The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,884
- Points
- 1,040
>However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?
Relief to not be a victim.
Conservative good government is government which respects the freedoms and rights of the individual. To call oneself a conservative believing in good government while supporting arbitrary infringments of the freedoms of the individual is a contradiction.
Relief to not be a victim.
Conservative good government is government which respects the freedoms and rights of the individual. To call oneself a conservative believing in good government while supporting arbitrary infringments of the freedoms of the individual is a contradiction.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Tom:
After reading your post, I went to http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp and read the following:
Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show.
This is apparently supposed to take effect on Apr. 10.
This absolutely means that after April 10th I will no longer be able to fire my C1, doesn't it?
Bastards indeed!
After reading your post, I went to http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp and read the following:
Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show.
This is apparently supposed to take effect on Apr. 10.
This absolutely means that after April 10th I will no longer be able to fire my C1, doesn't it?
Bastards indeed!
- Reaction score
- 16,596
- Points
- 1,260
Yes indeed - seems as the typical retarded leftleaning Liberal polical agenda - that they would simply change the law and give people another "feel good" change - now those evil HK91 rifles (well at least the legal ones that had been registered and where no illegally converted to automatic and paper dewatted..) cannot go to the range.
Somedays I just feel sick to be a Canadian - home of whimsical legal changes without any due process.
Somedays I just feel sick to be a Canadian - home of whimsical legal changes without any due process.
I posted this on the "self Defence" thread, but it also applies here, so:
----- Original Message -----
From: "AOB" <awpaob@telus.net>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.
Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen
The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
MAR 1 5 2005
A.W. Parsons
2307 - 85 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6K 3H1
Dear A.W. Parsons:
The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding. The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house. Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that property, or to remove someone who is already trespassing.
In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself, the person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.
In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault,
which includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an attempt or threat to apply force.
Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal, such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would therefore have to be considered on its own.
I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours sincerely,
A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
Irwin Cotler
----- Original Message -----
From: "AOB" <awpaob@telus.net>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.
Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen
The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
MAR 1 5 2005
A.W. Parsons
2307 - 85 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6K 3H1
Dear A.W. Parsons:
The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding. The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house. Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that property, or to remove someone who is already trespassing.
In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself, the person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.
In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault,
which includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an attempt or threat to apply force.
Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal, such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would therefore have to be considered on its own.
I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours sincerely,
A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
Irwin Cotler
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:21:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Calgary Herald
letter sent unpublished
I read with interest "Shielding youth from firearm"2005.03.24, Real Life,E3, Men's Health.
Professor Keenan (Informational Systems Professional) used studies done by the Medical Community to make recommendations to the Firearms Community concerning shielding our youth from firearms. They include such things as: keeping a gun locked; storing a gun unloaded; locking up ammunition; storing
the gun and ammunition separately etc. These things are covered by hunter and firearm safety courses in our provinces. I agree amd also feel we should have mandatory firearms safety courses at some level in our public schools making firearm safety concepts universal.
However, owning a gun, sport shooting, gun collecting and hunting are NOT risky activities as Keenan and the Medical folks suggest.. Actuaries and Insurance Companies who make their living by assessing risk, don't
even ask an applicant if he/she owns a firearm. "The Insurance Bureau of Canada" confirms that the presence of firearms in a home would only be relevant to insurers if they were considered as valuable personal property. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said that "firearms ownership
was not a rated activity and was not considered for underwriting purposes."
If we do want to find a risky business let's look at the Medical Community, the source of Keenan's article.. Some of these folks can't even buy malpractice insurance. Here is what the media have to say about their
industry. "Explosive' study: medical errors kill 24,000 a year: Human & financial costs: Rate of 'adverse events' is double that in U.S. hospitals. As many as 24,000 patients die in Canadian hospitals each year, while
tens of thousands more are crippled, injured or poisoned in association with medical errors that could have been prevented." (National Post)
"A new landmark study of 20 hospitals in five provinces found one in 13 patients suffers an adverse event, more than double the rate found in studies of U.S. hospitals."
"I think this is pretty explosive data," said Alan Forster, a health services researcher at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The study, to be published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found 185,000
patients a year suffer adverse events. The US fairs a little better. But "data that have been collected about fatalities caused by America's health care system suggest that the anti-gun fervor of some doctors is born
of a desire to shift the blame from their own shortcomings." (National Post)
"Deaths from guns are more highly publicized than are deaths from malpractice, hospital-induced infections, careless prescriptions and other health care system causes, and that makes guns a handy target for
diverting attention from medicine's own death toll. It is not good science to depict guns as the biggest threat to America's children, but it sure beats accepting responsibility for one's own shortcomings.
In an article by Dr. Gary Null, et. al., (read archived article) government statistics were gathered to present an overall picture of the extent of death-by-medical-system that afflicts the United States.
Here is a summary of the data supporting Dr. Null's conclusion that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.
For comparison, in 2001, the heart disease annual death toll was 699,697, and the cancer death toll was 553,251. The medical system death toll was 783,936!"(NewsWithViews.com)
SO, if Dr. Keenan (ISP) lives by a standard of conduct he would have written a more balanced. less misleading presentation with better consultation May I suggest to him that before his next visit to a
health care facility he closes his pores by washing himself in cold soapy water and while there consider wearing a respirator, although they do tend to detract from the humble image some patients are seeking. Remember, the Medical Community offers you a much higher risk of incurring health problems from contact with the byproducts and emissions from its discharges than does the Firearms Community. If in doubt ask the Insurance Community.
Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Calgary Herald
letter sent unpublished
I read with interest "Shielding youth from firearm"2005.03.24, Real Life,E3, Men's Health.
Professor Keenan (Informational Systems Professional) used studies done by the Medical Community to make recommendations to the Firearms Community concerning shielding our youth from firearms. They include such things as: keeping a gun locked; storing a gun unloaded; locking up ammunition; storing
the gun and ammunition separately etc. These things are covered by hunter and firearm safety courses in our provinces. I agree amd also feel we should have mandatory firearms safety courses at some level in our public schools making firearm safety concepts universal.
However, owning a gun, sport shooting, gun collecting and hunting are NOT risky activities as Keenan and the Medical folks suggest.. Actuaries and Insurance Companies who make their living by assessing risk, don't
even ask an applicant if he/she owns a firearm. "The Insurance Bureau of Canada" confirms that the presence of firearms in a home would only be relevant to insurers if they were considered as valuable personal property. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said that "firearms ownership
was not a rated activity and was not considered for underwriting purposes."
If we do want to find a risky business let's look at the Medical Community, the source of Keenan's article.. Some of these folks can't even buy malpractice insurance. Here is what the media have to say about their
industry. "Explosive' study: medical errors kill 24,000 a year: Human & financial costs: Rate of 'adverse events' is double that in U.S. hospitals. As many as 24,000 patients die in Canadian hospitals each year, while
tens of thousands more are crippled, injured or poisoned in association with medical errors that could have been prevented." (National Post)
"A new landmark study of 20 hospitals in five provinces found one in 13 patients suffers an adverse event, more than double the rate found in studies of U.S. hospitals."
"I think this is pretty explosive data," said Alan Forster, a health services researcher at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The study, to be published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found 185,000
patients a year suffer adverse events. The US fairs a little better. But "data that have been collected about fatalities caused by America's health care system suggest that the anti-gun fervor of some doctors is born
of a desire to shift the blame from their own shortcomings." (National Post)
"Deaths from guns are more highly publicized than are deaths from malpractice, hospital-induced infections, careless prescriptions and other health care system causes, and that makes guns a handy target for
diverting attention from medicine's own death toll. It is not good science to depict guns as the biggest threat to America's children, but it sure beats accepting responsibility for one's own shortcomings.
In an article by Dr. Gary Null, et. al., (read archived article) government statistics were gathered to present an overall picture of the extent of death-by-medical-system that afflicts the United States.
Here is a summary of the data supporting Dr. Null's conclusion that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.
For comparison, in 2001, the heart disease annual death toll was 699,697, and the cancer death toll was 553,251. The medical system death toll was 783,936!"(NewsWithViews.com)
SO, if Dr. Keenan (ISP) lives by a standard of conduct he would have written a more balanced. less misleading presentation with better consultation May I suggest to him that before his next visit to a
health care facility he closes his pores by washing himself in cold soapy water and while there consider wearing a respirator, although they do tend to detract from the humble image some patients are seeking. Remember, the Medical Community offers you a much higher risk of incurring health problems from contact with the byproducts and emissions from its discharges than does the Firearms Community. If in doubt ask the Insurance Community.
Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask
From: "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
Subject: My letter to the CFC
Should be self-explanatory.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Mills <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
To: <cfc-cafc@cfc-cafc.gc.ca>
Cc: Breitkreuz, G - Assistant 1 <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca>; Russ Powers
<Powers.R@parl.gc.ca>; <Kathleen.Roussel@CFC-CAFC.GC.CA>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:41 AM
Subject: Error on CFC Website
To whom it may concern:
On your web page regarding the changes to the Firearms Act made by Bill C-10A at:
http://www.cfc.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp
"Firearms Act Amendments Coming Into Force - Backgrounder"
Under the section "Transporting Firearms (Individuals)" you say: "Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for
specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show."
This is extremely misleading. While non-12(6) prohibited firearms may not be transported under an Authorization To Transport for "shootingpurposes", they never could even under the old version of the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act did and still allows non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be taken to shooting ranges on an "occasional" basis under the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, Registration: SOR/98-208, P.C.
1998-483, 24 March, 1998:
POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED FIREARMS
13. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the possession of a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) of the Act, may be authorized by a chief firearms officer to possess such a firearm in the circumstances set out in subsection 14(1) or (2).
14. (1) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the following activities are to take place may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
section 13 at a shooting range and in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that is, in all the circumstances, reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and the shooting range
(a) in the case of an automatic firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes on an occasional basis, at a shooting range maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National
Defence Act; and
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under
section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.
(2) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the individual referred to in section 13 resides may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
that section in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and a customs office if the firearm is being used on an occasional basis at an event outside of Canada.
As these Regulations did not seem to be repealed by the most recent spate of Amendments to the Regulations made on 29 November, 2004, it must still be possible to take such firearms to shooting ranges under FA s. 17, as amended by Bill C-10A s. 15:
17. Subject to sections 19 and 20, a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, the holder of the registration certificate for which is an individual, may be possessed only at the dwelling-house of the individual, as recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registry, ***or at a place authorized by a chief firearms officer***.
This is the same as it has always been, even under the former provisions of the Firearms Act: Non-12(6) prohibited firearms were never "transported" under an Authorization to Transport - they were always "possesed" at a place other than the dwelling-house of the registrant under a Special
Authority to Possess permit.
Unless you have repealed the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, or no longer intend to allow non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be "possessed" under its auspices, please change the erroneous information contained on your website.
Bruce N. Mills
Dundas, Ont.
Subject: My letter to the CFC
Should be self-explanatory.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Mills <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
To: <cfc-cafc@cfc-cafc.gc.ca>
Cc: Breitkreuz, G - Assistant 1 <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca>; Russ Powers
<Powers.R@parl.gc.ca>; <Kathleen.Roussel@CFC-CAFC.GC.CA>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:41 AM
Subject: Error on CFC Website
To whom it may concern:
On your web page regarding the changes to the Firearms Act made by Bill C-10A at:
http://www.cfc.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp
"Firearms Act Amendments Coming Into Force - Backgrounder"
Under the section "Transporting Firearms (Individuals)" you say: "Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for
specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show."
This is extremely misleading. While non-12(6) prohibited firearms may not be transported under an Authorization To Transport for "shootingpurposes", they never could even under the old version of the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act did and still allows non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be taken to shooting ranges on an "occasional" basis under the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, Registration: SOR/98-208, P.C.
1998-483, 24 March, 1998:
POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED FIREARMS
13. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the possession of a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) of the Act, may be authorized by a chief firearms officer to possess such a firearm in the circumstances set out in subsection 14(1) or (2).
14. (1) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the following activities are to take place may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
section 13 at a shooting range and in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that is, in all the circumstances, reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and the shooting range
(a) in the case of an automatic firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes on an occasional basis, at a shooting range maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National
Defence Act; and
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under
section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.
(2) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the individual referred to in section 13 resides may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
that section in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and a customs office if the firearm is being used on an occasional basis at an event outside of Canada.
As these Regulations did not seem to be repealed by the most recent spate of Amendments to the Regulations made on 29 November, 2004, it must still be possible to take such firearms to shooting ranges under FA s. 17, as amended by Bill C-10A s. 15:
17. Subject to sections 19 and 20, a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, the holder of the registration certificate for which is an individual, may be possessed only at the dwelling-house of the individual, as recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registry, ***or at a place authorized by a chief firearms officer***.
This is the same as it has always been, even under the former provisions of the Firearms Act: Non-12(6) prohibited firearms were never "transported" under an Authorization to Transport - they were always "possesed" at a place other than the dwelling-house of the registrant under a Special
Authority to Possess permit.
Unless you have repealed the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, or no longer intend to allow non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be "possessed" under its auspices, please change the erroneous information contained on your website.
Bruce N. Mills
Dundas, Ont.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/oag-bvg.nsf/html/feedbk_e.html
EXCERPT FROM THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S DECEMBER 2002 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
The program became excessively regulatory
10.67 In February 2001, the Department told the Government it had
wanted
to focus on the minority of firearms owners that posed a high risk
while
minimizing the impact on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding
owners. However, the Department concluded that this did not happen.
Rather, it stated that the Program's focus had changed from high risk
firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls
over
all owners and their firearms. The Department concluded that, as a
result, the Program had become overly complex and very costly to
deliver, and that it had become difficult for owners to comply with the
Program.
10.68 The Department said the excessive regulation had occurred because
some of its Program partners believed that
* the use of firearms is in itself a "questionable activity" that
required strong controls, and
* there should be a zero-tolerance attitude toward non-compliance with
the Firearms Act.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html
EXCERPT FROM THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S DECEMBER 2002 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
The program became excessively regulatory
10.67 In February 2001, the Department told the Government it had
wanted
to focus on the minority of firearms owners that posed a high risk
while
minimizing the impact on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding
owners. However, the Department concluded that this did not happen.
Rather, it stated that the Program's focus had changed from high risk
firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls
over
all owners and their firearms. The Department concluded that, as a
result, the Program had become overly complex and very costly to
deliver, and that it had become difficult for owners to comply with the
Program.
10.68 The Department said the excessive regulation had occurred because
some of its Program partners believed that
* the use of firearms is in itself a "questionable activity" that
required strong controls, and
* there should be a zero-tolerance attitude toward non-compliance with
the Firearms Act.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:05:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: Gun laws won't protect you
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2624269
Gun laws won't protect you from someone bent on violence
W. Clark Aposhian
We at Utah Self-Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN) are deeply
saddened at
the
senseless loss of life that occurred last week at Red Lake High School
in
Minnesota.
This situation, like other recent mass shootings, is frustrating to us
in
that we believe
they are largely preventable.
This is yet another shooting in another place ignorantly perceived as
safe
because of signs and policies that prohibit weapons. Yet these places
take
little, if any, affirmative action to ensure safety, let alone
allowing for
lawful self-defense. They pay lip service to security procedures and
personnel and place "feel good" signs restricting weapons.
These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing
as
they take the attention off the real problems. They further a sense of
complacency with respect to security. Ignorantly we assume a sign
stating
"No Guns Allowed" will protect us.
I look forward to an enlivening and enlarging of the debate regarding
firearms in schools. US-DIN has never been more committed to
maintaining the
ability for lawful concealed carry in Utah's schools and elsewhere.
Utah, as
one of few states that allow concealed carry in schools, is watched
carefully as a "laboratory" of sorts for concealed carry in these
environments. Concealed weapons have been allowed in schools since
1995 that
has been recently re-enforced with legislation. We have also resisted
efforts that would have mitigated lawful
self-defense in schools and churches.
Utah's and, for that matter, the nation's permit holders have proven
they
are safe and many times more law-abiding than the general public. Such
debate will certainly reveal the goal of the anti-self-defense groups
which seek to promote their ideologically driven agenda by fear and
untruths
which fuel and perpetuate
the public's misunderstanding of the facts. These groups had an ideal
situation at Red Lake High School:
No guns allowed per Minnesota and tribal law.
A guard and metal detectors present at entrance.
The shooter was on home study, barred from school grounds.
He was too young to own, let alone possess, firearms, per state and
tribal
law.
The firearms were not obtained from a gun show.
The firearms were legally registered and came from the home of a law
enforcement officer.
What additional laws would have prevented this?
There are some commonalities among the recent shootings in Wisconsin,
Georgia and Minnesota:
They all occurred in gun-free zones; 95 percent of those shot were not
allowed to carry a firearm.
Police were "targeted" because their weapons were visibly a threat.
Shooters were able to kill unimpeded, knowing that there would be no
return
fire.
Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and
enact
"rules against firearms." These rules are only effective against that
segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not
influence compliance by someone bent on violence.
We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure
safety.
Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be
inhibited
by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.
Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an
employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed
firearm.
However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when
lawful
concealed carry was disallowed.
We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to
allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents
to
increasingly unsafe environments.
- ---
W. Clark Aposhian is chairman of US-DIN, a network of Utah concealed
firearm
instructors, and a member of the Utah Department of Public
Safety/Bureau of
Criminal Identification's concealed carry review board.
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: Gun laws won't protect you
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2624269
Gun laws won't protect you from someone bent on violence
W. Clark Aposhian
We at Utah Self-Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN) are deeply
saddened at
the
senseless loss of life that occurred last week at Red Lake High School
in
Minnesota.
This situation, like other recent mass shootings, is frustrating to us
in
that we believe
they are largely preventable.
This is yet another shooting in another place ignorantly perceived as
safe
because of signs and policies that prohibit weapons. Yet these places
take
little, if any, affirmative action to ensure safety, let alone
allowing for
lawful self-defense. They pay lip service to security procedures and
personnel and place "feel good" signs restricting weapons.
These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing
as
they take the attention off the real problems. They further a sense of
complacency with respect to security. Ignorantly we assume a sign
stating
"No Guns Allowed" will protect us.
I look forward to an enlivening and enlarging of the debate regarding
firearms in schools. US-DIN has never been more committed to
maintaining the
ability for lawful concealed carry in Utah's schools and elsewhere.
Utah, as
one of few states that allow concealed carry in schools, is watched
carefully as a "laboratory" of sorts for concealed carry in these
environments. Concealed weapons have been allowed in schools since
1995 that
has been recently re-enforced with legislation. We have also resisted
efforts that would have mitigated lawful
self-defense in schools and churches.
Utah's and, for that matter, the nation's permit holders have proven
they
are safe and many times more law-abiding than the general public. Such
debate will certainly reveal the goal of the anti-self-defense groups
which seek to promote their ideologically driven agenda by fear and
untruths
which fuel and perpetuate
the public's misunderstanding of the facts. These groups had an ideal
situation at Red Lake High School:
No guns allowed per Minnesota and tribal law.
A guard and metal detectors present at entrance.
The shooter was on home study, barred from school grounds.
He was too young to own, let alone possess, firearms, per state and
tribal
law.
The firearms were not obtained from a gun show.
The firearms were legally registered and came from the home of a law
enforcement officer.
What additional laws would have prevented this?
There are some commonalities among the recent shootings in Wisconsin,
Georgia and Minnesota:
They all occurred in gun-free zones; 95 percent of those shot were not
allowed to carry a firearm.
Police were "targeted" because their weapons were visibly a threat.
Shooters were able to kill unimpeded, knowing that there would be no
return
fire.
Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and
enact
"rules against firearms." These rules are only effective against that
segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not
influence compliance by someone bent on violence.
We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure
safety.
Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be
inhibited
by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.
Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an
employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed
firearm.
However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when
lawful
concealed carry was disallowed.
We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to
allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents
to
increasingly unsafe environments.
- ---
W. Clark Aposhian is chairman of US-DIN, a network of Utah concealed
firearm
instructors, and a member of the Utah Department of Public
Safety/Bureau of
Criminal Identification's concealed carry review board.
FIREARMS CONTROL
A gang that couldn't shoot straight
The Liberals' gun registry program was pointed at Kim Campbell, not crime. That's why it shot itself in the foot, says former justice adviser JOHN DIXON
We now know that the government's gun-control policy is a fiscal and administrative debacle. Its costs rival those of core services like national defence. And it doesn't work. What is less well known is that the policy wasn't designed to control guns. It was designed to control Kim Campbell. When Ms. Campbell was enjoying a brief season of success in her re-election bid in the summer campaign of 1993, Mr. Chretien was kept busy reassuring what he called the "Nervous Nellies" in his caucus that Ms. Campbell's star would soon fall. To bring her down, the Liberals planned to discredit her key accomplishment as minister of justice, an ambitious gun-control package.
Those measures -- enacted in the wake of the Montreal Massacre -- included new requirements for the training and certification of target shooters and hunters. We got new laws requiring: the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, which essentially brought every gun in the country under lock and key; screening of applicants for firearms licences; courts to actively seek information about firearms in spousal assault cases; the prohibition of firearms that had no place in Canada's field-and-stream tradition of firearms use.
I was one of the department of justice officials involved in that earlier gun-control program. When the House of Commons passed the legislation, Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathgen of the Coalition for Gun Control, which had been part of the consultation process, supplied the champagne for a party at my Ottawa home.
So what were the Liberals to do, faced with a legislative accomplishment on this scale?
Simple: Pretend it hadn't happened, and promise to do something so dramatic that it would make Ms. Campbell look soft on gun control. The obvious policy choice was a universal firearms registry.
The idea of requiring the registration of every firearm in the country wasn't new. Governments love lists. Getting lists and maintaining them is a visible sign that the government is at work. And lists are the indispensable first step to collecting taxes and licence fees. There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada, as is arguably the case in the United States.
So why not go for a universal gun registry? The short answer, arrived at by every study in the Department of Justice, was that universal registration would be ruinously expensive, and could actually yield a negative public security result (more on this in a moment). Besides, in 1992 Canada already had two systems of gun registration: the complete registry of all restricted firearms, such as handguns (restricted since the 1930s) and a separate registry of ordinary firearms.
This latter registry, which started in the early 1970s, was a feature of the firearms acquisition certificate (or FAC) required by a person purchasing any firearm. Every firearm purchased from a dealer had to be registered to the FAC holder by the vendor, and the record of the purchase passed on to the RCMP in Ottawa. So we were already building a cumulative registry of all the owners of guns in Canada purchased since 1970.
The FAC system was a very Canadian (i.e. sensible) approach to the registration of ordinary hunting and target firearms. If you were a good ol' boy from Camrose, Alta., and didn't want to get involved, you didn't have to -- as long as you didn't buy more guns. Good ol' boys die off, so younger people in shooting sports would eventually all be enrolled in the system.
After the Montreal Massacre, the then-deputy minister of justice, John Tait, asked me to review the gun-control package under development. One thing I immediately wanted to know was how many Canadians owned Ruger Mini-14s (the gun used by the Montreal murderer). The Mini-14 came into production about the time the FAC system was introduced, so the FAC should have a good picture of the gun's distribution.
But when our team asked the RCMP for the information, we couldn't get it. Computers were down; the information hadn't been entered yet; there weren't enough staff to process the request; there was a full moon. After a week, I said I didn't want excuses, I wanted the records. Then a very senior person sat me down and told me the truth.
The RCMP had stopped accepting FAC records, and had actually destroyed those it already had. The FAC registry system didn't exist because the police thought it was useless and refused to waste their limited budgets maintaining it. They also moved to ensure that their political masters could not resurrect it.
Such spectacular bureaucratic vandalism persuaded my deputy and his minister to concentrate on developing com- pliance with affordable gun-control measures that could work. A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn't care about costs or results, and who didn't understand what riled up decent folks in Camrose.
Which is precisely why it appealed to those putting together the Liberal Red Book for the pivotal 1993 election. If the object of the policy exercise was to appear to be "tougher" on guns than Kim Campbell, they had to find a policy that would provoke legitimate gun-owners to outrage. Nothing would better convince the Liberals' urban constituency that Jean Chretien and Allan Rock were taking a tough line on guns than the spectacle of angry old men spouting fury on Parliament Hill.
The supreme irony of the gun registry battle is that the policy was selected because it would goad people who knew something about guns to public outrage. That is, it had a purely political purpose in the special context of a hard-fought election. The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver.
And so we saw demonstrations by middle-aged firearm owners, family men whose first reflex was to respect the laws of the land. This group's political alienation is a far greater loss than the $200-million that have been wasted so far. The creation of this new criminal class -- the ultimate triumph of negative political alchemy -- may be the worst, and most enduring product of the gun registry culture war.
John Dixon is a hunter, and president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. From 1991 to 1992, he was adviser to then-deputy minister of justice John Tait.
A gang that couldn't shoot straight
The Liberals' gun registry program was pointed at Kim Campbell, not crime. That's why it shot itself in the foot, says former justice adviser JOHN DIXON
We now know that the government's gun-control policy is a fiscal and administrative debacle. Its costs rival those of core services like national defence. And it doesn't work. What is less well known is that the policy wasn't designed to control guns. It was designed to control Kim Campbell. When Ms. Campbell was enjoying a brief season of success in her re-election bid in the summer campaign of 1993, Mr. Chretien was kept busy reassuring what he called the "Nervous Nellies" in his caucus that Ms. Campbell's star would soon fall. To bring her down, the Liberals planned to discredit her key accomplishment as minister of justice, an ambitious gun-control package.
Those measures -- enacted in the wake of the Montreal Massacre -- included new requirements for the training and certification of target shooters and hunters. We got new laws requiring: the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, which essentially brought every gun in the country under lock and key; screening of applicants for firearms licences; courts to actively seek information about firearms in spousal assault cases; the prohibition of firearms that had no place in Canada's field-and-stream tradition of firearms use.
I was one of the department of justice officials involved in that earlier gun-control program. When the House of Commons passed the legislation, Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathgen of the Coalition for Gun Control, which had been part of the consultation process, supplied the champagne for a party at my Ottawa home.
So what were the Liberals to do, faced with a legislative accomplishment on this scale?
Simple: Pretend it hadn't happened, and promise to do something so dramatic that it would make Ms. Campbell look soft on gun control. The obvious policy choice was a universal firearms registry.
The idea of requiring the registration of every firearm in the country wasn't new. Governments love lists. Getting lists and maintaining them is a visible sign that the government is at work. And lists are the indispensable first step to collecting taxes and licence fees. There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada, as is arguably the case in the United States.
So why not go for a universal gun registry? The short answer, arrived at by every study in the Department of Justice, was that universal registration would be ruinously expensive, and could actually yield a negative public security result (more on this in a moment). Besides, in 1992 Canada already had two systems of gun registration: the complete registry of all restricted firearms, such as handguns (restricted since the 1930s) and a separate registry of ordinary firearms.
This latter registry, which started in the early 1970s, was a feature of the firearms acquisition certificate (or FAC) required by a person purchasing any firearm. Every firearm purchased from a dealer had to be registered to the FAC holder by the vendor, and the record of the purchase passed on to the RCMP in Ottawa. So we were already building a cumulative registry of all the owners of guns in Canada purchased since 1970.
The FAC system was a very Canadian (i.e. sensible) approach to the registration of ordinary hunting and target firearms. If you were a good ol' boy from Camrose, Alta., and didn't want to get involved, you didn't have to -- as long as you didn't buy more guns. Good ol' boys die off, so younger people in shooting sports would eventually all be enrolled in the system.
After the Montreal Massacre, the then-deputy minister of justice, John Tait, asked me to review the gun-control package under development. One thing I immediately wanted to know was how many Canadians owned Ruger Mini-14s (the gun used by the Montreal murderer). The Mini-14 came into production about the time the FAC system was introduced, so the FAC should have a good picture of the gun's distribution.
But when our team asked the RCMP for the information, we couldn't get it. Computers were down; the information hadn't been entered yet; there weren't enough staff to process the request; there was a full moon. After a week, I said I didn't want excuses, I wanted the records. Then a very senior person sat me down and told me the truth.
The RCMP had stopped accepting FAC records, and had actually destroyed those it already had. The FAC registry system didn't exist because the police thought it was useless and refused to waste their limited budgets maintaining it. They also moved to ensure that their political masters could not resurrect it.
Such spectacular bureaucratic vandalism persuaded my deputy and his minister to concentrate on developing com- pliance with affordable gun-control measures that could work. A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn't care about costs or results, and who didn't understand what riled up decent folks in Camrose.
Which is precisely why it appealed to those putting together the Liberal Red Book for the pivotal 1993 election. If the object of the policy exercise was to appear to be "tougher" on guns than Kim Campbell, they had to find a policy that would provoke legitimate gun-owners to outrage. Nothing would better convince the Liberals' urban constituency that Jean Chretien and Allan Rock were taking a tough line on guns than the spectacle of angry old men spouting fury on Parliament Hill.
The supreme irony of the gun registry battle is that the policy was selected because it would goad people who knew something about guns to public outrage. That is, it had a purely political purpose in the special context of a hard-fought election. The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver.
And so we saw demonstrations by middle-aged firearm owners, family men whose first reflex was to respect the laws of the land. This group's political alienation is a far greater loss than the $200-million that have been wasted so far. The creation of this new criminal class -- the ultimate triumph of negative political alchemy -- may be the worst, and most enduring product of the gun registry culture war.
John Dixon is a hunter, and president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. From 1991 to 1992, he was adviser to then-deputy minister of justice John Tait.
Canadian RKBA:
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:20:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Herald
I read with interest "Pair made police uneasy"Wednesday, March 30,
2005.
While I accept the main theme of your article, your court recorder
needs
some historical
enlightenment. Sherri Bordon Colley stated in reference to Canadian's
right
to bear arms that "No
such right
exists in Canada". She is wrong. We derive this right from the same
sources
as do the Americans,
"The English Bill of Rights 1689". The extreme tyranny of the Stuwart
family
controlled England
led the British to the world's most free state, until that time, via
the
Glorious Revolution. On
Dec. 6, 1686, King James II (a Stuwart) of England issued the order to
his
Lord Lieutenants
instructing their deputies "to cause strict search to be made for such
muskets or guns and to
seize and safely keep them till further order." Soon the Glorious
Revolution and the resulting
English Bill of Rights enacted on December 16, 1689 changed all that.
The
despot, King James II,
abdicated the throne of England. Prince William and Princess Mary of
Orange
were asked to
replaced him. One of the conditions King William III and Queen Mary
had to
meet was their
acceptance of the British subjects' English Bill of Rights. Contained
within this Bill of Rights
is the British subjects' right to keep and bear arms. It states
"That the
subjects which are
protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their
condition,
and as allowed by law."
The right is reaffirmed by the "Blackstone Commentaries" and confirmed
in
several legal
precedents. The right was imported into Canadian law by the preamble
of the
British North America
Act of 1867 and section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of
1982. This document
is definitely a significant part of our Canadian firearms cultural
heritage.
In short the right to
bear arms exists to this day in Canada for our use.
Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask
------------------------------
End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #940
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:20:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Herald
I read with interest "Pair made police uneasy"Wednesday, March 30,
2005.
While I accept the main theme of your article, your court recorder
needs
some historical
enlightenment. Sherri Bordon Colley stated in reference to Canadian's
right
to bear arms that "No
such right
exists in Canada". She is wrong. We derive this right from the same
sources
as do the Americans,
"The English Bill of Rights 1689". The extreme tyranny of the Stuwart
family
controlled England
led the British to the world's most free state, until that time, via
the
Glorious Revolution. On
Dec. 6, 1686, King James II (a Stuwart) of England issued the order to
his
Lord Lieutenants
instructing their deputies "to cause strict search to be made for such
muskets or guns and to
seize and safely keep them till further order." Soon the Glorious
Revolution and the resulting
English Bill of Rights enacted on December 16, 1689 changed all that.
The
despot, King James II,
abdicated the throne of England. Prince William and Princess Mary of
Orange
were asked to
replaced him. One of the conditions King William III and Queen Mary
had to
meet was their
acceptance of the British subjects' English Bill of Rights. Contained
within this Bill of Rights
is the British subjects' right to keep and bear arms. It states
"That the
subjects which are
protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their
condition,
and as allowed by law."
The right is reaffirmed by the "Blackstone Commentaries" and confirmed
in
several legal
precedents. The right was imported into Canadian law by the preamble
of the
British North America
Act of 1867 and section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of
1982. This document
is definitely a significant part of our Canadian firearms cultural
heritage.
In short the right to
bear arms exists to this day in Canada for our use.
Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask
------------------------------
End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #940
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thanks TCBF.
Actually since the gun laws are not/have not changed, I do hope you are able to take your FN's to the range to "have some fun". In fact I remember fondly my first military (cadet) range firing the FN. It blew me back about 2 feet prone. Man, what a time.
As for the lack of arguments... ...well, one mans logic is another mans trash. Ah well. I will still believe by getting rid of hand guns period, that over time the number of them would fall to the point that criminals would then no long have access to them.
I still agree and the above articles prove the political stupidity of, the gun registry.
I would guess the the main contention between myself and others here as far as political thinking goes, is from the fact that we look at liberty and totalitarianism quite differently. Insults aside.
If we looked at a sliding scale in Canada from left to right, those on the right who believe in individual freedom above all would be fine, except they are willing to give up that freedom to a certain extent for "security" purposes to police/government and other type organizations. However by going to far down this line you fall into fascism, with totalitarianism beyond that.
If we go down the left side, the left is more willing to give up individual freedoms to the government for social programs. Going to far down this route and you have communism and totalitarianism just beyond that.
Point to all this? We all do not want the extremes of each, but still want our society to prosper and be safe. We just see it differently. And while the idea of having gun's in schools (that above article) scares the hell out of me. Some seem to be alright with that.
However, until the world sees things my way ( ;D). I have no problems with taking the occasional trip to West Edmonton Mall and blowing off a few rounds. And I do miss the military ranges (especially gun camps).
Actually since the gun laws are not/have not changed, I do hope you are able to take your FN's to the range to "have some fun". In fact I remember fondly my first military (cadet) range firing the FN. It blew me back about 2 feet prone. Man, what a time.
As for the lack of arguments... ...well, one mans logic is another mans trash. Ah well. I will still believe by getting rid of hand guns period, that over time the number of them would fall to the point that criminals would then no long have access to them.
I still agree and the above articles prove the political stupidity of, the gun registry.
I would guess the the main contention between myself and others here as far as political thinking goes, is from the fact that we look at liberty and totalitarianism quite differently. Insults aside.
If we looked at a sliding scale in Canada from left to right, those on the right who believe in individual freedom above all would be fine, except they are willing to give up that freedom to a certain extent for "security" purposes to police/government and other type organizations. However by going to far down this line you fall into fascism, with totalitarianism beyond that.
If we go down the left side, the left is more willing to give up individual freedoms to the government for social programs. Going to far down this route and you have communism and totalitarianism just beyond that.
Point to all this? We all do not want the extremes of each, but still want our society to prosper and be safe. We just see it differently. And while the idea of having gun's in schools (that above article) scares the hell out of me. Some seem to be alright with that.
However, until the world sees things my way ( ;D). I have no problems with taking the occasional trip to West Edmonton Mall and blowing off a few rounds. And I do miss the military ranges (especially gun camps).
I mostly agree.
The fact that they snuck this non-FN thing through proves their ultimate goal is to discourage civilian ownership, and "not necessarily confiscation, buy confiscation if necessary". All for votes.
Removing pistols from law abiding citizens would have some "unintended consequences" socially. Home invasions would go up. The UK and Australia have done a lot of this and their thug-gun crime is going through the roof and wil prob pass the US rate in a decade or so. That should be a laugh. Other than that, their latest effort has turned my $5000 of FNs into about a $1000 worth. No tax write-off there, though.
Now that the Mounties have "tested" the Wacko's HK-91 and determined it was semi-auto, not auto (would've taken you about 30 seconds to figure that out, right?), there will be a hue and cry about all "Evil" semi-auto rifles and shotguns. On the way.
Rumour has it, Trudeau and Ron Basford figured in the sixties that it would take fifty years to disarm Canada. So far, they are on track.
But, all I can do is enjoy them while I have them, let others on the range see an important piece of Canadian history in action, and take lots of pictures.
Have a good Edmonton weekend!
Tom
The fact that they snuck this non-FN thing through proves their ultimate goal is to discourage civilian ownership, and "not necessarily confiscation, buy confiscation if necessary". All for votes.
Removing pistols from law abiding citizens would have some "unintended consequences" socially. Home invasions would go up. The UK and Australia have done a lot of this and their thug-gun crime is going through the roof and wil prob pass the US rate in a decade or so. That should be a laugh. Other than that, their latest effort has turned my $5000 of FNs into about a $1000 worth. No tax write-off there, though.
Now that the Mounties have "tested" the Wacko's HK-91 and determined it was semi-auto, not auto (would've taken you about 30 seconds to figure that out, right?), there will be a hue and cry about all "Evil" semi-auto rifles and shotguns. On the way.
Rumour has it, Trudeau and Ron Basford figured in the sixties that it would take fifty years to disarm Canada. So far, they are on track.
But, all I can do is enjoy them while I have them, let others on the range see an important piece of Canadian history in action, and take lots of pictures.
Have a good Edmonton weekend!
Tom
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have been reading this thread with interest as I have long collected and target shot firearms. One of the points that is often over-looked by those who say that this particular class of firearm is ok and this other class is not, is that they are all pretty much simple technology. A basic working firearm has a projectile, a tube and some sort of propellant to get things moving. They are all the same. Several years ago, I was able to see some pieces of a collection of zip guns held in a prison museum - it is really amazing what human ingenuity can come up with in designing simple working firearms. The plain truth of the matter that firearms cannot be controlled such that they are out of the hands of criminals. Laws that control types of firearms and limit use of firearms are only applicable to citizens willing to obey the laws. The criminal element is not concerned with such matters - never has and never will be. Gun laws never have been about preventing criminal use, the real purpose of gun laws is to ultimately disarm the law-abiding public. History has several examples of such acts by governments - The Weimar Republic of Germany's laws before the nazis came to power, the laws of Cambodia, China, Bosnia, - you pick the place. Usually such laws start by targeting a specific group and then expanding to the larger population in an incremental fashion. Disarming the public has always been the only reason for such laws.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
2332Piper said:
So your saying that the government should not try to do what is "best" for your health?
Maybe we should have allowed them to continue to use Cocaine in Coke?
Seat belts? Only by choice.
Traffic lights? Way to much control!
Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.
If the Government is trying to bring in "rules" with which to help protect society as a whole, it is up to you whether you will follow them or not. Of course their may be penalties. But I hardly see you getting fined for going to McDonald's. Or complaining about it.
The fact that even the US is looking at ways of "legislating" controls on un-healthy food must mean something is up.
mdh
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
No - the state doesn't know what's best for my health.
So based on that we should welcome state intervention to decide what's "best" for our health? Why not just ban Coke all together in the war against obesity?
Yes
Traffic lights are simply a way to regulate traffic flow - nothing more and nothing less.
N Korea at the extreme hard end - Canada and other welfare states at the soft end - there are lots of laws aims at controlling what you think and how you express yourself - with lots of government sanctioned agitprop ( i.e. those Kyoto commercials "challenging" us to fight global warming).
Not yet but give it time. Portion control was recently raised as a measure by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health - that she wasn't instantly denounced as a fool shows you that's an idea with a future.
Since when do you look to the US as a guiding light? If so I will tell what's up - that the state wants to control what you eat and reduce individual choice. It merely proves Piper's point and that he is not being paranoid enough.
cheers, mdh
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm not sure if the majority of people here are conservatives because of their ideas of "individualism" over "Society as a whole", or Anarchists (individual choice before all)? Especially when Conservatism means rules for all that are "proven by tradition" to work for the greater whole.
Sheesh...
Sheesh...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Zipper said:
You are wrong: "conservatives" are generally a mix of conservatives and libertarians:
Conservatives generally wish to preserve, or revert to, tradition, regardless of whether it is proven to work for the greater whole, generally because they believe that strict hierarchy is a desirable social/economic structure (us smart government-types will make the world safe for you).
Libertarians accept/believe that individual choice is the only means by which the most benefit for the greater whole can be achieved, and thus authoritariansim/totalitarianism is the worst of all evils: economic hierarchy is desrable but very fluid (cream allowed to rise to the top). Anarchists are a subset of radical libertarians, although most people that identify themselves as "anarchists" are actually socialists (anti-Establishment, rather than anti-authoritarian).
Conservatives generally accept the libertarian ideal of less government/authoritarianism in the economic sphere and for that reason the two (in Western society) have generally co-operated to oppose authoritarianism (read: socialism, fascism, etc.). The two generally differ on social policy ...
- Status
Similar threads
