Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Dear Americans: About that Second Amendment "right to bear arms" thing ...


I think this guy made a couple of good points:

The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Now, it's not like I'm suggesting anything here but ... the right to bear arms ... unprincipled, tyrannical government ... can't be too hard to connect those dots, can it?

14 comments:

v said...

Fun Canadian Fact: Young Canadians don't like The Gun Registry:

"But, the most striking age difference emerges on the issue of Canada's gun registry. Just over half of young people are opposed to doing away with the gun registry entirely. That position is very much a minority opinion among older Canadians, especially those aged 60 and over."

from "Missing The Message: Young Adults and Election Issues"
Elections Canada

This, combined with those near-American quality TV ads the CPC are running, leave me in somewhat of a cocky mood this morning: how does "Canadian Foreign Affairs Minsiter Helena Guergis" sound to you?

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

Actually Anonalogue,

The quote you give from Elections Canada actually says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim in your opening sentence that it says.

The majority of young Canadians are AGAINST DOING AWAY WITH the gun registry. That means the majority of young Canadians want to KEEP the gun registry.

Now, if you're happy because old people dislike the registry, and young people like it, and old people are more likely to vote, then that's a legitimate point. But I was quite confused to read "Young Canadians don't like the Gun Registry" followed immediately by a quote which says that despite all its problems the majority of young people want to KEEP IT.

In answer to your question "How does 'Canadian Foreign Affairs Minsiter Helena Guergis' sound to you?" my answer is "Improbable".

:-)

Lone Primate said...

Did you actually read that report? The cresting wave of young people don't seem to have many values that ought to buoy the spirits of conservatives. I have to admit, I'm at a loss to understand your point. Young Canadians don't like the gun registry? The majority of them oppose scrapping it. It's middle aged and especially older Canadians who seem to want the registry scrapped. The suggestion is that as time goes by, Canadians are increasingly supportive of the registry, particularly among younger generations. "Fun Canadian Fact: Old Canadians don't like the Gun Registry", you mean.

Noel M said...

Damn those pinko commies at Elections Canada. How dare they use that nanny state "double negative" new-speak to confuse those intellectually challenged conservatives.

Ann Coulter Of Canada said...

You STUPID MOONBATS!

Can't you FFFING Read?

Are you illiterate, stupid, or mentally ill?

dAVE said...

The problem with militias and well armed citizens down here in the States, is that they tend to be right-wing nutjobs who would aid the current administration in becoming a tyrrany.

They would be quite at home as part of a Guatemalan death squad.

Junker said...

Sterotypes abound, of course all gun owners are right wing nutjobs.

The article has some interesting thoughts, but times have changed since the mid 1800's. Modern armies cannot be largely decommisioned in 'peacetime'. Events happen too fast nowdays, 'peacetime' is too hazy a term in the post-modern era, and the army needs constant training to maintain an edge.

Fun fact, a prisoner has yet to die at Guantanamo Bay. Must be the special dietary meals flown in from the states that help em stave off death...

Adam said...

Well, since we don't know who's gone IN to Guantanamo, and we don't know who's come back OUT, it's hard to call it a 'fact' that noone has died there.

Great motto though: "Almost four years, and no murders yet!"

dAVE said...

junker -
I didn't say all gun owners. I'm talking about the stockpiling - end of the world is coming milita types.

Stop reading things into what people type to fit your own stereotypes.

ya nutjob.

CC said...

Great motto though: "Almost four years, and no murders yet!"

I was thinking much the same myself:

"Gitmo: No one killed yet. That you know of, anyway."

Lone Primate said...

but times have changed since the mid 1800's. Modern armies cannot be largely decommisioned in 'peacetime'. Events happen too fast nowdays, 'peacetime' is too hazy a term in the post-modern era, and the army needs constant training to maintain an edge.

Times have changed since the mid-1800s? I don't know... sounds to me like you're quoting Cecil Rhodes here. Hey, you wanna keep down the pesky brown folks with their gold, diamonds, oil, whatever, you have to ready. Who knows who's going to stand up and demand their sovereign rights be respected next? God, might even be Iran.

Junker said...

Re Dave: So "well armed citizens" equals "end of the world is coming" types.

Thats all cleared up now. Sorry I misread and created all this confusion.

"Well, since we don't know who's gone IN to Guantanamo, and we don't know who's come back OUT, it's hard to call it a 'fact' that noone has died there."

If this is your reasoning, then its impossible to call ANYTHING a fact. I guess, unless you and I see it with our own eyes, it hasn't happened...

Not sure what you are on about Lone Primate. I only brought up the 1800's because the commentary presented to us by CC is indeed from the 1800's. CC thought it was relevent to the discussion, and I guess so did I.

Adam said...

Junker: you have a very good point; eventually, we have to believe somebody because we can't possibly verify everything we hear in person.

But in this case, no-one seems to dispute that the identity and number of prisoners at Guantanamo at any given time is being kept secret from the public - and even from third-party monitoring groups such as the Red Cross. When the state invokes this level of secrecy it's very easy to disbelieve their claims of what is going on behind closed doors and blacked-out windows.

And - to get political again - it's starting to seem like the Guantanamo prisoners will be dying of old age before they get anything resembling due process... I guess the 14 year olds have a while to go...

Lone Primate said...

Not sure what you are on about Lone Primate. I only brought up the 1800's because the commentary presented to us by CC is indeed from the 1800's. CC thought it was relevent to the discussion, and I guess so did I.

Well, okay... how about "a lot's changed since the 1780s"? When the Second Amendment was penned, guns were smooth-bored muzzle-loaders. A pro might get off three shots in a minute, and be lucky to hit a man-sized target 30 yards away about one time in five. Now anyone with fingers can get that many shots off in a semi-automatic second, accurate to half a mile. In that time, slavery's been removed from the US Constitution, senatorial elections have been made direct, women have been given the vote... but this pre-War of 1812 nightmare still stands. Tell me, is the United States better off having a handgun in ever desk drawer, liquor cabinet, and glove compartment in the country, at the beck and call of Joe Sixpack? Not to mention any gun-hungry criminal who breaks into any of these things. Never mind Canada (as I'm sure you don't), awash in the overflow of US excesses, as usual.