Artiz
Member
^^ Read canadian gun laws and you'll answer that question yourself. And what do you know about Quebec City?
Artiz said:To own and shoot guns in Canada you need to meet a certain standard.
See, you got that wrong. Here we are talking about owning firearms, not self defence. The lawfull possession of firearms has nothing to do with self defence, you can't use self defence as a reason to own firearms, period.If you have to meet a "certain standard" (other than not be a felon) in Canada to be permitted to protect yourself and freedom, what other rights are only reserved for the privileged few?
Artiz said:RC45 said:If you have to meet a "certain standard" (other than not be a felon) in Canada to be permitted to protect yourself and freedom, what other rights are only reserved for the privileged few?
See, you got that wrong. Here we are talking about owning firearms, not self defence. The lawfull possession of firearms has nothing to do with self defence, you can't use self defence as a reason to own firearms, period.
If a heavily tattooed individual in a 50 Cent t-shirt
That's current fashion in many neighborhoods. Shall we just assume that everyone who dresses like that is probably a criminal? What about leather biker jackets or ripped blue jeans? What about people in track suits, with gold figaro chains, slicked-back hair, and Bronx accents? The TV and movies tell me that the aforementioned styles indicate someone who is a criminal or troublemaker. And I learned in church that kids wearing heavy metal band t-shirts are all devil worshippers.If you see someone wearing a tank top, pants under his butt and held up by a hand at his crotch, and sneering at the world from under a bandana, you can not in all seriousness tell me he's on his way to a lucrative job interview for his coveted career as an investment banker.
Artiz said:RC45, the problem here is that the system would rather you to be dead than explaining that fatal bullet wound your attacker got when you defended yourself.
Of course, it's not because we can't carry that we can't actually defend ourselves, the charter of rights and freedom is still there, and the criminal code gives you the right to use as much force as needed to defend yourself, your family, property, and this includes deadly force. Weather or not you use one of your firearms to defend yourself is a matter of knowing your rights, and knowing what the justice system is able to do to destroy your life. We have strict laws that cover the storage of your firearms, what the police and the justice system tries to hide is that when you're at home, your guns are not in "storage" mode, they're in "use" mode. If you have to use your guns to defend yourself, the rest depends on you, if you know your rights, if you know the law, those who don't are those who get their guns confiscated and their lifes destroyed by the legal system. As gun owners, we have the duty to know the law better than the police, I do know my rights and firearm laws better than any police officer in this city, because they actually don't know anything about our gun laws and that's why so many gun owner's lifes are destroyed each year.
artiz said:Canadian gun owners would be safer CCWers THAN THE JOE EVERYBODY WHO NEVER SHOOTS HIS CCW PIECE (that's what you didn't understand about my first post) because they actually have to take multiple classes, pass multiple exams, to be able to have a firearms licence and to own firearms.
I don't think that having to pass a couple courses where I must identify a few gun parts and recite a few mantras regarding gun safety and the laws of the land would make us any safer CCWers than the average US citizen.
Your RTKA is no more infringed by licensing laws, than your 9th Amendment right to drive a car is infringed by licensing laws that require a drivers license. The same can be said about freedom of the press.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, the Second Amendment does not mean you can go where you want, when you want and do what you want with a firearm. This kind of thinking is childish and unrealistic, unless one moves to the far reaches of Siberia.
There's a major difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. First off, I see no mention of driving in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated as one of our God given rights, to not be infringed by a government in any manner.
Surely a constitutional scholar such as yourself knows what the 9th amendment says.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how this Amendment gaurantees us the "right" to operate a motor vehicle...unless you are implying that driving a car is a "right not denied or disparaged" because it is not listed in the Constitution or BOR. If that is the case, I would have to disagree with you. Driving is a privelidge, it is neither necessary nor mandatory for maintaining life, as rights are. I no more have the "right" to drive than I have the "right" to fly a plane.
Hence why your license is granted after passing certain qualifications, and can be revoked for failing to maintain those qualifications. The Second Amendment (Constitutionally) cannot be granted or revoked...seperating it from a privelidge and making it a right.
The average Joes in Canada are hunters, they don't want to mess with restricted stuff ans such, in fact they call us handgun owners "crazy people" (I accept the fact that the hooks and loops we have to jump trough each year is frightening, maybe handgun owners are really a crazy bunch of people in the end... hell yeah we are! ), so they're not going to be carrying a handgun anytime soon, or not so soon. The safest and most respectable gun owners I know are handgun shooters, the "Joe everybody I'm sighting my rifle once a year to hunt, and that 5moa is good enough" are the ones who make us look bad.About the average joe part, I did get it, that's why I asked if there wasn't an average joe element to the canadian would-be CCWer group. Moving on...
The act of driving does not fit under most definitions of the word "privilege".
Why don't you google the right to drive and look at some of the legal arguments for it? You'll see that this is far from a black and white issue.
Then by your reasoning, concealed carry is a privilege in most states and in some states, gun ownership in general.
Quote:
There's a major difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. First off, I see no mention of driving in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated as one of our God given rights, to not be infringed by a government in any manner.
Surely a constitutional scholar such as yourself knows what the 9th amendment says.
A right is something that you can engage in where no compensation for the action is required, for example, it costs you not a cent to voice your opinion, etc. In order to drive a motor vehicle you have to follow the various regulations put in place by state or local authorities. You have to have an operators license, vehicle license, insurance, even pay a tax placed on fuel for the vehicle. They didn't license horses and buggies when the constitution was ratified did they?
The ninth amendment certainly was a wide open blanket statement to allow rights that hadn't been thought of at that time, but driving a vehicle has never been considered a "right" by any government. You have a "right" to walk anywhere that the owners of the land allow access.
That was much more eloquent than I could have managed, thank you sitckhauler. I'll try to remember your first sentence; "A right is something that you can engage in where no compensation for the action is required." Excellent defenition.