# Preach it Ted



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

[yt]T_QjEL0uUgo[/yt]


----------



## Malleus (Apr 7, 2010)

Wow. We're quite different.

I'm sure you know all the arguments for and against gun ownership, so I won't get into it. Suffice to say I've come down on the opposite side of the argument.

That said, if guns were legal here I'd be very tempted to get one. There's something fascinating about them.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

But...and take this as I intend it..and its not as an insult. When it comes to what Ted is talking about here, I could care less about what a non-American thinks about our 2nd Amendment. My predecessors left Europe and became American for a reason.


----------



## Malleus (Apr 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
> 
> But...and take this as I intend it..and its not as an insult. When it comes to what Ted is talking about here, I could care less about what a non-American thinks about our 2nd Amendment. My predecessors left Europe and became American for a reason.


 
No offense taken.

I'd like to hear what that reason was though. Ted's explanation was a little simplistic for my tastes.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

Our Constitution. 

America was founded on the premise that Gvt doesn't grant or bestow "rights" on us. Anything that Gvt. does is an infringement on our rights that we "allow" only after due process. Thats the fact, regardless of the efforts of our current idiots in office who are attempting to dismantle the whole thing.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 7, 2010)

And yet, oddly, probably the most right-wing nation on the planet.  A hard enigma to crack that.


----------



## Malleus (Apr 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Our Constitution.
> 
> America was founded on the premise that Gvt doesn't grant or bestow "rights" on us. Anything that Gvt. does is an infringement on our rights that we "allow" only after due process. Thats the fact, regardless of the efforts of our current idiots in office who are attempting to dismantle the whole thing.


 
Actually I was asking to your views as to why you thought your ancestors left Europe, but that may be derailing the thread and in any case, what you've quoted was interesting enough. Cheers.


----------



## grydth (Apr 7, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> And yet, oddly, probably the most right-wing nation on the planet.  A hard enigma to crack that.



_*Still*_ the sour grapes over 1776? 

Really, I would have thought that after we later saved your humble (and shrinking) empire in 1918 and again in 1943 there should be _some _measure of gratitude if not outright awed worship......

Couldn't resist.    :lol:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 7, 2010)

Best not to go there when talking to a historian - or maybe it is? :lol:

So that'll be:

- The French wresting control of one of our treacherous colonies from our hands whilst we were fighting them, the Dutch and the Portuguese

- The 1914 - 1918 war to protect America from the Anarchists and to which they lent their grudging support nearly three years late.

- The 1939 - 1945 war to protect America from the Fascists ... who then proceeded to take over by stealth later anyway.  To which conflict the aforementioned colony sold their grudging support nearly three years late, after taking all the British technological and engineering advances as a bribe and giving nothing in return (see Tizard expedition for details).

Note that I pondered for quite a while about posting this, wondering how it would be received.  In the end, I concluded that there is still enough humour left in the global gene pool to appreciate that perspectives of history can give rise to some fairly irresolvable conundrums.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 7, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> And yet, oddly, probably the most right-wing nation on the planet.  A hard enigma to crack that.



Not an enigma at all, when you consider that what we (collectively) say and what we do are two very different things.  We are nothing if not self-flatterers.


----------



## grydth (Apr 7, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Best not to go there when talking to a historian - or maybe it is? :lol:
> 
> So that'll be:
> 
> ...



Well, now you've come to the crux of the problem: Britain cannot get along with _anyone. Wars everywheres!

_It was only when FDR told Churchill that we'd let the Huns have you if there was a third war that you opted for more or less quiet decline....

Yet, still we need our guns in case you regress and come back....

To this day we teach our kids to shoot (and to eat their vegetables) with the thread that the English may be under the bed...


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 7, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> And yet, oddly, probably the most right-wing nation on the planet.  A hard enigma to crack that.





grydth said:


> _*Still*_ the sour grapes over 1776?
> 
> Really, I would have thought that after we later saved your humble (and shrinking) empire in 1918 and again in 1943 there should be _some _measure of gratitude if not outright awed worship......
> 
> Couldn't resist.    :lol:



are you two planning to re fight the war then


----------



## Tames D (Apr 7, 2010)

Malleus said:


> Wow. We're quite different.
> 
> I'm sure you know all the arguments for and against gun ownership, so I won't get into it. Suffice to say I've come down on the opposite side of the argument.


 
With all due respect, I don't see how you can disagree with anything Nugent said in that video. Yes, we are quite different.


----------



## Malleus (Apr 8, 2010)

Tames D said:


> With all due respect, I don't see how you can disagree with anything Nugent said in that video. Yes, we are quite different.


 
No, I think I can agree with the points Ted raised in the video, just not how he said it, nor his overly simplistic view of things. True, given the choice between having an innocent woman use a handgun to stop and kill an attacker intent on murdering her, or having things play out the way they did, one would have to side with the victim. Same with all the other examples he raised.

Of course, for that to be possible the woman would have to be armed the time. To defend against the possibility of an unforseen attack, everyone everywhere would have to be armed, at all times. I think that would cause huge problems, and with gun ownership so easy, it makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns (through simply buying them legally or through stealing them), and easier for crimes of passion to have a nastier ending. 

A gun is a ridiculously powerful tool. I'm not sure I'd be happy with everyone having access to them. Even with the most responsible, level headed owner, accidents can and will happen. And I'd imagine not everyone is that responsible. 

But this is besides the point: your second amendment gives you the right to own guns. I'm just wondering if it's a good thing.


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2010)

Gun control is a controversial issue to say the least, even here in the U.S.  I can understand why some folks do not like guns...I think that is their right, to not like guns.  However, I'd like to add some extra commentary if I may.



> Of course, for that to be possible the woman would have to be armed the  time. To defend against the possibility of an unforeseen attack, everyone  everywhere would have to be armed, at all times. I think that would  cause huge problems...


It is notlaw-abiding people that cause problems. Some of the strongest supporters of 2nd Amendment rights and legal gun ownership in the U.S. are police officers.   Unfortunately, media reports on crime never, ever draw the distinction between when a gun used in a crime was being carried legally or illegally.  Much more often than not it is the latter.




> ...and with gun ownership so easy, it makes it easier  for criminals to get their hands on guns (through simply buying them  legally or through stealing them), and easier for crimes of passion to  have a nastier ending.


That has not proven to be the case.   The most comprehensive report on violent crime in the U.S. that I know of is the FBI Uniform Crime Report.  This is a study that is done every year. The 2009 findings are preliminary here are the links to 2005 - 2008:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html

Reports going back to 1995 can be found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

The two states with the lowest per capita violent crime rate....meaning, the fewest violent crimes per 100,000 people, are Vermont and New Hampshire.

Two states with some of the least restrictive gun laws are....

...Vermont and New Hampshire.

If lesser gun control was the sole reason for violent crime, then we would be among the more violent states in the union.   We're not.  If you were to ask my police chief what concerns him more, he would say that he is less concerned about guns than he is about machetes.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76017

They have been the weapon of choice for a few crimes in the area, including the most insidious how-can-it-happen-here murder of Kenpoist Jamie Cates' mother.  The bangers nearly murdered Jamie, she was brave enough to call 911 with her throat cut.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81351

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/holl...0-308/court-documents-detail-murder-plot.html





Malleus said:


> A gun is a ridiculously powerful tool.



Taking a firearms safety course from a qualified instructor offers a more realistic depiction of what a gun can and cannot do.




> I'm not sure I'd be happy with everyone having access to them.


Everyone doesn't have access to them, at least among law-abiding citizens in the States.



> Even with the most responsible, level headed owner, accidents can and will happen. And I'd imagine not everyone is that responsible.


Hate to harp on the subject again, but taking a firearms safety course from a qualified instructor might show otherwise.  Regardless of what you might hear in the media, guns don't accidentally go off, nor do they accidentally shoot people while they are being cleaned.  There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence.



> But this is besides the point: your second amendment gives you the right to own guns. I'm just wondering if it's a good thing.


Its natural to wonder   But I also think American gun owners are portrayed unrealistically as these talisman-loving beings that value their guns over anything else, including the lives of others.   A police officer or armed guard that shoots a violent perpetrator in the line of duty does not get a slap on the back and a drink bought for him at the end of the day, he gets an investigation and a mountain of paperwork to complete.  

In October 2009, Boston Special Officer Paul Langone was about town on personal business when he stopped by Mass. General Hospital, and heard screams from behind a closed door.  He opened the door to find Dr. Astrid Desrosiers being literally stabbed to death by her patient.   He shot the assailant, saving the doctor's life, although she was critically wounded.   Even in what looks like an obvious case of defending an innocent victim, the Suffolk County DA just cleared Officer Langone of any charges last week.....a 5 month wait.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/r...ails_shooter_cleared_of_wrongdoing_in_attack/

Yet, how often is a person like Officer Langone portrayed in the media as the picture of an American gun owner?  Is a corporate businesswoman ever portrayed as a gun owner in a way that is not some James Bond-like caricature?   What about an older gun owner?  Are they ever portrayed as being something other than a recluse in a flannel shirt living out in the woods in a hunting cabin?

Personally I don't disparage you or anyone else not in the States for not being warm to the 2nd Amendment, or for not liking guns in general.  That is your right, and your opinion.  I respect that.  But keep in mind that law-abiding gun owners may not look the way you imagine them, and may not be as bad or as dangerous as you think.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> And yet, oddly, probably the most right-wing nation on the planet.  A hard enigma to crack that.



How so. It's the left-wing that supports socialistic or communistic government distributed and controlled "rights" in this country.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

Malleus said:


> No, I think I can agree with the points Ted raised in the video, just not how he said it, nor his overly simplistic view of things. True, given the choice between having an innocent woman use a handgun to stop and kill an attacker intent on murdering her, or having things play out the way they did, one would have to side with the victim. Same with all the other examples he raised.



I think his viewpoint was simplistic in this video as well.  He also espouses vigilante justice in it, which I do not; it's a populist viewpoint that sells well currently.  Ted Nugent is an intelligent man and can express himself better than that.



> Of course, for that to be possible the woman would have to be armed the time. To defend against the possibility of an unforseen attack, everyone everywhere would have to be armed, at all times.


That was actually the goal of some of our founders of our nation:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."  -- Thomas Jefferson.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry.



> I think that would cause huge problems, and with gun ownership so easy, it makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns (through simply buying them legally or through stealing them), and easier for crimes of passion to have a nastier ending.


I think it is important to note here that there are nearly more guns in the USA than there are people (200 million guns, 300 million people). 

Consider that our demographics with regard to gun ownership are radically different than most places on the planet.  The US has and has had a culture of gun ownership going back to before our founding.  We've nearly as many guns as television sets, for a visual representation.

It is already easy for criminals to get guns, and there really isn't any way to make it harder for them to do so.  When they don't buy them via 'straw man' purchases, they buy them in face-to-face personal transactions or they steal them; later buying and selling them from each others.  Then of course there are many guns purchased outside the USA and smuggled in.  

Consider the drug problem in the USA; most hard drugs are thoroughly illegal, heavily regulated, and we do our best to keep them off the streets.  Nevertheless, anyone who wants cocaine, crack, heroin or whatever else can buy it in nearly every city in the USA, day or night, anytime they want to.  If the laws against drugs don't keep them out of the hands of those who want them, then laws against guns are equally unlikely to keep them from criminal possession.

So in answer to your statement, there is little that can be done to keep guns from the hands of criminals anyway.  What remains is to arm citizens as a counter-balance.



> A gun is a ridiculously powerful tool. I'm not sure I'd be happy with everyone having access to them. Even with the most responsible, level headed owner, accidents can and will happen. And I'd imagine not everyone is that responsible.


In the USA, we have made attempts to put restrictions on owning guns at the federal and some state/local levels.  Primarily, we forbid gun ownership to those who have been convicted of felonies, are mentally disturbed, are fleeing from justice, are drug addicts, and those convicted of domestic abuse.  Some states and cities add additional restrictions, such as cities like Chicago which forbid private gun ownership and states like Illinois which require a Firearm Owner's Identity Card and gun registrations (those laws are being challenged for constitutionality currently).

However, and this is important; even the best people will do the wrong thing.  So some formerly law-abiding citizen will pick up a gun and do something inappropriate with it.  That's a given.  The question is this: in a free society, do we accept that we cannot prevent every crime and protect the overall liberty of the people, or do we attempt to protect the citizens against themselves even if we have to restrict liberty to do so?  The history of the USA has tended towards freedom, even at the expense of additional danger to our citizens from ourselves.
*
In the history of the USA, we have tended to believe that the job of the government is to protect and defend freedom, not people. * That's important, because it affects every decision made with regard to our laws.  Yes, we want to protect people too, but the primary focus is on defending liberty.

And yes, guns are very powerful.  That would be the point.  No one should be evenly matched against someone who wants to hurt them.  There is no 'fair' when defending one's own life or the lives of one's family.  Overkill is a good thing in such situations.



> But this is besides the point: your second amendment gives you the right to own guns. I'm just wondering if it's a good thing.


Minor point; the 2nd Amendment gives us nothing.  The Constitution declares that we have all rights, every right you can imagine, even those which have never been exercised yet.  You name it, we have that right from our Creator; specifically NOT from the government.  What the Bill of Rights does is enumerate certain of those rights and FORBID the federal government (and by extension, the states) from infringing on them.  The 2nd Amendment does not give me the right to own guns, it tells the federal government they cannot interfere with my right to own guns.  It's a subtle but important distinction.

Is it a good thing?  Well, I think so.  I've thought, from time to time, about what it would be like to emigrate to another country to live and work.  And I have to say; the idea of leaving my guns behind has stopped me everytime.  Just can't do it.  It's part of our culture, and it's become part of me.  Owning guns is part of what it means to be an American (or at least having the choice to do so).


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Minor point; the 2nd Amendment gives us nothing.  The Constitution declares that we have all rights, every right you can imagine, even those which have never been exercised yet.  You name it, we have that right from our Creator; specifically NOT from the government.  What the Bill of Rights does is enumerate certain of those rights and FORBID the federal government (and by extension, the states) from infringing on them.  The 2nd Amendment does not give me the right to own guns, it tells the federal government they cannot interfere with my right to own guns.  It's a subtle but important distinction.
> 
> Is it a good thing?  Well, I think so.  I've thought, from time to time, about what it would be like to emigrate to another country to live and work.  And I have to say; the idea of leaving my guns behind has stopped me everytime.  Just can't do it.  It's part of our culture, and it's become part of me.  Owning guns is part of what it means to be an American (or at least having the choice to do so).



It's taken me a while but I finally understood how to interpret the 2nd amendment. The founders could have prevented a lot of discussion though, by phrasing it in a less convoluted way.

That said, I understand that gun ownership is a cultural thing to Americans. However, for all practical purposes, owning a gun or not does not make any difference when it comes to living in a society (ignoring the SD aspect for a moment).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> It's taken me a while but I finally understood how to interpret the 2nd amendment. The founders could have prevented a lot of discussion though, by phrasing it in a less convoluted way.



Yes, they could have; and they knew that.  The specific wording was debated furiously back and forth.  The end result was a compromise,  satisfying to nearly none.  It is only in recent decades that scholarship has satisfied the judiciary in proving the intent of the framers when they wrote it.  Most anti-gun people have abandoned arguments that the framers did not intend for the people themselves to be armed, and not only for the establishment of a militia.



> That said, I understand that gun ownership is a cultural thing to Americans. However, for all practical purposes, owning a gun or not does not make any difference when it comes to living in a society (ignoring the SD aspect for a moment).



Yes, although one might argue that living in a society in which private gun ownership is a vigorously-defended right does not obligate one to own a gun; it merely allows one to make the choice.  Societies which do not protect such rights cannot offer their citizens this choice.

Even if I owned no guns by choice, I'd still prefer to live in a society in which they were legal for law-abiding citizens to own if they so chose.

Put another way, I do not want to march in the streets and engage in hateful racist speech.  However, knowing that the right to free speech is vigorously defended regardless of how loathsome it is means my freedoms are preserved against future decisions I might make about speaking my mind with regard to anything at all.  So even unexercised, having the right is important.  That, to me, makes a difference.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2010)

grydth said:


> Well, now you've come to the crux of the problem: Britain cannot get along with _anyone. Wars everywheres!
> 
> _It was only when FDR told Churchill that we'd let the Huns have you if there was a third war that you opted for more or less quiet decline....
> 
> ...



ROFLKLITA!

Oh so very true in the first paragraph - I think it's because we were bullied a lot before 1066 .

So very wise in your last paragraph too .  After all, we are building aircraft carriers again ... well, really little ones anyway :lol:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> ROFLKLITA!
> 
> Oh so very true in the first paragraph - I think it's because we were bullied a lot before 1066 .
> 
> So very wise in your last paragraph too .  After all, we are building aircraft carriers again ... well, really little ones anyway :lol:.



And here I thought it was the other way around...that's what I get for listening to New Model Army's "51st State of America":



> Look out of your windows, watch the skies
> Read all the instructions with bright blue eyes
> Were W.A.S.P.s, proud American sons
> We know how to clean our teeth and how to strip down a gun
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> How so. It's the left-wing that supports socialistic or communistic government distributed and controlled "rights" in this country.



That's too complex and umbridge inducing a topic for me in my current state of health and mind, *Angel*.  I think it's one on which we shall never see eye-to-eye, nor even agree on what the terms mean (legally, historically and morally).

Pretend I never said anything (I wish I hadn't to be sure); it's less fruitless all round that way.

I need to stay away from the Study truly ... but it is where a lot of the interesting things are talked about, as well as the aneurysm risky ones, so it's hard .

All too frequently, late at night, I fall foul of the "Oh my god, I can't believe that's what they really think!" and rattle some keys which really should have stayed silent.  I shall try and be stronger with myself.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> All too frequently, late at night, I fall foul of the "Oh my god, I can't believe that's what they really think!" and rattle some keys which really should have stayed silent.  I shall try and be stronger with myself.



I think it is more a question of what people believe the major responsibilities of government to be.

One point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect its citizenry from danger, even from themselves.  Rights are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, the life and well-being of the citizen is more important than individual concepts like liberty.

Another point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect liberty from encroachment, even by itself.  Life and well-being are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, individual civil liberties are more important than individual concepts like personal safety and health.

In truth, we live with compromises in both directions.  We wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets by law in most states; yet the only danger from not doing so is to ourselves - surely we have the right to risk our own health?  Yet as adults, we can choose to smoke, drink to excess, skydive, engage in risky unprotected sexual behavior - surely these are dangers from which we should be protected?

Ultimately, my position is that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are the core documents that define and shape what and how far the government intrudes for our own good, whether or not citizens ask for (or even demand) it.  There is no prohibition on the federal government (or states) infringing upon a right to smoke, for example.  Theoretically, the government could very well ban it.  There is one prohibiting the suppression of free speech, religion, assembly, firearm possession, and so on; and to me, these represent the areas that are not really open to compromise.  It is clear that our founders meant for these rights to be sacrosanct.  I rather like that.

I am reminded that when I took my Enlistment Oath some twenty five plus years ago, I swore to _"support and defend the *Constitution* of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."_ My allegiance was not to the President (other than obeying his or her lawful orders as Commander in Chief), or to the Congress, the Supreme Court, the People, or even to 'the country' or 'the nation' or 'the flag'.  My oath was to a piece of paper (and the amendments to it) which form the backbone of what we really are in the USA, what we believe, what we defend.  My oath was to the very concept and definition of liberty, the idea and ideal that is America.

I have to come down on the side of those who believe that as sad as it is when people are injured, become ill, or die, it is more important that our liberties be preserved, protected, and defended.


----------



## chaos1551 (Apr 8, 2010)

Bad people will get guns anyway.  Gun control laws just take them away from the good people.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That's too complex and umbridge inducing a topic for me in my current state of health and mind, *Angel*.  I think it's one on which we shall never see eye-to-eye, nor even agree on what the terms mean (legally, historically and morally).
> 
> Pretend I never said anything (I wish I hadn't to be sure); it's less fruitless all round that way.
> 
> ...



No offense Suk. You make some really good points and do a great job as a mod around here, but I seem to find you falling into this pattern of making a comment then falling back to this "pretend I never said anything"...."I don't know why I bother" tripe. It seems passive-aggressive, supercilious and a tad insulting.  

To be honest I would prefer if you just jumped right into the fray. Yes we disagree on various issues but I have no animosity towards you.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is more a question of what people believe the major responsibilities of government to be.
> 
> One point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect its citizenry from danger, even from themselves.  Rights are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, the life and well-being of the citizen is more important than individual concepts like liberty.
> 
> ...



You remind me of this quote.

_Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety_. -Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That's too complex and umbridge inducing a topic for me in my current state of health and mind, *Angel*.  I think it's one on which we shall never see eye-to-eye, nor even agree on what the terms mean (legally, historically and morally).
> 
> Pretend I never said anything (I wish I hadn't to be sure); it's less fruitless all round that way.
> 
> ...



Aye, jump in to the fray.  We Americans are a tough enough lot to take a disagreement.  We disagree with each other all the time!  

I love hearing your input, whether or not we agree.  Your opinions are well thought out and intelligent.  Even if we don't agree at all politically, you're still a person that would never have to buy a drink in my town, if ya know what I mean.


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> Bad people will get guns anyway.  Gun control laws just take them away from the good people.



And bad people can get other nasty things that are capable of really screwing a person up.   The bangers up here know full well that a $15.00 machete is easier to obtain than an $800.00 Glock.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2010)

Thank you for those kind words, Carol and Angel :bows:.  I am seriously touched and complimented by them.

I really don't mean to come across in a passive-aggressive way, Angel.  I honestly intend to keep out of things, as the past years here have shown that we (meaning all members here) really can't change each others minds over the Net.  But all too often when I am tired I don't have the sense to lift my fingers away from the keyboard and then regret what I have typed .

I've not really made this general knowledge (being English I am genetically predisposed to not make a fuss ) but I wasn't kidding when I inferred that I have to stay calm.  A legacy of my bike accident has been that some of the 'plumbing' in my brain has been weakened.  Combine that with the very high blood-pressure I seem to have inherited from my mother in my middle years and too passionate a spike could have unfortunate consequences.  It's one reason why I went very quiet here for some weeks whilst the quacks were trying out various chemical magics to keep me away from the surgeons blade.

As politics and social justice are a couple of topics that get my 'oratory' sensibilities fully engaged, I am perforce constrained .  For a while at least .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> A legacy of my bike accident has been that some of the 'plumbing' in my brain has been weakened.



'Came off me bike, didn't I?













Peace, then.  Feel better and get the brain under control.


----------



## JDenver (Apr 8, 2010)

A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--

1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'.  Odd to hear of gun ownership referenced as an 'essential liberty'.  Essential in what manner?

2. Quotes from founding fathers are interesting.  They're totally contextual. In 1785 it took 4 minutes to load and fire a musket.  I'm not sure things are the same anymore.

3. Up here, we tried to institute a gun registry.  The Police Chiefs Association of Canada wants the registry, believes in it, and says that they use it effectively.  Essentially, to argue against the registry is to argue against public safety as the police see it. Different country, yes, but interesting context (and I won't get into the ridiculous double speak Conservatives use in explaining how they want to abolish the registry but believe in public safety and crime control)


----------



## Big Don (Apr 8, 2010)

JDenver said:


> A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--
> 
> 1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'.  Odd to hear of gun ownership referenced as an 'essential liberty'.  Essential in what manner?


 preserving one's own life, isn't essential?





> 2. Quotes from founding fathers are interesting.  They're totally contextual. In 1785 it took 4 minutes to load and fire a musket.  I'm not sure things are the same anymore.


 Scientology didn't exist then, should Cruise, Travolta etc, be forcibly converted? Neither radio nor television existed, should government have total control over them? 





> 3. Up here, we tried to institute a gun registry.  The Police Chiefs Association of Canada wants the registry, believes in it, and says that they use it effectively.  Essentially, to argue against the registry is to argue against public safety as the police see it. Different country, yes, but interesting context (and I won't get into the ridiculous double speak Conservatives use in explaining how they want to abolish the registry but believe in public safety and crime control)


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

The idea expressed transcends technology. Either we have the right to own weapons as "free men" (and women) or the government "allows" us to own weapons.

I will take the former thankyouverymuch.


----------



## grydth (Apr 8, 2010)

JDenver said:


> A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--
> 
> 1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'.  Odd to hear of gun ownership referenced as an 'essential liberty'.  Essential in what manner?
> 
> ...



1) "Essential" in that if one lacks either the right or the means to  preserve one's life, none of the other rights means very much.

2) Yes - in the late 1700's the Founders entrusted common folks with firearms much superior to what most armies of the day were equipped with. Imagine that.... and 4 minutes between shots? Maybe that explains why the Continentals prevailed and the Loyalists were chased into Canada.

3) As to *Canadian* gun registration - do whatever you wish _in your country_. If you will recognize we have the same right to refuse it here in _*our country*_, without outside meddling or condescending remarks, maybe we can all be friends.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 8, 2010)

JDenver said:


> A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'. Odd to hear of gun ownership Ereferenced as an 'essential liberty'.


 
This country (USA) would not exist if not for guns. It only makes sense that gun ownership would be an essential liberty.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 8, 2010)

Carol said:


> Aye, jump in to the fray. We Americans are a tough enough lot to take a disagreement. We disagree with each other all the time!
> 
> I love hearing your input, whether or not we agree. Your opinions are well thought out and intelligent. Even if we don't agree at all politically, you're still a person that would never have to buy a drink in my town, if ya know what I mean.


 
My thoughts exactly. If Sukerkin is ever in Southern California, it would be my honor to have him as my guest.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 8, 2010)

Tames D said:


> This country (USA) would not exist if not for guns. It only makes sense that gun ownership would be an essential liberty.


 
Interesting, I understand your point, but I wonder if it is true.

Just thinking out loud here, but Canada and Australia for example were former UK colonies that came about simply because the people living there wanted to be independent. (Yes there is more to the equation, but essentially thats it), I would hypotheses that the American colonies would have become independent regardless, it just may have taken a few more years. I would assume what became the Canadian colonies would have been lumped into the mix, and the hypothetical new USA would have included what is now Canada and the US. 

BTW we are allowed to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns up here. Fill in the paperwork, take the course and go buy whatever you want. Make sure you use it, store it and the ammo, as per the rules and youre good. 

Same as you guys, most crimes involving firearms come from illegally owned weapons. Most of which are smuggled in from the US and sold at a stupid profit. 

We ship drugs south, you guys ship guns north.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Interesting, I understand your point, but I wonder if it is true.
> 
> Just thinking out loud here, but Canada and Australia for example were former UK colonies that came about simply because the people living there wanted to be independent. (Yes there is more to the equation, but essentially thats it), I would hypotheses that the American colonies would have become independent regardless, it just may have taken a few more years. I would assume what became the Canadian colonies would have been lumped into the mix, and the hypothetical new USA would have included what is now Canada and the US.



It's hard to know what would have happened, but consider that the sun didn't even begin to set on the British Empire until they had their noses bloodied a couple times; twice by the USA.  They might well not have been so quick to let go of other possessions if they hadn't already begun the slow slide away from empire-building.  But I admit I do not know much about the history of Canada.



> BTW we are allowed to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns up here. Fill in the paperwork, take the course and go buy whatever you want. Make sure you use it, store it and the ammo, as per the rules and youre good.



I'm sure you don't realize it, but the term _'we are allowed'_ rankles many Americans; it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.  We, sir, are not _'allowed'_ to own guns.  We have the right given by our Creator; the federal government is _'forbidden'_ to interfere.  We see that as a massive, huge, monstrous, difference.

I realize I'm about to get pedantic here, but please bear with me, I mean no ill will.  From our point of view (some of us, anyway), people who are 'allowed' to do this or own that are subjects, not citizens.  Free people don't have to be 'allowed' to do anything; everything not prohibited is permitted.  Anything that is given can be taken away again; it just depends upon the turn of fortune.  Rights which are bestowed by a Creator and which the government is forever forbidden from infringing upon may not be taken away under color of law - ever.  Any government which did so would immediately lose their authority to rule.

We care a lot about not just the fact of private firearm possession, but the underpinning reasons for it.  We don't just care about guns, we care about freedom (as we understand the term).  And from our standpoint, freedom can never be bestowed.  It is taken at the point of a gun and it is defended zealously by free men and women.



> Same as you guys, most crimes involving firearms come from illegally owned weapons. Most of which are smuggled in from the US and sold at a stupid profit.
> 
> We ship drugs south, you guys ship guns north.



And no laws against either seem to do much to prevent them.  Which is something I like to point out to the folks who would prefer more gun laws instead of fewer.  More laws work so well for drugs, right?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen. 
-Jeff Cooper


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Just thinking out loud here, but Canada and Australia for example were former UK colonies that came about simply because the people living there wanted to be independent. (Yes there is more to the equation, but essentially thats it), I would hypotheses that the American colonies would have become independent regardless, it just may have taken a few more years. I would assume what became the Canadian colonies would have been lumped into the mix, and the hypothetical new USA would have included what is now Canada and the US.



But then we would have turned out like....

Canada.

:uhyeah:


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> BTW we are allowed to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns up here. Fill in the paperwork, take the course and go buy whatever you want.




Whatever you want?  That  doesn't sound right.  Even we have our Class III firearms that are  tightly restricted.  Canada has restricted, non-restricted and  prohibited, yes?  

As far as doing the paperwork and taking the course, the same could be said about Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

In Hawaii, the right denied, for all practical purposes.  It exists on paper, but from what I hear you have to be very well connected politically to get a license.

In Massachusetts, rights are denied to the poor.  (Say what??)    Some towns will not issue.  Other towns will issue if you hire an attorney to plead your case, or if you plan to carry.  The attorney's fee when I lived there was over $500.00, which included the NRA class but may not have included any extra training (such as:  on firearms you don't fire and don't intend to own) or supporting materials that the attorney thought would be necessary to convince the police chief.   I would have been looking at about $1000.00 more or less, had I applied when I was there...of course, I lived in the "correct" city to exercise my right.  Had I lived in a different city, I would have needed to finance my own relocation to said city before I could begin the legal process.  $1000 for movers plus $2500 up front for first+security, that starts to look like real money, really fast.

In New Hampshire, it does not matter what town I live in, how much money I make, or how well connected I am. 



> Make sure you use it, store it and the ammo, as per the rules and you&#8217;re good.


And the rules are very restrictive, yes?  Could I carry when out on the trail, or in the office alone, or when commuting home for 45 minutes late at night across a rural part of the state?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 9, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> And yet, oddly, probably the most right-wing nation on the planet.  A hard enigma to crack that.



You know, it's not so simple to throw it into box like that.  We have one of the most wild and radical Constitutions on the planet.  The more I learn about the history of my ancestors and why we left Germany and Poland, I bow down to these people and their foresight.  Real European egalitarianism owes a great debt to the Founding Fathers of this country.  I've been reading about the cross pollenization of these true Liberal ideas and the politics of Poland and Brazil and I am stunned by what an impact this must have made on the Old World.  

My family name is Old World Gentry Poland.  We were petty nobles in what was once East Prussia, Kiedrowice to be precise.  Our family left when two gigantic police state autocracies, Russia and Germany, erased Poland from the map because we dared follow America's example.  We came to the New World in order to escape the slavery of the Romanovs and the Prussians.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 9, 2010)

I understand what you&#8217;re saying and I would argue it just semantics, though you may disagree. We are allowed to have a driver&#8217;s, hunting, fishing, boaters, etc license, they are not rights. With your constitution, you have gun ownership as a right, I get that. Canada was founded on firearms too. only an idiot would go into the woods, settle land, or cross the country without protection and a means to hunt.

But in the end we have different perspectives.

BTW you could fire 3 maybe 4 shots from a musket in a minute, which was one of the reasons the British were dominate in Europe for so long.

Bloody noses twice? I know of once, if you&#8217;re referring to 1812, check again, even the most biased American text books call it a draw.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 9, 2010)

Going from memory here. 
You need a valid FAC for rifles and shotguns, a special permit for handguns, and a collectors permit for semi auto assault rifles, (not sure if that one is still valid). You can get a permit for carrying a handgun here, I dont know the ins and outs, but I do know its rare and extremely difficult to get, but they do exist. 
Ive never heard of anyone demanding open carry.
Honestly? Whatever. You guys have your ways, we have ours. Mexico has theirs, the UK has theirs, etc. I find it interesting is all. Many things for various reasons simply are not compatible cross border. All our countries have good points and bad points, and depending on where you are standing you view them with different glasses.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 9, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I understand what youre saying and I would argue it just semantics, though you may disagree.




Yeah, we'll have to disagree on that one.  It's so deeply embedded in our national psyche, it's nearly in the DNA.  Kind of like _"It's an American thing, you wouldn't understand."_  Not to be rude, just sayin'...



> We are allowed to have a drivers, hunting, fishing, boaters, etc license, they are not rights. With your constitution, you have gun ownership as a right, I get that. Canada was founded on firearms too. only an idiot would go into the woods, settle land, or cross the country without protection and a means to hunt.



It's just a creepy thing to even think about for me.  I'm 'allowed'?  ******** on that, sports fans.  We tell the government what they're allowed to restrict, they don't tell us what we're allowed to do.

I'm not a huge Rush Limbaugh fan, so don't assume I listen to talk radio, but he coined a nice phrase when he referred to US culture as 'rugged individualism'.  It's more than just words to us.  We're individuals FIRST, members of society SECOND.




> But in the end we have different perspectives.



Sure do, but that's cool.



> BTW you could fire 3 maybe 4 shots from a musket in a minute, which was one of the reasons the British were dominate in Europe for so long.



Could be, I'm no expert on muzzle-loading weapons.



> Bloody noses twice? I know of once, if youre referring to 1812, check again, even the most biased American text books call it a draw.



If it was a draw, we'd still be giving props to the Queen.  It can't be a draw when we do not.  It was a draw for Britain like Vietnam was a draw for us.  When you're kicked the hell out, you lost.   Even if you went on your own before getting your arses handed to you.  Everything went back to the way it was before invasion; that's a win for the US.  Same as Vietnam, which was a loss for the US.  If you don't get to keep what you took, you lost.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 13, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I understand what youre saying and I would argue it just semantics, though you may disagree. We are allowed to have a drivers, hunting, fishing, boaters, etc license, they are not rights. With your constitution, you have gun ownership as a right, I get that. Canada was founded on firearms too. only an idiot would go into the woods, settle land, or cross the country without protection and a means to hunt.
> 
> But in the end we have different perspectives.
> 
> ...


 
I feel the need to interject.  It's not merely semantics.  It is the underlying philosophy from which we make our decisions.  Things may be the same legally, but not be that way for the same reasons.  The reasoning in the U.S. doesn't just underly gun ownership, but every legal decision that occurs here.  

It's like the legal definition of homicide: the killing of another human being due to the act or omission of another.  But not all homicides are criminal.  What is the difference.  The intent, ie. philosophy behind the action.  Even though the results are the same, a dead human.

Your ability to own guns can be taken away at the whim of the government.  Our (supposedly) can't.  There is nothing that the government (supposedly) can do to take away our ability to legally own firearms without the abolition of the U.S. Constitution, ie., the will of the people.  Legally anyway.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 13, 2010)

Carol said:


> And bad people can get other nasty things that are capable of really screwing a person up. The bangers up here know full well that a $15.00 machete is easier to obtain than an $800.00 Glock.


 

A Glock for $800...!!!!!

You guys are getting screwed.


----------



## Carol (Apr 13, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> A Glock for $800...!!!!!
> 
> You guys are getting screwed.



Tell me about it.  The restrictive laws in Mass. drive up the prices not only in Mass. but the surrounding states too. Sucks.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 13, 2010)

You think that is bad?
A GLOCK costs over 800 euros according to a quick google search.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 13, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You think that is bad?
> A GLOCK costs over 800 euros according to a quick google search.


 
We can get them for $400 in Cali.  But try to get semi-auto rifle (Cali legal) and you're paying $1800.

Wow!


----------

