I wonder if this includes paintball guns...

[Muzikman]

I am pro-gun. I am a NRA Lifer to boot.

But the one thing that people seem to forget is that the constitution refers to a "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This was the reason for the right to bear arms.

[SlartyBartFast]

Not to be too rude

Too bad you failed completely.

But I do appologise if you construed my referenec to "nuts" as applying to you.

The only "right" Canadians have given up is the right to buy any weapon we feel like immediately.

Do I completely agree with Canadain laws? No. It's a PITA that whenever I address this issue with Americans the most vocal is always someone who's ready to just jump down my throat as "one of those Canadians". Wonder if that attitude is part of the reason more and more of the world islooking for excuses not to heed what Americans think or why America garners a lot of undesirable attention.

As for you needing a reason, well guess what, constitution or not, you always need a better reason than the opposite to sway the opinion of majority. Your much adored constitutional right is an AMENDMENT. Amendments can be added, amendments can be repealed.

And paintball markers aren't protected by your precious constitution either. So don't get all haughty with me on that point either.

And well done Muzikman.

Seems too few understand the true meaning of the Amendment. Even as it stands, it would only take political will to confiscate all arms in the US and limit ownership to active duty law enforcement and military. Not that I'd like to necesarily see that happen, but any American who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

[11 Bravo]

^^^^^ Someones sure full of himself.
Seeing how you are Canadian why should any of us give a crap about your oppinion on gun control in America?
Are you calling Charleton Heston and Lapiere(sp) rednecks?

[Muzikman]

I wouldn't say he is full of himself. He just seems to understand that the US's right to own a gun is not a God given right.

[SlartyBartFast]

^^^^^ Someones sure full of himself.
Seeing how you are Canadian why should any of us give a crap about your oppinion on gun control in America?
Are you calling Charleton Heston and Lapiere(sp) rednecks?

Well, Heston needs his gun because he's afraid of black people invading his home. What does that make him?

So what gives all you "my opinion is better than yours" Americans the right to get uptight about BRITISH gun laws. If you're too uptight or insecure to discuss American issues with non-Americans, get your opinion out of non-American issues.

You're American, the rest of the world isn't. Why should we care what you think?

[SlartyBartFast]

I wouldn't say he is full of himself. He just seems to understand that the US's right to own a gun is not a God given right.

Thank you for your support.

The only thing that is "God Given" is life. Everything else is at the whim of society.

Pretty pathetic that a Canadian knows more about the state of American law than many Americans.

[tae]

had to add this...

The only thing that is "God Given" is life. Everything else is at the whim of society.

to that
-----------------------------------------------------
I think people have trouble taking an idea for a belief.

Everyones opinion is valid and has something to teach(and learn!)

[11 Bravo]

[QUOTE

Pretty pathetic that a Canadian knows more about the state of American law than many Americans.[/QUOTE]

Its pretty arrogant that you think that is the case.
I dont think anyone was all up in a snit over British gun laws. I think there was only one or two comments on it. But some people had to go on and on and on about rednecks and whatever. It must be nice to be able to hide behind your computer and call people rednecks.

[hitech]

... the constitution refers to a "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This was the reason for the right to bear arms.

But what was the militia when the constitution was written?

[11 Bravo]

Well you probably shouldnt care what the average American thinks, but you of course do.

Your right the rest of the world is not American, and they should get over it. They were dealt the short hand and should learn to live with it.

[Steelrat]

Well, Heston needs his gun because he's afraid of black people invading his home. What does that make him?

So what gives all you "my opinion is better than yours" Americans the right to get uptight about BRITISH gun laws. If you're too uptight or insecure to discuss American issues with non-Americans, get your opinion out of non-American issues.

You're American, the rest of the world isn't. Why should we care what you think?

[SlartyBartFast]

It must be nice to be able to hide behind your computer and call people rednecks.

Read the posts again.

Comments were made about gun laws.

Comments were made about the stupidity gun laws.

Comments were made anti-gun nuts.

Without any background on the case or British society, the changes to air gun legislation were called "knee jerk".

I then pointed out why pro-gun groups always seem to fail.

If you or anyone else thinks they're being called extreme, a redneck, or a "nut" it's because of what YOUread into the post. Not what is written.

And arrogance? It's obvious I know more about your constitution than those that think their right to bear arms is somehow infallible and inviolable.

[Steelrat]

And paintball markers aren't protected by your precious constitution either. So don't get all haughty with me on that point either.

And well done Muzikman.

Seems too few understand the true meaning of the Amendment. Even as it stands, it would only take political will to confiscate all arms in the US and limit ownership to active duty law enforcement and military. Not that I'd like to necesarily see that happen, but any American who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

Our precious constituion, eh?


If you know so much about our consitution, go read US v. EMERSON (1999) which provides a great explanation of the 2nd amendment. Here is a part of it, with important parts highlighted.



The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. As in England, the colonial militia played primarily a defensive role, with armies of volunteers organized whenever a campaign was necessary. Statutes in effect bore evidence of an individual right to bear arms during colonial times. For example, a 1640 Virginia statute required "all masters of families" to furnish themselves and "all those of their families which shall be capable of arms . . . with arms both offensive and defensive...." The individual right to bear arms, a right recognized in both England and the colonies, was a crucial factor in the colonists' victory over the British army in the Revolutionary War. Without that individual right, the colonists never could have won the Revolutionary War. After declaring independence from England and establishing a new government through the Constitution, the American founders sought to codify the individual right to bear arms, as did their forebears one hundred years earlier in the English Bill of Rights.

The Ratification Debates

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" Noah Webster similarly argued:


Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Thus, the federalists agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.

[SlartyBartFast]

Why is it that almost every one of your posts includes some jab at the US or it's citizens?

Why is it they're always preceeded by the worst example of an American stereotype disparaging MY counrty of origin or simply dismissing my opinions based on where I'm from.

This wasn't about being anti-American until certain Americans made it about being anti-Canadian.

If they can't take it then they shouldn't dish it.

If you're not one of the ones insulting me or my origins, I appologise for the cross fire and ask that you take no offense.

#1 is an American stereotype. It's not really positive or negative. Just reflects The gun mentality. Did you take offense there? What was anti- anything? Paranoia? personally I think that construing a few steps as the sliperry slope to loss of everythin IS paranoia. As is the burning desire for self-protection.

#2 You can't deny that that attitude isn't often experienced by non-Americans.

#3 If they call me names, I can call them names. Get over it. No offense to anybody willing to actually discuss opinions.

#4 Same as #3. I'm told my opinion is worthless because it's Canadian. Fine. Their opinion is worthless because it's American.

#5 Truth. [b]SOME[/] Americans in this thread are quoting constitution at me. And thy're getting it wrong.

You should ask questions of your more vocal and offensive fellow citizens instead of taking immediate offense and jumping to thier defense.

[SlartyBartFast]

If you know so much about our consitution, go read US v. EMERSON (1999) which provides a great explanation of the 2nd amendment.

It's not an explaination. It's legal precedent. It still mixes the notion of the general populace and "militia".

And regardless of how the framers viewed the amendment and it's meaning or how current courts interpret it, the fact remains that an Amendment can be struck if not re-interpreted.

But, IMO, it's a sad state of affairs when you feel the only reason your government will remain true to the population is when thread of violence and force is ever present.