I've had some civil discussions with some people that I feel at least got them thinking, some of them pretty funny. However, now the sheeple are all listening to this guy:
The size of his ego is stoltifying! He's a smug, pompous ass, but I've committed myself to no name calling there. However, I think I'm just about done. It was fun to poke holes in their fallacies, at first. Now it's just getting tedious. Oh well...
Brian Marlatt writes,
"Here is how I replied to "you would think differently with a gun pointed at your head."
Actually I have had a gun pointed at my very well-informed head. It was fired by a person with whom I was discussing his breach of contract and the probability of needing to seek a legal remedy should an out-of-court agreement not be reached.
He pulled the handgun from his desk and fired it at me from a range... of fifteen feet. The blast of powder and debris hit me in the face, all in about one tenth of a second. I ignored it and calmly proceeded to outline to him the consequences he faced if he did not honour the terms of the contract. Eventually he did. The gun was never mentioned. I did not send him to jail for the unlawful discharge of a firearm in which he was in lawful possession - a starter's pistol, as it turned out, which would have been lethal had I been just across the desk, according to a police officer I spoke with years later when discussing gun control.
Police who will tell you that gun control is a major objective. They will also tell you that the majority of acts of gun violence and death are committed with legal obtained firearms, generally in domestic violence. Police will also tell you that knowing if a firearm is known to be on a premises, the kind, and number, they are better informed to respond in a way that reduces risk to the family and others, including the person with the firearm, and to police intervening. All-hazards response necessitated by wide-gun ownership escalates potential levels of gun violence.
The best law in this area is likely similar to that in Australia where justification of gun ownership and possession is required. Even then access is tightly controlled. Responsible gun ownership is thereby encouraged and the incidence of gun violence is much less.
Gun ownership is not a right. It needs to be justified on a case by case basis. No right of gun ownership for personal defence exists. Such ownership is willful intent to use a firearm for the purpose of wounding or manslaughter. All such ownership is itself a crime. Handguns are almost impossible to justify. Except in rare cases where they can be justified they must be banned, as must all firearms which are or may be converted to any form of military use in the civilian population.
As to so-called the US Constitution Second Amendment right to "bear arms," it does not exist despite recent US Supreme Court findings which merely reflect the political nature of the US judicial system.
The written US Constitution is quite specific, there is no "right to bear arms" available to the individual. There is a "right to bear arms" only to provide a means for the State to raise "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." If you aren't in a militia raised by the State you have no "right to bear arms." Moreover, "to bear arms" has nothing to do with private gun ownership. The 18th century revolutionary government was seeking to raise an army on the cheap. This is not the 18th century. There is no debate. There is no individual right to bear arms.
By the way, the Second US Militia Act o 1792, the Upper Canadian Militia Act of 1791, and the British colonial militia provisions of 1758 are how the US Constitutional 2nd Amendment would have been understood: in the service of the King or later the US President, who was given the legal right by the act to raise regiments as militia from the citizenry by calling up ALL white male freeholders aged 15 to 45 to serve on immediate notice. The various militia acts also require such persons to muster in uniform and armed according to the terms of the act at intervals of twice a year or other periods.
If you think you have a 'right to bear arms' or oppose gun control you need to demonstrate how, under the law, you are not a current member of the National Guard, as militia's are known in the US today. Say hello to the draft.
By the way, my area of academic expertise is 18th century history and I am Canadian. Americans have made this an international issue through their misconduct, funding gun lobbies here and abroad, being the major source of illegal firearms of all kinds for criminal activity, recent shooting by US citizens at the Canadian border by unbalanced Americans and the use of the border as a roadblock to apprehend US suspects, thereby putting the lives of families travelling internationally at risk, and recent attempts to impose US law extraterritorially, including claims that legal possession in the US should mean legal possession outside of the US.
[Almost] The only point of personal opinion you will find in this note is the belief that the people who should not have access to firearms are those who oppose gun control because they are a danger to society, whether or not they have criminal intent."
"Here is how I replied to "you would think differently with a gun pointed at your head."
Actually I have had a gun pointed at my very well-informed head. It was fired by a person with whom I was discussing his breach of contract and the probability of needing to seek a legal remedy should an out-of-court agreement not be reached.
He pulled the handgun from his desk and fired it at me from a range... of fifteen feet. The blast of powder and debris hit me in the face, all in about one tenth of a second. I ignored it and calmly proceeded to outline to him the consequences he faced if he did not honour the terms of the contract. Eventually he did. The gun was never mentioned. I did not send him to jail for the unlawful discharge of a firearm in which he was in lawful possession - a starter's pistol, as it turned out, which would have been lethal had I been just across the desk, according to a police officer I spoke with years later when discussing gun control.
Police who will tell you that gun control is a major objective. They will also tell you that the majority of acts of gun violence and death are committed with legal obtained firearms, generally in domestic violence. Police will also tell you that knowing if a firearm is known to be on a premises, the kind, and number, they are better informed to respond in a way that reduces risk to the family and others, including the person with the firearm, and to police intervening. All-hazards response necessitated by wide-gun ownership escalates potential levels of gun violence.
The best law in this area is likely similar to that in Australia where justification of gun ownership and possession is required. Even then access is tightly controlled. Responsible gun ownership is thereby encouraged and the incidence of gun violence is much less.
Gun ownership is not a right. It needs to be justified on a case by case basis. No right of gun ownership for personal defence exists. Such ownership is willful intent to use a firearm for the purpose of wounding or manslaughter. All such ownership is itself a crime. Handguns are almost impossible to justify. Except in rare cases where they can be justified they must be banned, as must all firearms which are or may be converted to any form of military use in the civilian population.
As to so-called the US Constitution Second Amendment right to "bear arms," it does not exist despite recent US Supreme Court findings which merely reflect the political nature of the US judicial system.
The written US Constitution is quite specific, there is no "right to bear arms" available to the individual. There is a "right to bear arms" only to provide a means for the State to raise "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." If you aren't in a militia raised by the State you have no "right to bear arms." Moreover, "to bear arms" has nothing to do with private gun ownership. The 18th century revolutionary government was seeking to raise an army on the cheap. This is not the 18th century. There is no debate. There is no individual right to bear arms.
By the way, the Second US Militia Act o 1792, the Upper Canadian Militia Act of 1791, and the British colonial militia provisions of 1758 are how the US Constitutional 2nd Amendment would have been understood: in the service of the King or later the US President, who was given the legal right by the act to raise regiments as militia from the citizenry by calling up ALL white male freeholders aged 15 to 45 to serve on immediate notice. The various militia acts also require such persons to muster in uniform and armed according to the terms of the act at intervals of twice a year or other periods.
If you think you have a 'right to bear arms' or oppose gun control you need to demonstrate how, under the law, you are not a current member of the National Guard, as militia's are known in the US today. Say hello to the draft.
By the way, my area of academic expertise is 18th century history and I am Canadian. Americans have made this an international issue through their misconduct, funding gun lobbies here and abroad, being the major source of illegal firearms of all kinds for criminal activity, recent shooting by US citizens at the Canadian border by unbalanced Americans and the use of the border as a roadblock to apprehend US suspects, thereby putting the lives of families travelling internationally at risk, and recent attempts to impose US law extraterritorially, including claims that legal possession in the US should mean legal possession outside of the US.
[Almost] The only point of personal opinion you will find in this note is the belief that the people who should not have access to firearms are those who oppose gun control because they are a danger to society, whether or not they have criminal intent."
The size of his ego is stoltifying! He's a smug, pompous ass, but I've committed myself to no name calling there. However, I think I'm just about done. It was fun to poke holes in their fallacies, at first. Now it's just getting tedious. Oh well...