jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem
-- now there are people in England seriously discussing regulating
and banning knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
[You just can't make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to
be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition
have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem
-- now there are people in England seriously discussing regulating
and banning knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
[You just can't make this stuff up].
Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to
be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition
have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?

Practice practice practice.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since
you
already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun
laws?

Obviously, they've happened because even though the laws are restrictive,
guns were still available. Yet, here are wanting to make more guns available
and more easily? The only possible end result is that things like that would
happen more. There's no way you can argue that point.

While a number of gun crimes result because of firearms stolen from
collectors, a sizable amount of them have happened because of guns smuggled
up from the US.

And to Doug who jokingly suggests that baseball bats, screw drivers,
chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned, all of those
things have other other uses while hand guns have one use. A deadly use that
can be effectively wielded from a distance ~ not even closely comparable to
the examples you used Doug.

And of course for John Clarke, it makes perfect sense to legalize guns for
millions so the four Olympic shooters in the country can practice their
craft. Well thought out reasoning John.

shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to
what
is a very small problem?

It's an increasing problem, not a small problem.

causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all
citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about.
Kids
used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons:

You do have a point there, but for one thing. Population sizes and societal
values have changed to a great degree. People weren't as packed together
like sardines in the cities as they are today and there's been an extremely
large influx of immigrants into Canada. When I went to school, if there was
a fight, it was a fist fight. I wouldn't have dreamed of pulling out the
pocket knife I had in my back pocket and I've never carried a gun of any
type for the purpose of protection. Those values are different these days.

I won't argue for one second that just removing guns is going to solve all
the problems that exist. I never suggested that for one second. However, it
will help while also attending to the root causes of why a number of people
use guns to solve their problems.

jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next
problem
-- now there are people in England seriously discussing
regulating
and banning knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
[You just can't make this stuff up].
Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to
be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition
have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?

Practice practice practice.

Yes, if you want that gold medal you do have to practice, practice,
practice, but what does that have to do with your point?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times
as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use:
to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves,
you can't fire your gun.

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
differently than you:

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

Doug Winterburn wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem --
now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
differently than you:

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms.
Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.

You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at
http://www.lizmichael.com/biograph.htm. Interesting stuff.

mahalo,
jo4hn

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:32:31 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem --
now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
differently than you:

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms.
Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.

....so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if
they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14
back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times
have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence
haven't...yet.

cg


You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at
http://www.lizmichael.com/biograph.htm. Interesting stuff.

mahalo,
jo4hn

Charlie Groh wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:32:31 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next
problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and
banning knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
[You just can't make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required
to
be worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have
one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want
boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding
fathers saw as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw
it a little differently than you:

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up
arms.
Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the
post revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing
up.

...so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if
they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14
back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times
have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence
haven't...yet.

In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just
participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a
result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its
accomplishment.

And before you say something stupid about tanks, consider that the
crews have to get out of them sometime and the crews have families and
both the crews and their families live in the same country in which
the insurrection is taking place.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem
-- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and
banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just
can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers
saw as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
differently than you:

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms. Or
do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.

You didn't read it all:

SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to
life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right
to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion
for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private
self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
one of them.

Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
Until then, shove it.

Upscale wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
one of them.

Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
Until then, shove it.



My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.

With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:22:42 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just
participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a
result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its
accomplishment.

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!

What are the odds? :-)

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.

Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
at will?

I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
neighbours.

With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.

That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
with it.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government.

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!

Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago? Please
tell me how they make sense in today's society? Like or not, the government
of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years
ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be
significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in
mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.

Upscale wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.

Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
at will?

You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.

I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
neighbours.

"beep, boop, boop"

"911. What's your emergency?"

"Someone is breaking in my front door!"

"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."

"STOP! THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... KABOOM"

"This is 911 - what was that noise?... hello.....hello"


With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.

That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
with it.



Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
best in modern day US.

Upscale wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's
about resisting an oppressive government.

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever,
it was going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had
degenerated to by now and clicked on the above quoted post which
actually made sense!

Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago?
Please tell me how they make sense in today's society?

How? In /exactly/ the same way they made sense all that long time ago.

It's not important that you do or don't understand, and may be helpful
for you to know that at this point it may be more of a cultural than
societal issue.

Like or not, the government of today is not the same type of
government that existed all those years ago. Oppression today, even
if it existed to a marked degree, would be significantly different
than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in mind.

Beware of showing the same arrogance of which you earlier accused
someone else.

Your assumption in your second sentence is false.

The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general
public.

I think your vision is at fault - or, at the very least, incomplete.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 7, 12:35*pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
My goodness! *My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". *I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.

Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
at will?

You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.



I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
neighbours.

"beep, boop, boop"

"911. *What's your emergency?"

"Someone is breaking in my front door!"

"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."

"STOP! *THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... * KABOOM"

"This is 911 - what was that noise?... *hello.....hello"



With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.

That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
with it.

Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
best in modern day US.

A few years ago, Ted Nugent was doing his show on his radio station in
Detroit, a station I would listen to quite often.
There had been a rash of car-jackings in the Detroit area. Ted (or a
guest on his show, I don't recall) suggested that if a driver was in a
bad neighbourhood to put his gun on his lap, pointing at the door.
When a car-jacker would approach, just plug the *******, right through
the door.
That in fact happened a couple of times. News travels fast and from
then on, any carjacker deep-down knew he could be approaching a target
that would shoot his balls off.
The car-jackings went way down in a hurry.

I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes,
cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off.
Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the
occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything
else I can think of.

Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.

That is wrong.

Upscale wrote:
And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
one of them.

Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
Until then, shove it.


The countries who most often whine and moan about the US and its
"arrogance" are often the countries who would be whining and moaning
with a German or Russian accent were they not living in the shadow of
our protection. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government.

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!

Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago?

Incorrect. Rights are not created by government; rights are inherent. We have
them simply because we are human. Government's function is to preserve the
rights which we already have. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these
rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Please
tell me how they make sense in today's society?

They make as much sense now as they ever have.

Like or not, the government
of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years
ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be
significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in
mind.

Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.

The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.

And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else?

One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are,
insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an
oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.

I have to say, that is entirely the point. Kudos. Except that I stand on the
other side of the same line. To put it in very few words, it's the will to
resist that's a problem, not the popguns and peashooters that they allow us.

It isn't the firearms lending a prop for a "delusion of confidence". It's
the mindset of resisting wrong doing, violently if need be, that causes one
to seek out and acquire the tools to do so. Much as one acquires a saw to
cut wood, the perceived need precedes the purchase, not the other way
around. (If it matters to you, I own more handsaws than I do firearms.)
What's the opposite? What is so wrong with cowering behind your mattress and
dialing 911 when things go bump in the middle of the night? Briefly, by
abdicating responsibility for your physical safety and the sanctity of your
home, you had already bought in on the big lie, a "delusion of confidence",
of a benevolent and effective goverment. I don't share your delusion. And
while this simple difference in opinion shouldn't divide us, your vocal
opposition to my way of living does. I have never once tried to deprive you
of your right to think as you do. Why should you feel so free to do so to
me? (That's a rhetorical question. I already know why, but I wonder if you
do.)

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:54:19 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:35*pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
My goodness! *My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". *I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.

Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
at will?

You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.



I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
neighbours.

"beep, boop, boop"

"911. *What's your emergency?"

"Someone is breaking in my front door!"

"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."

"STOP! *THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... * KABOOM"

"This is 911 - what was that noise?... *hello.....hello"



With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.

That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
with it.

Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
best in modern day US.

A few years ago, Ted Nugent was doing his show on his radio station in
Detroit, a station I would listen to quite often.
There had been a rash of car-jackings in the Detroit area. Ted (or a
guest on his show, I don't recall) suggested that if a driver was in a
bad neighbourhood to put his gun on his lap, pointing at the door.
When a car-jacker would approach, just plug the *******, right through
the door.
That in fact happened a couple of times. News travels fast and from
then on, any carjacker deep-down knew he could be approaching a target
that would shoot his balls off.
The car-jackings went way down in a hurry.

I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes,
cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off.
Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the
occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything
else I can think of.

Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.

That is wrong.

....hear here!

cg (I can't believe I spelled "defense" *defence*...must be in the
water...).

Robatoy wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:35Â*pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Upscale wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
.... snip

I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes,
cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off.
Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the
occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything
else I can think of.

Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.

That is wrong.

Wow, we actually agree on something. IIRC, shortly after you all had
instituted some of your latest draconian gun laws, there were reports that
home invasion robberies had increased by a significant percentage due to
the fact that the bad guys knew they were most likely approaching soft
targets. Is that still the case, or has that moderated?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something
that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.

Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
from others.

Comment?

And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?

In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them
as walking around tools available to the general public.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are,
insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...

I'm sure you feel your way is right for you. That's not how this discussion
originated. My part in it originated with my stating that innocent bystander
shootings were a popular news item *in Canada* and I got an argument. I've
always had Canadian firearm laws in mind when I've posted. As usual, the
conversation somehow turned to what's best for people in the US. Maybe
that's not arrogance, but it sure seems to be something akin to it because
again, the discussion has been twisted to what US citizens feel.

If what I said sounded otherwise, that was not my intention. I've always
stated I felt our firearm laws were sufficient for Canadians and argued
against the US style of firearms laws *for Canadians*. You can do as you
want down in the US. It's not my country, it's yours.

Upscale wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something
that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.

Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
from others.

Comment?


Not Doug, but funny thing about health insurance vs. our Bill of rights.
The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to
enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance
requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be
confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to
see difference.

And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?

In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having
them as walking around tools available to the general public.

Yep, like keeping the peasants in line, eh? Either by the armed
government or armed criminal thugs, pretty much the same result.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something
that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.

Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
from others.

Comment?

There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike you
with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of expecting
other people to buy them for me.

And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?

In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them
as walking around tools available to the general public.

Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are,
insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...

I'm sure you feel your way is right for you. That's not how this discussion
originated. My part in it originated with my stating that innocent bystander
shootings were a popular news item *in Canada* and I got an argument. I've
always had Canadian firearm laws in mind when I've posted. As usual, the
conversation somehow turned to what's best for people in the US. Maybe
that's not arrogance, but it sure seems to be something akin to it because
again, the discussion has been twisted to what US citizens feel.

You're perhaps too quick to see "arrogance" and "twisting the discussion" in
what is probably no more than the natural result of the geographic
distribution of the contributors to this newsgroup, i.e. more here from the
U.S. than from the rest of the world combined.

If what I said sounded otherwise, that was not my intention. I've always
stated I felt our firearm laws were sufficient for Canadians and argued
against the US style of firearms laws *for Canadians*. You can do as you
want down in the US. It's not my country, it's yours.

I'll keep that in mind.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to
enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance
requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be
confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to
see difference.

Really? You could use the same flawed logic to not pay income tax. Everybody
who has, pays their share. Without taxes, you wouldn't have your
infrastructure or your society for that matter. All you'd have is the
complete anarchy of everybody out for themselves and none of the great
accomplishments that your country has done as a group.

The difference between you and me is that I value the importance of health
above most everything else. You value what you can get and keep, by
firepower if necessary. You value individual rights and accomplishments
while casually tossing aside the great things that can be done as a group
and a country. That makes you greedy, selfish and all consuming.

Unless you're been dealing with a serious, long term health problem for a
large portion of your life, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of
understanding. And don't for one second suggest that just because someone
close to you has experienced what I'm talking about, you understand. There
is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.

Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike
you
with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of
expecting
other people to buy them for me.

What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?

Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?

I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people in
the US. You tell me.

Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?

You keep on and on about defending yourself. Is everybody in so much dire
peril of being attacked that they have no choice? Is that the type of
society you live in? If so, I'd be gone in a flash. You might consider it an
illusion, but I feel safe when I go out. It's just my viewpoint, but there's
a lot of nut jobs out there. If firearms were relatively easy for anybody to
get, then I'd start being more fearful than I am. Sure, I try to be fully
aware of what's going on around me when I go out, but I'm not going to treat
it as an atmosphere of fear. I don't call that living.

I trust in our police force to do their job and do it well. Yes, I know they
can't be everywhere at once, but I do feel protected for the most part. If I
didn't then I might feel as you do and want to be armed. But, I'm not at
that point yet. Maybe in the future.

I guess it all comes down to existing circumstances. Maybe if I lived in US
society and not Canadian, I'd feel more comfortable with guns being as
prolific as they are. But the fact is that I'm Canadian and I live pretty
much in the centre of Canada's largest city. Many people crowded together
where things are more likely to happen is a much greater catalyst than
someone living in the country. Having many guns around to me anyway, is like
throwing gasoline on any potential fires that might crop up.

That's it. I'm done. Have a good day.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened
society.

Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...

Then it wouldn't be an enlightened society would it?

Doug Winterburn wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem --
now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes,
automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate
objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be
worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one
use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing
gloves, you can't fire your gun.

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw
as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little
differently than you:

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting
politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was
deleted from the Congressional Record.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
in
the US. You tell me.

Training is required by law for those who carry in public.

Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?

Why, indeed. The 2nd amendment is decidedly not about home defense or
sporting arms. To blame you personally would be misguided and useless. It's
enough to note that your fearful bleating is of the same note and tenor that
led to the restrictions and bans we have today. So, let me ask you. Why
should a government fear their citizens keeping weapons that would be
effective against main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers?

You keep on and on about defending yourself. Is everybody in so much dire

Nope. And it also is not about the quality of beef at the supermarket.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:42:53 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message

There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened
society.

Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...

Then it wouldn't be an enlightened society would it?


After reading you for awhile, I think you have good
intentions/reasoning at heart...what we have are two similar cultures
with a couple of *major* differences, and I'll leave that right there.
However, your statement above smacks of arrogance...don't be offended,
I think we all are that way in one situation or another...but that
mindset is what is taking both cultures over piecemeal: basically one
aspect of society, usually the one in control, telling the other
what's good for him...because, of course, we (the minority) don't know
what's good for *us*; we don't think very well and need to be led by
the enlightened.

cg

In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike
you
with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of
expecting
other people to buy them for me.

What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?

Yes, there is indeed a difference: you can (and from some of the comments
you've made about your own health issues, probably *do*) receive much more
back from that program than you put into it. I, on the other hand, get what I
pay for, and no more -- and if what I *want* is more than I can afford, I'm
*not* expecting my fellow citizens to pick up the tab for the difference. Is
that so hard to comprehend?

Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?

I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
handle a firearm in the proper way.

And therefore (in your opinion) shouldn't be allowed to have one.
Thus depriving him of the means of defending himself.

Maybe it's difference for most people in
the US. You tell me.

No, I think it's a question of philosophical differences between you and me,
and, by extension, between typical Canadians and typical Americans (if there
is such a thing, on either side of the border). We don't trust our government
to do what's in our interests -- including protecting us from predators. When
seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?

Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience with
firearms, you'd understand that too.

In article , "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
.. .
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
in
the US. You tell me.

Training is required by law for those who carry in public.

Where??

Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.

Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
is.

In article , "David G. Nagel" wrote:
Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting
politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was
deleted from the Congressional Record.

LOL -- wonder who that was. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Dan Burton
(R-Indiana).

The point is valid, though: all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many empty promises if we the
people lack the means to compel the government to honor those guarantees
should it ever become reluctant to do so on its own.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training
to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people
in
the US. You tell me.
Training is required by law for those who carry in public.

Where??

Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.

Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
is.

Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...gunlaws_az.htm

Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is
sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience
with
firearms, you'd understand that too.

So now you're going to be patronizing? I've had and have considerable
experience with firearms, rifles, target rifles and hand guns. I've also
owned all three at one time or another including having a transport permit
to take the hand guns to the gun range. 22-250 target rifle, Colt 45 hand
gun, browning challenger 22 and a few other odds and ends. I have not had
nor ever desire to have a concealed carry permit, something that is
exceeding difficult to get in Canada.

Perhaps that's not sufficient for what you consider experience, but if
that's the case I pity you for thinking more experience than that is needed.
Don't for one second let your arrogance make you look like a fool Doug.