» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Google
  Web inthe00s.com



Subject: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/08/05 at 11:51 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/letters_gunban.html

Liberal Leader Paul Martin announced a sweeping ban on handguns Thursday (Dec 8th) as he visited a part of Toronto plagued by a recent series of shootings.

Gunfire has been responsible for 50 of the 74 homicides in Toronto this year to date. neighbourhood.

Martin's announcement comes nearly a month after he paid a visit to the Jane-Finch area, promising tougher gun laws and the creation of a $50 million fund to help combat gang violence nationally.

Snipped for brevity.

If you scroll down and read the letters, you will find that the vast majority of writers hold the same view on such idiocy as I do:  that they do NOTHING to curb crime, but only serve to disarm those who have no propensity towards criminality.

If such a thing does pass I predict that one or more of the following will happen:  1)  There will be an influx of Canadians moving south to the US, where we can still (so far) own firearms; 2) The summertime crime rate of Canada will skyrocket, since the law-abiding will be deprived of their best (but not only, admittedly) means of defense; 3) Those who stay in Canada but refuse to give up their handguns will be violently arrested and/or summarily executed by the RCMP, or one of their ancillary agencies (think Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas); 4) Those same "enforcers" will meet with mysterious and sudden ends to their lives, either on-duty or off-duty.

Ironically, I'm listening to ACDC's Big Gun as I finish this.  :D

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: whistledog on 12/08/05 at 11:57 pm

There sure has been alot of homicides and murders in Toronto this year.  Just recently, an 18 year old was gunend down at the church of the funeral for his 17 year old friend who was gunned down 8 days earlier.  PEopel are scared of gettign shot, so no one is speaking up about the deaths  :\'(

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/09/05 at 12:00 am

Could we get a url for that story, please?  Thanks!

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: whistledog on 12/09/05 at 2:22 am


Could we get a url for that story, please?

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/09/05 at 3:00 am

Thanks, whistledog, I appreciate it.

I'm not sure, though, why you brought this up.  If you mean to say that handgun confiscation would have prevented the death of that young man, then I have to say that you are wrong.  Laws that forbid the ownership of weapons affect ONLY those who feel bound to obey them.  Criminals, by their nature, do not obey any law and have no morality, other than the satisfaction of their appetites.  They are NOT going to surrender their guns unless they can get something better (ie, something that holds more ammo).  If this young man knew that he was a possible material witness to a crime, then he and his family should have armed themselves to possibly stave off a possible attack.  He also should have been more aware of his surroundings, as he may have been able to escape death, possibly escape injury.

I am sorry for the young man's family.  But banning handguns is not the answer.  The answer lies in apprehending the criminal who murdered him, putting him on trial, and (assuming a guilty verdict) mete out the appropriate punishment.  A wise man once said that banning firearms because they cause death is as ridiculous as banning fire because men may burn themselves, or banning water because men may drown in it.  These things are necessary to life.  Can they be abused?  Yes, but so can anything else (FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY:  Put a pencil between your middle and right fingers and make a fist; you should look something like Wolverine with just his middle claw extended; you can set that up in less than a second and use it to lethal effect on someone by stabbing them in the chest or the eye or under the chin; should we now ban pencils?).  Punish the abuser, don't punish everyone else for what the abuser has done.

If I have misunderstood your point, I apologize.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/09/05 at 11:09 am

I'm not entirely against the idea. Of course, he'll have to win the election first, and let's face it... he's not losing many votes for this. Most of the rural handgun owners, I would think, are already voting CP. Most of the big-city folk (a.k.a. the majority of the population) will not have a problem with this and will probably see it as a good thing. I've never felt unsafe in Toronto or Montr

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/09/05 at 11:28 am

I'd much rather have a gun on my person, even if I have to carry it openly (we have that law in Idaho; concealed carry is allowed with a permit).  If gangsters were to see someone with a gun openly displayed on their hip, they are much less likely to start any shooting; after all, THEY don't want to get shot, do they?  :D

But let's look at it another way:  Those who advocate disarming the public believe that the weak should be at the mercy of the strong; that the lawful and decent citizens should be at the mercy of the criminals; that good should be at the mercy of evil.

Let's not forget, though, that those who have pushed for disarmament of the people have ALWAYS exempted themselves from such laws.  Diane Feinstein, one of the most rabid disarmament advocates here in the States, carries at least 2 guns on her person, and (rumor has it) possess a special Federal Marshall's permit that allows her to carry her guns in places where we cannot.  She also has at her command a security squad armed with Heckler & Koch MP-5SD's (full-auto sub-machineguns, 9mm, with integrated suppressors on the barrels).  How's that for duplicity?

And let's not forget Rosie O'Donnell, who advocated disarming the people, but keeps guns for herself and her partner and their adopted children.  Her reasoning?  "There's crazy people in this world, and I have to protect myself and my partner and our children."  But she believes that everyone else needs to be disarmed and at the mercy of the criminals.  How thoroughly elitist of her.  :P

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/09/05 at 12:01 pm


I'd much rather have a gun on my person, even if I have to carry it openly (we have that law in Idaho; concealed carry is allowed with a permit).

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: GWBush2004 on 12/09/05 at 3:07 pm

Funny how this idea is being announced in Ontario as opposed to Alberta.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/09/05 at 4:34 pm


Funny how this idea is being announced in Ontario as opposed to Alberta.

No, it makes perfect sense.  I wonder how the citizens of Edmonton and Calgary feel about handguns, as opposed to the way the farmers and ranchers of the prairies feel about rifles and shotguns.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/09/05 at 4:35 pm

Indeed, GWBush!

McDonald, I will agree with you that we will disagree on this.  You haven't been exposed much to human nature, though, at least as much as I have.  Also, re: drive-by shootings and gang shootings, it depends a great deal on where in the US you live.  Crime is tremendously high is cities like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, and Los Angeles.  These cities have very stringent laws that effectively ban the ownership of guns by the people.  The criminals, who don't obey laws or have any decency, will continue to carry their guns with them and rob and rape and kill those whom they see as being weak and unable to defend themselves.

By denying the right to bear arms, you are handing power to the criminals, as well as the tyrants.  Please remember that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin and every other dictator confiscated the people's weapons first, and then started putting their political enemies into the death camps and slave-labor camps.

I get the feeling that you may not have ever shot a firearm before (apologies if I am wrong).  IIRC, you currently live in Texas, no?  If so, there should be places that you can go where you can rent a handgun and fire it on a range, either indoor or outdoor.  If you've never handled a firearm before, tell the owner of the range, and I'm sure that he or someone else will be very happy to teach you how to handle them safely.

On that subject, here are the 4 Laws of Firearm Safety:

1)  Always assume that a firearm is loaded until you have examined it for yourself AND made it safe for others (though rare, there are instances of people accidently shooting themselves with an "unloaded" firearm);

2)  Always point your firearm in a safe direction (either straight up or straight down at the ground, away from your feet);

3)  Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it (this is why outdoor gun ranges are located in canyons with lots of soft dirt; makes sure that the bullets don't hit any innocents);

4)  NEVER put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire your weapon (ignore Hollywood "commando tactics).

Giive handgun shooting a try if you've never done it.  So long as you follow the above rules, as well as the orders of the range master, you'll do fine and have alot of fun!

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/09/05 at 4:51 pm


No, it makes perfect sense.  I wonder how the citizens of Edmonton and Calgary feel about handguns, as opposed to the way the farmers and ranchers of the prairies feel about rifles and shotguns.


Maxwell, different situations call for different kinds of guns.  Shotguns and rifles do have their uses in hunting, but they can also be used for personal defense.  For example, many cowboys of the Old West carried revolvers on their hips AND a lever action rifle that took the same kind of ammo (.45 long Colt was typical).  The revolver was used for up close-quarters fighting while the rifle was used for long-range work.  Shotguns were used for medium range work (less than 50 yards max), and often loaded with either birdshot, or buckshot (especially 00 and 000 buckshot, very nasty).  Also, handguns have been typically worn in case trouble came up (ie, you're window shopping, and someone pulls a knife on you).  Rifles and shotguns were carried because you were either hunting OR you were expecting trouble (ie, you're working on a stagecoach carrying gold to a Wells-Fargo bank).

Again, it all depends on the situation.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/09/05 at 4:56 pm


Maxwell, different situations call for different kinds of guns.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/13/05 at 1:33 pm

I've fired plenty of guns, not that it makes any difference. 12 guage, 20 guage, AK-47, revolvers... I do live in Texas, and I knowmore than one gun freaks... and not a one of them is "all there," let me tell ya. 

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/13/05 at 1:42 pm

Really?  No difference in your opinion about guns?  Hmmmmm...

And, if I may ask, what qualifies someone as a "gun freak"?  Just asking.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/14/05 at 11:18 am


Really?

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/14/05 at 12:54 pm


Well, take a friend of mine for instance. Has tons of guns in the house (though he doesn't hunt or anything) because not only does he like them, he's afraid of something. He thinks someone will try to rob him. When he drives around in his truck, he carries a concealed handgun (even though he doesn't have a license for that) because he thinks someone (in the tiny town of Cleburne, TX where nothing ever happens) will try to harm him. Other than that, he's rather normal, but he lives in the middle of nowhere and he has no reason to fear being burgled or anything like that. You get the feeling that he can't wait for someone to try to break into his house so that he can legally shoot the guy. He wants to shoot a person, and that's the vibe I get from most gun-owners... a fearful and morbid vibe.


I wouldn't call him fearful or morbid.  I would call him prudent.  In another discussion, I spoke about the use of handguns in the Old West, when a man would strap on his six-gun when he went out JUST IN CASE OF TROUBLE.  What you call fearfulness, I call preparedness.  Granted, one cannot prepare for everything, but preparing for most contingencies is prudent.  As for living in a tiny town, it's not always neighbors who will burgle your house or rob you; it may be someone who passes through on their way to do another crime somewhere else.

Ownership of guns by the people is one of the best means of stopping crime.  I give you Vermont, Alaska and the city of Kennesaw, Georgia as examples.  They have the least number of gun restrictions in all the states, and their crime rates are almost nil.  On the other hand, NYC, DC, and San Francisco have the most restrictive gun laws in America, and their murder rates are the highest in the land.

Let's not forget the real reason for ownership of weapons by the people:  To take up arms against a tyrannical government.  It's what the Founding Fathers had done, and it cost them dearly in blood.  And from what I am seeing in this world, that time is coming again.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/14/05 at 10:14 pm




Let's not forget the real reason for ownership of weapons by the people:

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/15/05 at 3:34 am

In another discussion, I quoted Sun Tzu's The Art of War:  "Do what your enemy does not expect you to do."

""And if you think a bunch of ragtag militias are going to outgun the U.S. military, you've got another thing coming!""

That's what the British thought when they encountered the Colonial Army and their militia...That's what the American military thought when they went up against the VietCong.  Unconventional warfare wins almost every single time.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/15/05 at 7:20 am


In another discussion, I quoted Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/15/05 at 11:26 am


The Iraqi "insurgency" that the Bushies always say is in its "death throes," or being "systematically dismantled"?  Hmmmmm.....
???


Yup!  And it will be the same here when (not IF) it happens.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/15/05 at 10:06 pm


Yup!

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/16/05 at 1:50 am

Perhaps.  I don't plan on being part of it though.

I fight the fight; I vote (for all the good that it does), write to my Congress- and Senate-critters (ibid.), and express myself in myriad ways, all of which are viewable to TPTB and their flunkies.

Friends of mine on other boards say, "When (not IF) they come to get you, take as many of them with you as you can.  If you win the day, regroup yourself to fight another day.  If you don't, then save the last cartidge for yourself."

And when I see the abuses that our government is slapping down upon us, I can't help but think that it's good advice.  Death is preferable to a life of servitude.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/16/05 at 9:39 am


It's what the Founding Fathers had done, and it cost them dearly in blood.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: conker on 12/16/05 at 12:23 pm

What's with the fear of government, liberals/conservatives, blacks/whites etc(insert your fear here).
I live in Canada and don't really see what the ban will do but then again I don't see the reason to have a handgun other than if you are in the police/military or a sport shooter.
No wonder it is a problem when large numbers of people are afraid of any one who is different and they feel they need a gun to protect their 'stuff'.  Art of War Enemies etc...what's with the general paranoia?

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/16/05 at 9:18 pm


It didn't cost the fouding fathers a drop of blood. It was the blood of the non-

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/17/05 at 1:14 am

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/misc/signfate.html

On July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress agreed to formally declare American independence from the British Crown. The finished Declaration of Independence had to be hand scribed and required time for preparation.

On August 2, 1776, 56 members of that Continental Congress began affixing their signatures. Signing was not complete until October but approval had been decided. Each state had only one vote but could send any number of delegates to the convention. The final vote was 13-0 making it unanimous. Before the voting there were dissensions among the various delegations, but once the die was cast, 56 signed.

They were:

    * Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

    * Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

    * Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

    * Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll

    * Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

    * New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

    * New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

    * New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

    * North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

    * Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

    * Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

    * South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr, Thomas Lynch, Jr, Arthur Middleton

    * Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

For biographical sketches see Founders Page The Price They Paid:

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the revolutionary war.

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKean of Delaware was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery of Rhode Island, Clymer of Pennsylvania, Hall of Georgia, Walton of Georgia, Gwinnett of Georgia, Heyward of South Carolina, Ruttledge of South Carolina, and Middleton of South Carolina.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., of Virginia, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis of New York had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart of New Jersey was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Lewis Morris of New York and Philip Livingston of New York suffered similar fates.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were among prominent Americans well known in England. Yet both signed enthusiastically knowing they would be hanged if caught and even if they escaped, Jefferson was risking Monticello and Franklin his wealth and world prestige if independence was not secured.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:

    "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

*******************

Just so there's no misunderstanding about the Founding Fathers.

As for "paranoia", I call it a healthy distrust of government.  The sheeple of Germany trusted their government, and they had Hitler.  The sheeple of America trust their government, and we have Duh-bya, and will soon have either Hitlary Klingon or Kinda-lazy Rice (or both).  History will repeat itself unless resistance is undertaken.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/17/05 at 1:35 pm


Somewhat true.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/17/05 at 2:48 pm


You got a point there. Like I said, I wasn't intending to discredit them, but I know that much of their reasoning had more to do with paying high taxes than it did with providing freedom to every man (just not women, natives, blacks...).

I say again and again, I don't like this "original intent" mumbo-jumbo because the Founding Fathers "intended" only for about four percent of the population to have the franchise.  Under "original intent" I wouldn't be allowed to vote--even as an adult WASP male because I'm propertyless rabble.

Anyway...one of Michael Moore's more salient points is that Canada does have a huge number of guns among its population, but it doesn't have anywhere near the rate of gun violence ast the U.S.  He asked why this is so.  Where Moore went wrong on Canada in "Bowling For Columbine" is he portrayed Canada as a country without serious poverty and "ghetto" problems. 

The concern among "Canada Liberals" is about handguns, not rifles owned by Alberta ranchers.  Anyway, that leads to the whole contention that criminals won't obey a gun law. 
Your Texas friend who carries a concealed handgun with no permit is statistically more likely to get himself killed with that very gun than to save his own skin with it.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: McDonald on 12/17/05 at 8:46 pm


I say again and again, I don't like this "original intent" mumbo-jumbo because the Founding Fathers "intended" only for about four percent of the population to have the franchise.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: IanWinn on 12/17/05 at 11:23 pm

As someone who's studied their history, the reason the Founding Fathers only wanted property owners to be able to vote is because the property owners were the ones who paid the property taxes, and in those days (since there was no accursed income tax) those who paid the property tax were the ones who had the right to say what was to be done with the money; it was, after all, THEIR MONEY.  They did not want someone who didn't pay property taxes to have a say in how someone else's money was to be spent.  They might suggest ideas, I'm certain, but when it came down to the vote, only the tax-payers had the say, non-tax-payers did not.

I think it's an idea whose time has returned.

Subject: Re: Canada Liberals to Enact Handgun Ban

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/19/05 at 1:34 am


As someone who's studied their history, the reason the Founding Fathers only wanted property owners to be able to vote is because the property owners were the ones who paid the property taxes, and in those days (since there was no accursed income tax) those who paid the property tax were the ones who had the right to say what was to be done with the money; it was, after all, THEIR MONEY.

Check for new replies or respond here...