as you're going to get. 

I don't think it's possible to reduce the rights provided by the 2nd amendment and get the desired result unless all the rights of the 2nd amendment are eliminated.  If you only eliminate handguns, or assault rifles, or any one thing, you're still going to have gun deaths.  And completely eliminating the right to bear arms is a non-starter for a big enough number of Americans that it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1078 on: June 07, 2016, 09:54:37 AM »
The goal of gun regulation is really a balancing act.  It's ideally going to minimize gun related deaths, while limiting as few freedoms as possible.  Given this, completely eliminating access to all firearms wouldn't make sense.  That's not the way that firearms regulation works in Canada, Australia, or the UK.  (I'm not saying that any of those models would work perfectly for the US.)

Limiting access to some weapons should be pretty uncontroversial.  It already exists (explosives, nuclear bombs, and biological weapons).  The details regarding licensing, data, and exactly which weapons/types of weapons should be regulated, and how to deal with the problem of the millions of unaccounted for weapons currently floating around are really the challenges that need to be debated/tackled on this issue.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1079 on: June 07, 2016, 10:19:23 AM »
Limiting access to some weapons should be pretty uncontroversial. 

Yes and no.  The mostly uncontroversial limit to some weapons was the Firearms Act of 1934, banning short shotguns and most automatic weapons. 

Beyond that, banning certain types of weapons falls into one of two categories:

1) high visibility, low reward, like banning AR-15s, which are statistically about never used in crimes, but are banned for "looking scary".  This has basically no effect on protecting people.  Most non-gun-banners see things like this as completely misguided, spearheaded people who know basically nothing about guns. 

2) High reward, high restriction on freedom.  The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.  However, handguns are also really the only effective firearm one can carry concealed or defend themselves with outside the home (ie, carry every day).  So you basically disarm the legal populace and remove their right to protect themselves anywhere they can't carry a long gun.  This is EXTREMELY controversial, and a no-go. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1080 on: June 07, 2016, 02:23:28 PM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

SCOTUS has voted that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute

True, but nothing is an absolute.  What SCOTUS has ruled is that the 2nd is 'incorporated' like the First.  What this means is that no level of government can pass a restriction on weapons that does not include a due process.  I.E. they can't ban any otherwise legally owned weapon simply because they want to, they can only prevent particular individuals that have been convicted of a crime (i.e. had a due process ruling against them) from weapons.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1081 on: June 07, 2016, 03:27:11 PM »
Kinda true --- also there is no reason that the 2nd amendment can't be modified for clarity.  That 5-4 vote was one of the stupidest rulings I've seen.  And it was just great to see how Scalia managed to dance around his doctrine of Original Intent when he wanted to, which wasn't the first time he punted on his thesis when it suited his political view.   Clown.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1082 on: June 07, 2016, 04:39:25 PM »
Kinda true --- also there is no reason that the 2nd amendment can't be modified for clarity.  That 5-4 vote was one of the stupidest rulings I've seen.  And it was just great to see how Scalia managed to dance around his doctrine of Original Intent when he wanted to, which wasn't the first time he punted on his thesis when it suited his political view.   Clown.

You didn't bother to read this thread, did you.  I & others have provided quite a bit of evidence that Scalia's arguments were the original intent; and none of us went to extremes.  The amount of historical support that the original framers of the Bill of Rights, and the understanding of those rights by the public, were that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect a right to private ownership & utilization by individuals, would fill many volumes.  A significant portion of the Federalist Papers addresses this topic directly.  Any legal opinion to the contrary is a historical falsehood.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1083 on: June 07, 2016, 06:00:32 PM »
I don't think you read his opinion!  It was quite the tortured logic to find a way to match his predetermined outcome.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1084 on: June 07, 2016, 06:41:41 PM »
I don't think you read his opinion!  It was quite the tortured logic to find a way to match his predetermined outcome.

I've never read the whole thing, only summaries with excerpts.  Do you have a link so I can see what you are talking about?

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1085 on: June 07, 2016, 11:31:57 PM »
Oh, so you never have read it then.  And what?  I have to spoon-feed you as well?   Should I cut up your meat into smaller pieces as well?

My apologies -- what I should have said is - I disagree, I don't have a link at hand but I'll check if I have time and get back to you.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2016, 08:21:29 AM by Northwestie »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1086 on: June 08, 2016, 06:24:11 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Well you're making a semantic (vs. substantive) argument.  I would think we should all agree that giving freedom to those who didn't previously have it is the expansion of rights, not the reduction of rights.

It's the expansion of rights for black people.  It was the reduction of rights for white slave owners.  My point is, the reduction of certain rights can pretty uncontroversially be a greater good.

Whites never had the right to own slaves. Nobody has ever had that right, then or ever in human history. Our legal system was in error, in that it did not provide a means for guaranteeing the right of self-ownership for blacks. Amending the Constitution fixed that. It did not limit or expand any rights; it legally acknowledged the correct order of things.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1087 on: June 08, 2016, 06:28:19 AM »
Kinda true --- also there is no reason that the 2nd amendment can't be modified for clarity.  That 5-4 vote was one of the stupidest rulings I've seen.  And it was just great to see how Scalia managed to dance around his doctrine of Original Intent when he wanted to, which wasn't the first time he punted on his thesis when it suited his political view.   Clown.

Modified for clarity? I don't understand. What exactly is not clear? The BOR is a list of things the Federal Government (and state and local governments, in some cases, as the SCOTUS sees fit) cannot do. One of those things is infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

How is this confusing to anyone is beyond me.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1088 on: June 08, 2016, 06:32:24 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Well you're making a semantic (vs. substantive) argument.  I would think we should all agree that giving freedom to those who didn't previously have it is the expansion of rights, not the reduction of rights.

It's the expansion of rights for black people.  It was the reduction of rights for white slave owners.  My point is, the reduction of certain rights can pretty uncontroversially be a greater good.

Whites never had the right to own slaves. Nobody has ever had that right, then or ever in human history. Our legal system was in error, in that it did not provide a means for guaranteeing the right of self-ownership for blacks. Amending the Constitution fixed that. It did not limit or expand any rights; it legally acknowledged the correct order of things.

Yeah, if you redefine words to alter their meaning you can make any kind of claim that you want.

Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

If we use the current definition of the word 'right' however, we see that white people did have the right to own slaves, and this right was removed with the 13th amendment.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1089 on: June 08, 2016, 07:04:54 AM »
Absolutely -- the founders of our democracy never wanted folks to question rules - or even the Constitution -  oh, except that there is a process for amending the Constitution -- isn't there?   Otherwise women would have never voted, or blacks, or we'd still have slavery.  Funny about that how change is allowed.


Of course change is allowed.  But how many amendments have there been that REDUCED the rights of the citizens?  Only one, which was such a good idea that it was repealed.

13th amendment certainly reduced rights.  It was a pretty good idea.

Well you're making a semantic (vs. substantive) argument.  I would think we should all agree that giving freedom to those who didn't previously have it is the expansion of rights, not the reduction of rights.

It's the expansion of rights for black people.  It was the reduction of rights for white slave owners.  My point is, the reduction of certain rights can pretty uncontroversially be a greater good.

Whites never had the right to own slaves. Nobody has ever had that right, then or ever in human history. Our legal system was in error, in that it did not provide a means for guaranteeing the right of self-ownership for blacks. Amending the Constitution fixed that. It did not limit or expand any rights; it legally acknowledged the correct order of things.

Yeah, if you redefine words to alter their meaning you can make any kind of claim that you want.

Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

If we use the current definition of the word 'right' however, we see that white people did have the right to own slaves, and this right was removed with the 13th amendment.

Yep. Let's all jump aboard the train to 1984. Let's embrace totalitarian hijacking of language that leaves human beings unable to even express their natural yearning for liberty. Rights are whatever the laws written by the shitty excuses for human beings that make up the government in the jurisdiction you current exist in at any given moment allow you. War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc etc. Have fun with that bullshit. I would beg you and your ilk not to drag me down with you, but I know that is too much to ask.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1090 on: June 08, 2016, 01:55:35 PM »
Oh, so you never have read it then.  And what?  I have to spoon-feed you as well?   Should I cut up your meat into smaller pieces as well?

My apologies -- what I should have said is - I disagree, I don't have a link at hand but I'll check if I have time and get back to you.

I have read this one...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

If this is the opinion you speak of, then I reaffirm my prior statement, that Scalia's opinion was, in no way, a diversion from the 'original intent' interpretation of the US Constitution.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1091 on: June 09, 2016, 02:26:15 PM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1092 on: June 09, 2016, 02:49:06 PM »
Somewhat OT, but, hmmm, maybe GuitarStv has a different viewpoint because he is not American?  As a Canadian, I can think of several historical instances (nothing recent, fortunately) when Americans were fighting against our rights. The date of Confederation (1867) is significant.
Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights,
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1093 on: June 09, 2016, 03:29:36 PM »
Somewhat OT, but, hmmm, maybe GuitarStv has a different viewpoint because he is not American?  As a Canadian, I can think of several historical instances (nothing recent, fortunately) when Americans were fighting against our rights. The date of Confederation (1867) is significant.
Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights,

Has the US ever been at war with Canada when it was not under the direct rule/influence of England or France?

I'm perfectly ok with him having a different point of view. I'm not ok with him intentionally twisting a post and then completely ignoring the information in it. I understand his and a lot of people's whole lives have been pretty awesome, that doesn't mean they're going to stay that way. Southern Ukraine, the LA riots of the 90's, the recent Boston riots (you think they stayed in the neighborhood because they felt like it?) Serbia, Chechnya, The Kurds, Iraq, Syria, soon to be Greece... It's fine if you want to throw out local numbers, but our countries and political systems don't exist in vacuums. The lines can and have been redrawn many times. It's very naive and presumptuous to argue about what they'll allow people to defend themselves with, when clearly they've never been over the wall.

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1094 on: June 09, 2016, 04:46:16 PM »
Somewhat OT, but, hmmm, maybe GuitarStv has a different viewpoint because he is not American?  As a Canadian, I can think of several historical instances (nothing recent, fortunately) when Americans were fighting against our rights. The date of Confederation (1867) is significant.
Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights,

Has the US ever been at war with Canada when it was not under the direct rule/influence of England or France?

I'm perfectly ok with him having a different point of view. I'm not ok with him intentionally twisting a post and then completely ignoring the information in it. I understand his and a lot of people's whole lives have been pretty awesome, that doesn't mean they're going to stay that way. Southern Ukraine, the LA riots of the 90's, the recent Boston riots (you think they stayed in the neighborhood because they felt like it?) Serbia, Chechnya, The Kurds, Iraq, Syria, soon to be Greece... It's fine if you want to throw out local numbers, but our countries and political systems don't exist in vacuums. The lines can and have been redrawn many times. It's very naive and presumptuous to argue about what they'll allow people to defend themselves with, when clearly they've never been over the wall.
This is OT to the original topic, but not OT for your last post.

That was the Confederation reference - because of the end of the Civil War and the Fenian raids, the various governments decided they were better off together than as separate colonies.   You have to remember that by this time the various colonies were pretty much self-governing, except for foreign policy.  As you said, governments do not exist in vacuum, and the various colonies had gradually been developing self-rule.

Just because both American invasions (Invasion of Quebec in 1775, War of 1812-1814) occurred when what became Canada was still British North America, they were still invasions and not welcome by local inhabitants, especially in 1812-14. Upper and Lower Canada had a lot of United Empire Loyalist settlers who were not happy with the occupation.  Your constitution said no quartering of troops, but that didn't mean they couldn't quarter troops on Canadians, and they did.   Laura Secord was a heroine, and her home is a museum now.  Local militias were heavily involved with defense.

Canadians know that things are not always calm and peaceful.  We lived through the Red River Rebellion (1869-70) and the October Crisis (1970).  And of course, like everyone else, we have had the school shootings and other shootings.  We try to learn from them and improve our society.  But we are not perfect, and they happen.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1095 on: June 09, 2016, 08:12:03 PM »


[/quote]
Just because both American invasions (Invasion of Quebec in 1775, War of 1812-1814) occurred when what became Canada was still British North America, they were still invasions and not welcome by local inhabitants, especially in 1812-14. Upper and Lower Canada had a lot of United Empire Loyalist settlers who were not happy with the occupation.  Your constitution said no quartering of troops, but that didn't mean they couldn't quarter troops on Canadians, and they did.   Laura Secord was a heroine, and her home is a museum now.  Local militias were heavily involved with defense.

Canadians know that things are not always calm and peaceful.  We lived through the Red River Rebellion (1869-70) and the October Crisis (1970).  And of course, like everyone else, we have had the school shootings and other shootings.  We try to learn from them and improve our society.  But we are not perfect, and they happen.
[/quote]

Is your point that Canadians citizen militias with lots of guns is a good thing?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1096 on: June 09, 2016, 08:54:30 PM »
Yea, I'm thinking the 19,000 gun suicides, 800 accidental shootings, and 12,000 gun homicides (the vast majority by handgun)  are quite an acceptable carnage to trade for our liberty and to fend off the tyranny of our government.  How could it be any other way?

There are plenty of ways to lower these death numbers; banning firearms is the most restrictive, least effective way to accomplish this. Personally I believe much of America recognizes this, and prefers the most efficient method to reduce deaths, rather than the most simplistic.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1097 on: June 10, 2016, 05:36:10 AM »
Is your point that Canadians citizen militias with lots of guns is a good thing?
Not really.  Two points - 1. although Cyaphas was technically correct in that both invasions were while we were colonies, it was our territory and we took it personally.
and I suppose 2. back then most men had guns (hunting, basically) so it was not difficult to raise an armed militia, even though there was nothing like a constitutional right to bear arms in British North America.  Even now, there are lots of hunting rifles in Canada, so I suppose we could still raise a militia if we had to.
Editorial note - many Americans seem to think Canadians don't have any guns. We do, they are for hunting and target practice.  What we don't have is handguns, they are extremely strictly controlled.  If someone not in law enforcement/military has a hand gun, it was almost always acquired illegally.  Of course hand guns are not much use to a militia.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1098 on: June 10, 2016, 05:52:42 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.

Man, you are so spot on with the bolded part above.

We in the west live in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. It is a historical anomaly. It won't last. But so many seem to think that because things are rather nice now, and they have been rather nice for a few decades, they always will be rather nice. That's why they say ridiculous stuff like "these gun nuts stockpiling guns for an imaginary zombie outbreak." Because anything bad happening in their little bubbles is so far outside of the realm of possibility as to be science fiction.

Amazing lack of perspective.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1099 on: June 10, 2016, 08:34:00 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.

Man, you are so spot on with the bolded part above.

We in the west live in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. It is a historical anomaly. It won't last. But so many seem to think that because things are rather nice now, and they have been rather nice for a few decades, they always will be rather nice. That's why they say ridiculous stuff like "these gun nuts stockpiling guns for an imaginary zombie outbreak." Because anything bad happening in their little bubbles is so far outside of the realm of possibility as to be science fiction.

Amazing lack of perspective.

I'm pretty sure that's called "normalcy bias".