Canada and Guns
In the Dec 7th edition of the New York Times Ian Austen did a nice summary on a topic of long-standing controversy: Canada's gun registry.
The long gun registry was largely prompted by a shocking massacre in Montreal 20 years ago.
Recent votes in Parliament mean the measure may be scrapped where rifles are concerned. (Handguns will continue to be regulated by older legislation.)
At least two interest groups are howling: those concerned with preventing violence against women and gun-control advocates.
“Canada is suddenly changing into a place that loves guns and armies and war,” said Gerald L. Caplan, a prominent academic and former campaign director of the liberal New Democratic Party. “I don’t know how we got there but I don’t like it.”For what it's worth, I disagree with Caplan's characterization. Canadians have rallied behind their military and shown warm support for the troops. But that does not translate into loving guns and war. Canada said "no thanks" to going into Iraq. And polls indicate a majority of Canadians want out of Afghanistan.
The gun registry's got a number of problems. It's a prime example of how laws shaped by urban majorities rankle rural residents. It also aggravates preexisting regional differences. But the real reason it may soon be dead is it somehow evolved into a poster child for government ineptitude and waste.
The registry was designed to pay most of its own way, through the collection of fees. Glitches somehow ballooned the current tab to nearly one billion dollars. Yes, a mind-boggling one billion to register approximately 6.7 million rifles.
Did the measure accomplish the goal of improving public safety? Police chiefs like it but other opinions vary. This Canwest article cites Nov '09 polling numbers that reflect some of the divisions.
Although 80 per cent of Canadians consider gun violence a serious problem, only 11 per cent think the $1-billion gun registry has been effective at preventing crime, according to a new poll.
The Angus Reid survey also found that just over half of Canadians are in favour of scrapping the registry, with the most support from Albertans (77 per cent) and the least from Quebecers (31 per cent).
Canadians remain very concerned about gun violence. But, if you'll excuse the cliché, it appears a majority has concluded this particular registry flunks the 'bang for the buck' test.
posted by Lucy Martin @ 12/09/2009 10:47:00 AM
16 Comments
16 Comments:
Canada, considering its size per capita in relation to the U.S., has been spared the daily, gut wrenching gun violence that is tragically the norm here in the U.S..
Perhaps, despite people owning guns in Canada, they are a people less likely to kill their neighbors?
Is it in their water or is it because they don't have a history of glorifying and worshiping phalic-like objects that go 'bang' when you pull the trigger?
God created man - Samuel Colt made them equal is an old saying.
The fued between the Hatfields & McCoys is proof of that. Our history is rife with stories of men (and a few gun molls) who knew how to kill another human being by the cowardly and clever use of these mechanical devices.
America has a love affair with mechanical devices that can throw a wad of lead with a velocity that can pierce the body-armor of jack-botted police thugs...NRA supporters applaud here...
Lucy, you wrote:
"The registry was designed to pay most of its own way, through the collection of fees. Glitches somehow ballooned the current tab to nearly one billion dollars. Yes, a mind-boggling one billion to register approximately 6.7 million rifles."
That comes to about $150.00 per firearm. Quite a hefty fee. What is the Canadian govt. doing with all that 'dough?'
And our founding fathers had a love affair with those same mechanical devices. They realized free men had the right to arm themselves as they wished. I suppose there's a logical explanation for their including the 2nd Ammend that doesn't involve people being the cause of violence rather than the inanimate object they use be it a gun, club, knife or car?
Your pal Bret, former Jack Booted Thug and Life NRA member.
Not quite the 'same mechanical devices' my friend Bret.
Most had a flint-lock musket, accurate to about 30 paces, loaded and fired one round at a time, and with a fairly low muzzle velocity considering the limitations of black powder charges in those days of yore.
The minority who owned flint-lock rifles, accurate out to 100 - 200 yards in the hands of the average shooter, still loaded and fired one round at a time.
So, Mr. NRA sir, let us go back to the intentions of the founding fathers.
We should have all the militia types and urban commandos and organized crime syndicates, turn in their automatic and semi-automatic cop killers and weapons of mass destruction for flint-lock rifles and muskets, with powder horn, shot pouch, and bullet molds provided free of charge.
That being said, the jack-booted government thugs can pull my M60 machine gun from my cold dead fingers. I'm a macho, macho man.
You can't juxtapose the technology of the late 18th century on 22nd century reality.
Those single-loading, low-velocity, muzzle-loading marvels of the 1700's were the hottest thing of the time.
With these instruments in the hands of freedom-loving individuals, the army of the tryannical government was defeated.
And we'd better allow ourselves the same rights, or we will find ourselves bowing to 22nd century tyranny.
Disclaimer: No personal attacks here. Just a discussion of ideas.
I find it odd that people who cry loudly about "rights and freedoms" almost always look at the 2nd Amend. as some kooky idea that got by the Founders. I don't see how anyone can embrace the others and not the 2nd. They are part and parcel of the same concept.
That is an interesting perspective. The muskets and flint-lock rifles were the hottest things around at 'that' time.
I wonder about the early grenades, mines, bombs, rockets and artillery that also played a large part in the winning of our Revolutionary War.
Did the founding fathers also mean for these devices of 'mass destruction' to be available to every Tom, Dick and Harry (white, wealthy and free at that time) who could afford to own and operate such 'infernal mechanical devices?'
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's from the 2nd amendment.
This was written in the days when these men never, ever thought of, or dreamed of what we have today: a huge, massively funded, nuclear armed, satellites in space, planes flying faster than birds or the idea of planes at all, and lastly a well regulated STANDING army, which is now considered, in our more modern times, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
The farmers militia is a thing of the past. Organized militias were well regulated back in the day. They were necessary to defend the homesteaders and pioneers against roaming bands of pissed off eastern woodland's indigenous peoples, who were unceremoniously thrown out of their longhouses and lands.
So, I guess we could call the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazis, skin-heads, and several varieties of militias based on "RAHOWA" visions of racial warfare, all wanting to have the best and heaviest fire-power available...we can call them 'well regulated militias?'
Well regulated by whom. Self- annointed poppingjay majors and generals in the militia 'armies'?
Are we then to have these 'well regulated' militias on guard to defend us against our army and our police?
After Obama's election there have been record ammunition sales around the country which must demonstrate that we need these militias now more than ever.
For it seems that an imposter has taken residency of our White House - a Muslim, Marxist-Fascist, terrorist loving, Kenyan dictator who wants to destroy America and turn it over to a one world government leading to the antichrist and the final battle of Armeggedon.
And for anyone out there who thinks I speak hyperbole, you need to educate yourselves on how this mindset thinks and what beliefs are held with sincere religious conviction.
Now, what weapons of mass destruction shall we deem too lethal to be left in the hands of drooling, snarling 'patriots?'
The second amendment gives these unregulated buffoons the right to bear arms, even nuclear arms?
Sounds almost like the doctrine of Al Quida to me.
Quite a lot of pure, unadulterated crap in that post Frank. That's just a critical assessment on my part as you're so fond of saying.
The right to bear arms is a simple, personal right. Just as the 1st amend. allows free speech, it has limits. You can't yell fire in a theater and you can't commit a crime with a gun. The 2nd Amend, is a personal right- I have the right to protect myself, my family and my property. That's a simple concept. If you choose not to exercise that right then you're entirely within your rights to do that, just as many people would never speak out against something. It's just not their way.
Now you can go on and on about missiles and nukes and mortars if you wish. That's not part of the argument. Personal arms is what was meant. You can read the Founders thoughts on this and the Supreme Court decisions covering it. Just a child porn isn't covered by free speech, owning your own nuke wouldn't be either.
If you'll take the time to look at the Bill of Rights you'll notice it's all about political rights. Free POLITICAL speech. Fredom to gather and protest the POLITICS of your Gov't. These rights also transfer to common everyday life. That's why our libel and slander laws are so much more open than Great Britans for instance. The 2nd is clearly intended to keep arms in the hands of the citizens to prevent an abusive Gov't from being able to trample the rights of it's people. That idea transfers to everyday life- you're a free citizen, the Gov't has no right to deprive you of your arms unless you demonstrate you're not somehow qualified to have them. A psychopathic nut job shouldn't have a sharp stick, much less a firearm. That end of the discussion is about PEOPLE control.
I have never committed a crime with a gun. I'm not scared of them (read what Freud said about a fear of weapons), I'm not a "gun nut", I have absolutely no desire to harm anyone with a gun. It's a tool, just like a car, a knife, an airplane. Yet, based on fear, many people would deprive me of the right to make use of that tool. They say, "You don't need a gun." I beg to differ, I DO need a gun, several in fact And whats more, I want several and there are no good reasons beyond fear and controlling the citizenry to prevent me from doing so. The 2nd Amend. says nothing about "need", "hunting" or "muzzle loaders only". The day I commit a crime I forfeit that right. Oddly, if I commit a crime I retain ALL my other rights, but the 2nd (a stupid, evil right apparently) is summarily suspended for many reason unrelated to the gun itself or it's use.
This is a huge can of worms. What's important in this case, IMO, is to recognize that rights exercised by one party don't have to be exercised by everyone, that spending billions to register guns makes zero difference in crime and that the issue isn't gun control, it's people control and these laws don't control criminals or make much of a dent in crime. All they do is punish the law abiding gun owner.
Bret, well written and cogent rebuttal.
Now in this instance, I believe we can agree to disagree. The gun debate just doesn't encompace each individual gun owner defending their own back yards.
Certainly you don't mean to be disingenuous when you fail to address the broader issue of armed groupings of 'thugs' or 'patriots' (depending upon ones point of view) in quasi-military private armies and militias?
You believe that the founding fathers established right because they found it was necessary to have every free man avail themselves of a personal firearm (or firearm collection). This was done in order to allow the citizens the right to take up arms against the Indians, outlaws and if necessary, even the founding fathers and/or future generations of pols who would dare take away freedom.
I believe that at that time in history, the idea of America maintaining a hugely expensive, standing army with a well-armed Department of Defense, just didn't exist. Each individual state was expected to provide "well-regulated" militias to the Federal government in times of war. And on the frontiers, all farmers and settlers were expected to own firearms and participate in monthly emergency preparedness drills, as we would call them today. Some local yahoo who had some education would be called colonel and they would parade around like ragamuffin soldiers. Roll call would be taken. Firearms practice and drills would take place. Some states and regions could afford fancy military uniforms and academies.
And most importantly, I believe, that the founding fathers were more concerned about protecting the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by ensuring that each capable and eligible citizen pitched in to the common defense, and I don't believe that the founding fathers meant it to be a defense against our own government.
But I can understand that there is historical writings that support your view.
As for militias in this day and age - if only they were "well regulated" by the states.
We have seen a resurgence and rearmament of the caucasion militias including groups like the Klan, Neo-nazis, skin-heads, RAHOWA, etc., since Barak became president. Probably just a coincidence?
Is this because these folks are getting ready in case they'll be engaging in open warfare with our government any time soon.
Like when healthcare gets passed?
Oh, and Bret, it takes a producer of pure unadultered crap to recognize the stuff. And your product tends to be of the highest quality unadultered crap found anywhere in The In Box.
I can only claim to be a lagging 2nd place.
Militias? That nasty old Bill of Rights gives people the freedom to assemble. Would you argue that? I'll have to make this short since my kids pipes are frozen, but consider this- "The people" in all the rest of the BoR means the whole of the population (yes, I realize back then they didn't have women soldiers, very many free blacks, etc). Why would you argue that "the people" means "the people" in all the rest of the BoR but not in the 2nd Amend.?
Bret4207 you just posted the following:
"Militias? That nasty old Bill of Rights gives people the freedom to assemble. Would you argue that?
December 11, 2009 1:07 PM"
Uhhh, ya I would argue with 'that.' More bovine scatology. Probably because you didn't have time to read through the whole First Amendment.
I've carried a foldable, wallet sized, US Constitution and Bill of Rights for the last 8 years, ever since Bush pushed through the un'Patriot' Act.
You change the 1st Amendment's meaning by leaving out one simple word - "PEACEABLY." Without the word, "PEACEABLY" being acknowledged, teapartiers and birthers and skin-headed, neo-nazis can feel at liberty to carry firearms to assemblies with a direct threat to use violence if pushed. And IMO, they do so longing for a chance to shoot off some of their stockpiles of ammo.
Bret, the full wording of the 1st Amendment follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, seems pretty clear to me. The founding fathers believed that if the citizens had a grievance about anything dealing with their government, then they had the right to protest and assemble, peaceably...not bringing weapons with threats of overthrowing Barak Obama's dictatorship.
Bret, you also, when quoting the 2nd amendment, gloss over and overlook the very words that start out the 2nd amendment: A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE...
I can imagine when you see the ugliness laid out in writing - the ugly reality of the extreme fringe of the teaparty movement and right wing paramilitaries (the Klan, neo-nazis, Christian Identity, John Birchers, etc.), it must really tick you off.
It hurts to have your side of the political divide exposed in this way, doesn't it?
All those 'peaceably' assembling teapartiers/birthers, armed to the teeth with AR15s, and other assorted weapons of insurrection and rebelion.
Seems to me that those on the extreme, who would identify with your side of the political divide, harbor some real nasty terroristic tendencies.
And they are full of rage and hate.
Would you argue with that?
I'm sorry Bret, but I just had to write your reply. It is anticipated that instead of answering for the right wing paramilitaries and militias you'll respond with something like the following:
Frank, what do you have to say about the punks and crazies on the liberal side of the spectrum? What about all of the heavily armed hippy/granola brigades that were marching in DC with bazookas and flame throwers threatening to overthrow Pres. G. W. Bush (greatest compassionate convservative ever)?
What about Bill Ayers, ACORN, SEIU, the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, and the Crips and Bloods?
Don't you think that we need to have right wing militias armed to the teeth (with everything but nukes) to defend my bill of rights against those who would force us to watch Soul Train?
Where were the crowds of Tea Partiers armed to the teeth with AR 15's Frank? Where? That's nothing but fear mongering. You should go to work for MSNBC or Fox with lines like those.
People have a right to assemble. Whats "peaceful" in your opinion may not be peaceful to another. Are the G8 protestors "peaceful"? Were the SEUI thugs beating 9/12 marchers "peaceful"? Did you see any 9/12ers at Washington being riotous in the least? You had two protests where someone came armed. One black guy had an AR-UNLOADED- and at another there was a white guy with a holstered pistol. That doesn't equal "crowds armed to the teeth". That's just exaggeration and fearmongering at it's best.
As for the Neo Nazi, Klan types- bigotry and stupidity aren't illegal. I don't agree with bigotry, I don't like bigotry, but it's not illegal. So far the only "Thought Police" I've run into is a guy named Frank J Thies from the Potsdam area who has an uncanny ability to segregate all thought into various groups- right wing hate, right wing homophobes, right wing stupid and "Agrees with Frank on everything". Would a loud, raucous group of Gitmo Torture protesters descending on Washington meet your definition of "peaceful"? I have a feeling your definition is no more consistent in that regard than anyone elses.
Your argument is based on fear, not fact Frank. You seem to think you have an inside line in just what each person or group thinks. That's amazing. So how would you catalog me Frank? I'm conservative, I was in law enforcement for 23 years, I've never committed a crime and have no wish to. I have lots of guns, knives, hammers, chainsaws, cars, clubs, ropes and other deadly weapons and dangerous instruments. I don't like Obamas politics but have no wish to see any harm come to him or anyone else. So how and why exactly would go about taking away my rights? Please, explain why my rights are less unalienable than yours. And what would you base your action on? Your interpretation of The Constitution and BoR? The same BoR that allows you the freedom to live as an American? So one aprt of the BoR is good because you agree with it and another is bad because you don't? That's your argument?
Convince me Frank. This I gotta see.
I am a gun owner and it is my opinion that there are enough laws on the books. Passing more laws limiting everyones freedoms will not buy you or me one more second of security.
Being armed does not rule out peaceful assembly. Being armed is the right of the people, period, no exceptions. The 2nd Amendment was not written for the government, it was written for the people. Excuse me for saying so, but I see no "right" in the Constitution for the government to be armed. Even the F.B.I. was not armed until 1934. We would not have any gun laws if Miller (as in Miller v. Federal) had shown up in 1934 to argue for his Constitutional rights. Liberals are great at re-writing history. Still does not change the facts.
Bret, a very good response.
If you reread my smart-ass post just a few above your last, the one in which I take the libertine liberty of responding for you - I wrote from your perspective and it seems that we agree. You even mention those SEIU thugs, as did I.
So, we have a right to agree to agree to disagree.
Lastly, I have said before, that there are 'teapartiers' of as many stripes and varieties as there are liberals.
Bret, I've read enough of your stuff to know that you're not on the extreme side of your side. Even taking in your previous position re. torture, and your suspicions that Obama is not an American by birth; has not accomplished much in life (compared to someone such as Palin); and is a danger to America. I don't consider those beliefs any more extreme than some of those on my side who claim that Bush was AWOL from the Air Force; allowed 9/11 to take place; or stole the 2000/2004 elections.
If you were one of the right-wing loonies armed to the teeth in a tinpan militia, ready to fight the govt., and the 'mudraces' in a final battle of Armeggedon, then I'd call you extreme.
Understand that when I point to the extreme of YOUR poltical side of the sprectrum, it is in no way suggesting that you are part of that extreme or that you accept it uncritically.
I was curious about what you thought of the Klan, Nazis, Christian Identiy and such. I was not asking for you to defend them.
Thanks for a good answer.
Frank, I'd still appreciate an answer on just why and how you think it's right to subjugate the 2nd amend. In my mind, while there are limits to our rights, full and free use of those rights is something we should all be able to practice as we see fit. I simply can't comprehend your positions when they're so inconsistent. How can you support so much of the BoR while at the same time dismissing another part? If we do away with our right to be armed (which will likely raise the crime rate as it did in Australia)who are you punishing? The criminal? How? I can provide dozens of cases where citizens legally and correctly used a gun to defend themselves and their property each month. How does disarming them make us safer? What does it do to those of us to whom a gun is more of a tool than a weapon? Should I put down an injured cow by bashing it's head in with a hammer or cutting it's throat while it's conscious? That's sure humane. And what of those who make shooting a hobby? It's safe, legal family hobby for many people. It's far safer than sports or swimming or bicycle riding or even driving a car according to the insurance industry stats.
The problem with guns is fear. Fear of an inanimate object wielded by another human. The human is the problem. To stop the gang violence, etc. requires subjugating other basic Rights. You want drug and gang violence stopped I can tell you just how to do it, but I can also guarantee you (and I) would object to random searches, warrantless entry and searches, summary execution, etc. It's not something I'm willing to do.
FWIW- I could get along just fine with a good muzzle loader Frank. I have a little 36 cal percussion rifle that's a great deal of fun, very inexpensive to shoot and only a pain because black powder requires a thorough cleaning. Same for my 54 cal Plains style rifle. But the BoR doesn't limit me or anyone else to a muzzle loader. IMO we can;t have it both ways, either the BoR means what it says or it doesn't.
Incidentally, in the original documents there are no commas after "militia" and "arms". A small point, but it changes the tone of the 2nd. I can provide a link to a discussion of the differences if you wish.
Post a Comment
<< Home