Anti-Gun Government Tyranny in Canada

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Anti-Gun Government Tyranny in Canada

Written By : Warner Todd Huston

Unlike the U.S., Canada does not have the right of self-protection enshrined in its laws. Where we Americans have the coverage of the Second Amendment to protect our God-given right to self-protection, the Canadians have to rely on the occasional good nature of their overlords in government to determine how their right to own a firearm is treated. Sadly, their ownership of firearms is usually mistreated rather than upheld.

A writer for the Toronto Star wrote an article recently that showed the capriciousness of government thugs where it concerns privately owned firearms in Canada. Joe Fiorito had a retinue of Toronto’s finest stormtroopers come beating on his door one day this month to confiscate his old rifle because the columnist had the temerity of forgetting to re-up his registration of a disassembled, 30-year-old, small caliber bird gun.

Involved were multiple police cars, half a dozen officers, judge’s warrants. All sorts of iron, jack-booted automatons of the state came down on Mr. Fioritto. It was as if he were public enemy no. 1. All of this over a beat up old rifle that was disassembled, locked in a basement, and stored in a house in which no ammunition existed.

You might laugh at this absurd overreach. It might amuse you that all these thousands of Canadian dollars in state funded policing assets were wasted for this practically useless old rifle in the possession of an obviously unassuming and powerless citizen. You might utter a guffaw at the Canadian’s follies.

But be forewarned: Canada is but one step ahead the U.S.A. if the American left has by hook or crook gotten its way and outlawed our Constitutional rights.

Mr. Fiorito calls himself a “social democrat who wears his bleeding heart on his sleeve,” and one that agrees with the Toronto gun registry… or at least used to. He says he agrees that no one but cops should be allowed to have handguns or “military-style weapons.” But what threat, he wonders, did his little bird gun present to society?

I am and have been a supporter of the gun registry but now I’m not so sure, not when ownership of a two-bit little bird gun – legally acquired, lawfully used and stored in pieces in a trunk for the past 30 years – is sufficient reason for three cops to come to my door and snatch it, after threatening me with a search warrant.

Look, I registered the damn thing. I simply neglected to renew. A sin of omission?

Send in the troops.

Fiorito then reported that even days afterward the Toronto police were seen in cars idling in front of his house. What a waste of government resources not to mention an outrage against this man’s god-given rights.

This incident shows the idiocy of government, the penchant for stormtrooper tactics by its police/military arm, and government’s outright inability to consider a citizen as anything other than a dangerous threat. And these facts, the way that an all powerful government that doesn’t have to fear its citizens treats those same citizens, is precisely why America’s Founders enshrined our rights to self protection in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. The founders weren’t nearly as worried about thieves and marauders as they were of an out of control government.

The founders did not invent this right out of their over-ripe imagination, either. There was an awful lot of precedent for it. A book called Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws (1765) was a huge influence on the founders and this is what it said on arms ownership: “The right of the citizens that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense.” And ” This is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression” and again “To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the citizens are entitled … to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.” This warning by Blackstone was born of thousands of years of government abuse of citizens.

With our founder’s heavy use of Blackstone’s Commentaries, it is clear that what the founders had in mind was that self-preservation and defense was a natural right to be protected by the laws and the Constitution. And historically what did people have to fear at least as much as criminals? Government.

James Wilson was one of only 6 founders who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, he was a great Jurist, and was one of the first members of the Supreme Court appointed to that body by George Washington. He spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention 168 times and was one of the most active politicians of his day.

Mr. Wilson taught his laws students that the rights secured by the Constitution did not create new rights, but simply reaffirmed old ones. He said that our own documents were made, “to aquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to… which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.” Thomas Jefferson similarly viewed our Constitution and principles, saying: “Government is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us.” For his part John Adams stated that, “Rights are antecedent to all earthly government; Rights … cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights are derived from the great Legislator of the universe.”

As far as our founders were concerned, the right to protect one’s self was God given. What God bestows let no man tear asunder.

Here are some other quotes about firearms uttered by our founders specifically now that we have the principles of self-preservation established:

“The right … of bearing arms… is declared to be inherent in the people.” Fisher Ames, one of the framers of the 2nd Amendment in the first congress
“The great object is that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to have arms, … it is still far from being the case?” Patrick Henry
“And what country can preserve its liberties if its rules are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them” Richard Henry Lee
“The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation … the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison
“A free people ought … to be armed.” George Washington
And now, what is the militia? Try these quotes:
“The militia are the people at large.” Tench Coxe Atty Gen. of Penn. and Asst. Sec of Treasury under Washington
“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” George Mason
“The militia is composed of free citizens.” Samuel Adams
“A militia… are in fact the people themselves.” Richard Henry Lee

And who is this militia? The first federal law passed concerning just who a militia member might be, the Militia Act of 1792, states that the “militia of the United States” consists of every adult male in the country. Under that act each adult male was required by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition. In fact, the current law still states, “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 and under 45 years of age.” -United States code, title 10 par., 311(a)

Lastly you can check most of the early states and see that they went even further in delineating that firearms should be owned by individual citizens of the states. But that is another, longer, discussion.

So, what the heck does this all mean? Well, to be blunt, the founders would surely have agreed that American citizens should be expected to defend themselves against the sort of government thugs that pounded on columnist Fiorito’s door. Yes, you read that right. There is no gentle way to put it, no softer way to massage the essential truth that the founders would themselves have been up in arms if some government official had imagined he had the power to confiscate their firearms. In fact, they did. We now call it the Battle of Lexington and Concord, one of the earliest engagements of our Revolutionary War. The colonists, our founders, took up arms to prevent British authorities from confiscating their firearms and gunpowder.

The final conclusion is that no patriotic American citizen should meekly hand over his firearm to the government (unless he’s abdicated his rights by becoming a criminal). Unfortunately, if the anti-American left has its way the United States of America will emulate Canada and become meek, powerless, subjects of an all powerful, uncaring, illicit government.

Don’t let it happen. Be vigilant.

NorthernCanuck

“agrees with the Toronto gun registry… or at least used to.”

Ain’t it peculiar how liberal ideas change when meeting reality.
http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

Yep, how many times do we see libs getting mugged by reality? When they ALLOW reality to pierce their curtain of self-induced intoxication of lefty ideals, they crash HARD on reality!
Realpolitik

Praise God, Who prefers life, for gun registry.

The founding fathers never conceived of the types of “arms” available today. Their attitudes would have been different.
StanInTexas

The founding fathers never conceived of the types of “arms” available today. Their attitudes would have been different.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 14:45:39

Not in the least, RP. The Founding Fathers said ARMS, all arms. You might have a point is they specified long-guns or pistols, or cannons; but they did not.

Also, it’s funny that God’s preference for life never comes up in the abortion debate.
http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

The Canadian approach to guns is heavily modeled after the model used in the mothership, the UK. It used to be that you hardly ever heard news reports about criminals with guns in the UK. But now, the black market has stepped into where prohibition has created a vacuum and they’re all over the place. Of course, the ever resourceful Brits have long since resorted to knife-based thuggery, rather than firearms-based thuggery, so now they have both a wave of gun violence and a wave of knife violence. Coupled with the availability of 24 hour booze and a binge drinking culture and you’ve got the recipe for a real disaster.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Praise God, Who prefers life, for gun registry.

Do you really think (and I use that term loosely) that God prefers that criminals be able to rape, rob and murder at will? Just shut your pie-hole and stop spewing your inane stupidities for one afternoon.
Realpolitik

Not in the least, RP. The Founding Fathers said ARMS, all arms. You might have a point is they specified long-guns or pistols, or cannons; but they did not.

Also, it’s funny that God’s preference for life never comes up in the abortion debate.
Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-04 14:50:45

By your logic we should be able to have RPGs and A-bombs at home. The Founding fathers could not even imagine the arms of today.

God allows far more natural abortions than those perfomed by external sources.
Realpolitik

Posted by CavalierX
2010-02-04 14:59:35

God prefers that those innocents slaughtered by malcontents with access to arms remain alive.
StanInTexas

By your logic we should be able to have RPGs and A-bombs at home. The Founding fathers could not even imagine the arms of today.

God allows far more natural abortions than those perfomed by external sources.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 15:05:00

If you can afford an Atom Bomb for your home protection, go for it, RP. It is an Arm and covered by the 2nd Amendment.

By your logic, we should not have any regulation of the Internet, because our Founding Fathers could never have conceived of it. I guess the First Amendment is outdated and should be ignored as well.

Natural abortion? I guess we can stop punishing murder because people die of natural causes. What does it matter if man interviens?
StanInTexas

God prefers that those innocents slaughtered by malcontents with access to arms remain alive.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 15:06:38

And making guns illegal or heavily regulated will keep them out of the hands of those ‘malcontents’ how exactly?
Realpolitik

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-04 15:10:43

It’d be kinda fun to see if the citizens of this fine country would allow personal ownership of the A-bomb.

People dying of natural causes is not equitable to murder. What’s your point?
StanInTexas

People dying of natural causes is not equitable to murder. What’s your point?
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 15:15:28

Abortion is OK with you, because some pregnancies do not result in a live birth. That is natural (I know you’ll never agree it is God’s Will). So if man intervenes to prevent a live birth, that’s OK with you as well. So if man intervenes in preventing a natural death, that is the same thing.

Simple logical consistency, RP.
tblrk2006

The founding fathers never conceived of the types of “arms” available today. Their attitudes would have been different.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 14:45:39

There is nothing available to average citizens today that wasnt available then. So take it someplace else.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

God prefers that those innocents slaughtered by malcontents with access to arms remain alive.

And so they can — if they can defend themselves. Because criminals will always be able to get guns, no matter what ridiculous laws are passed. They don’t register their guns, and often buy weapons stolen from law-abiding gun owners. They don’t use them only for self-defense, either. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

By your logic we should be able to have RPGs and A-bombs at home.

There are other laws already in place which prevent that. And you rarely hear law-abiding gun owners complaining about them.
http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

Another stupid, illogical, and a-historic comment:

“By your logic we should be able to have RPGs and A-bombs at home. The Founding fathers could not even imagine the arms of today.”

Nope, wrong, and stupid. The founders insisted that citizens have arms. However, A-Bombs and rockets ARE NOT ARMS in the founders definition of the word. Neither are cannons, tanks, or mines, jet airplanes, handgrenades etc.

The founds defined “arms” as military-styled rifles and pistols. Not cannons. Those were ordnance, not firearms. And, yes, they COULD imagine a weapon of mass destruction. After all, they had cannons that were able to kill dozens at a time and they DID NOT assume that the average citizen had a right to a canon. Further they were NOT stupid and did not imagine that weapons manufacture had reached some sort of permanent state of technology! Only an IDIOT would assume the founders were too stupid to understand that weapons technology could yet improve. Well, maybe not an idiot. Maybe someone that hates the founders like all lefties do.

So, your idiotic blatherings are just that, idiotic.

Now, this DOES mean that the founder’s definition of firearms holds that the average citizen SHOULD be able to have a fully automatic machine gun. After all, the biggest reason that the founders wanted us to have firearms was to be able to OVERTHROW the government if t got too oppressive, as well as to oppose invading enemies.

If we don’t have machine guns like the military does, we CANNOT be a threat to that government nor an we be a threat to an invading enemy.
Realpolitik

So if man intervenes in preventing a natural death, that is the same thing.

Simple logical consistency, RP.
Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-04 15:18:06

You’ve lost me with this. If there is intervention to stop a death, then there is already a life.
Realpolitik

There is nothing available to average citizens today that wasnt available then. So take it someplace else.
Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-04 15:18:48

This statement is totally in error.(How’s that for being polite?)
tblrk2006

By your logic we should be able to have RPGs and A-bombs at home. The Founding fathers could not even imagine the arms of today.

Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 15:05:00

And yet none of those “unimaginable” arms are what anybody is talking about. Instead you are talking about taking sombodies shotgun, rifle, or pistol. See how easy that was? Owned
StanInTexas

You’ve lost me with this. If there is intervention to stop a death, then there is already a life.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 15:21:57

I know you are asking this just to be a jerk, but I’ll play along for a moment.

With no intervention from an outside source, a baby will most likely be born as the result of a pregnancy. If man intervenes (abortion), that live birth will not take place. Man has played God.

With no intervention from an outside source, a person will most likely live to a ripe old age. If man intervenes (murder), that natual death will not take place. Man has played God.

Understand?
tblrk2006

This statement is totally in error.(How’s that for being polite?)
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 15:23:19

Ok, mr expert, what is AVAILABLE today to AVERAGE americans that wasnt then?
paulehansen

The situation here in Canada is even worse than this article suggests. The fact is that the police did not even need the excuse of the expired paperwork. Under the gun registry laws, the police can arrive a gun owner’s home at any time to inspect the storage of the registered firearms. It is then completely at the discretion of the police whether to charge the gun-owner with unlawful storage and confiscate his weapons, even if they were stored in strict compliance of the law. He will eventually be acquitted, but not until enduring the hardships of being charged with a felony.
sabiticus

The founding fathers never conceived of the types of “arms” available today. Their attitudes would have been different.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 14:45:39

Do you care to back this statement up with anything that the founders may have written to support it? Or are you just blatantly putting words in their mouths?
Realpolitik

Understand?
Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-04 15:26:04

You equate apples and oranges. One situation deals with an actual life, the other does not.
Realpolitik

The founds defined “arms” as military-styled rifles and pistols.
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
2010-02-04 15:21:29

I’d like to see this definition. Sure – call me a skeptic.
Mike_M

I wonder if the Founders ever conceived of the government having access to wiretapping, facial recognition software, aircraft, armored vehicles, or weapons of mass destruction?

If anything they would have given the government even stricter Constitutional handcuffs.

If any liberals want to call a Constitutional Convention to discuss guns, the above list is part of the conversation as well. The outcome of that debate may be much different than the liberals expect going in.
Realpolitik

Do you care to back this statement up with anything that the founders may have written to support it? Or are you just blatantly putting words in their mouths?
Posted by sabiticus
2010-02-04 15:34:07

Oh, yeah – prove what the founding fathers did *not* think. Fun-ee! I’ll leave such nonsense to Warner Todd.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

The founds defined “arms” as military-styled rifles and pistols.
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
2010-02-04 15:21:29

The most common arm at the time of the framing of the US Constitution was the black powder using muzzle loaded flint lock, with either a rifled or unrifled barrel. This weapon was used by military and civilian folk alike. The fronteirsman carried it, and troops carried it. One could say that this was the assault rifle of it’s day. So actually, there was no differential between military and civilian weapons at that time, since all abled bodied males were members of the militia and expected to provide their own weapons.
whats_up

There is nothing available to average citizens today that wasnt available then. So take it someplace else.

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-04 15:18:48

This statement is idiotic on its face. The founding fathers nor anyone alive at that time had access to pistols that carried fifteen bullets in a magazine, they didnt have access to semi-automatic rifles. Etc…
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Oh look more utter stupidity on when a fetus is alive. Guess some idiots just cannot understand simple biology, right never-show?

And yes the founding fathers actually saw every arm that was availible at that time as a valid arm for use by a citizen. From pistols, to rifles, shot guns, mortars, cannon, bows, knives, even armed ships, IF YOU COULD AFFORD TO BUY THEM. There is nothing to indicate otherwise, and ‘arms’ is the broadest set used in the 2nd. They also knew that arms and technology change and that they left it open to allow for those changes.
whats_up

And yes the founding fathers actually saw every arm that was availible at that time as a valid arm for use by a citizen. From pistols, to rifles, shot guns, mortars, cannon, bows, knives, even armed ships, IF YOU COULD AFFORD TO BUY THEM. There is nothing to indicate otherwise, and ‘arms’ is the broadest set used in the 2nd. They also knew that arms and technology change and that they left it open to allow for those changes.

Posted by bthewolf
2010-02-04 16:06:26

No they did not, just ask Warner, he will testify to that.
whats_up

Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-04 15:55:40

Mike,

Seems to me that conservatives dont mind these things, why would it be an issue?
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

No they did not, just ask Warner, he will testify to that.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:07:30

Well he and YOU are wrong, period, even according to the Militia Act of 1763(?), the militias were REQUIRED to provide their own weapons even mortars, cannon, horses, and grenades.
Realpolitik

Guess some idiots just cannot understand simple biology,Posted by bthewolf
2010-02-04 16:06:26

By your ignorance you certainly prove this statement, oh stained one.
Mike_M

“Seems to me that conservatives dont mind these things, why would it be an issue?”

We don’t have an issue with personal firearm ownership either. It’s you liberals that demand the government have an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Admitting you have a cognitive dissonance problem is the first step to recovery…I expect niether from you.
Smithwick

You mean giving the government unparalleled powers over the private lives of it’s “citizens” in the name of security might end up being misused by that same government? The hell you say!

If only some people had been able to figure this out in advance and had warned them . . .
StanInTexas

You equate apples and oranges. One situation deals with an actual life, the other does not.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 15:48:53

I will be happy to debate that issue, but that is for another time. You claim abortion is fine with God because not all pregnancies result in birth. That is man interveneing in an act of God. Murder is the same thing. It is man interveneing to unnaturally shorten an man’s life.

Your pro-abortion argument is analagous to a pro-murder argument.

Teh logical consistancy is there for all to see, RP.
StanInTexas

No they did not, just ask Warner, he will testify to that.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-04 16:07:30

Please provide for us proof, from the Founding Father’s own words, they they did not know arms and technology would change, crthns.
whats_up

Posted by Mike_M
2010-02-04 16:12:48

Not I Mike, I am a proud owner of multiple guns. Love to hunt and fish too.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

The founding fathers never conceived of the types of “arms” available today.

The Founding Fathers never conceived of laser printers, personal computers, or television either. Guess that means all modern newspapers, tv studios, and internet websites can be shut down by the government. Their technology exceeds what the Founding Fathers conceived of, therefore they have no freedom of speech or press.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

By your ignorance you certainly prove this statement, oh stained one.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 16:11:49

Oh look, never-show thinks he knows more about biology than me, ROFLMAO.
tblrk2006

Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:06:07

Sorry, but repeating firearms were around. You seem intent on makeing the founding fathers out to be idiots who could not have imagined anything past their day and age.

The point was that many more weapons were around and most average people didnt care. The fathers new this, and still didnt put a limit on our 2nd amendment freedom. Thats why ARMS is losely defined by them. You know why? B/C the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the govt…in other words people like you wu. It is our ability to keep the govt in check. We must always be on par with or above the govt. Not have our freedom restricted while the govt is free to find many more way to rule over us that we cannot fight against. Got it?
whats_up

Please provide for us proof, from the Founding Father’s own words, they they did not know arms and technology would change, crthns.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-04 16:36:16

I never stated that Stan, it would be nice if you could debate things that I actually said, I know a stretch for you.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

it would be nice if you could debate things that I actually said, I know a stretch for you.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:40:23

You said David Duke voted for Bush in 2004. Lets discuss it.
tblrk2006

I never stated that Stan, it would be nice if you could debate things that I actually said, I know a stretch for you.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:40:23

YES YOU DID WHEN YOU SAID THIS:

This statement is idiotic on its face. The founding fathers nor anyone alive at that time had access to pistols that carried fifteen bullets in a magazine, they didnt have access to semi-automatic rifles. Etc…
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:06:07
tblrk2006

You said David Duke voted for Bush in 2004. Lets discuss it.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2010-02-04 16:43:49

He also said that everybody in the USA dies from disease or goes BK from our system, while at the same time we shouldnt lable the canadian system a failure b/c one boy is very ill from a tonsil surgery.
StanInTexas

I never stated that Stan, it would be nice if you could debate things that I actually said, I know a stretch for you.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-04 16:40:23

Actually, you did, crthns. Don’t you just hate it when your word words prove you wrong?

And yes the founding fathers actually saw every arm that was availible at that time as a valid arm for use by a citizen. From pistols, to rifles, shot guns, mortars, cannon, bows, knives, even armed ships, IF YOU COULD AFFORD TO BUY THEM. There is nothing to indicate otherwise, and ‘arms’ is the broadest set used in the 2nd. They also knew that arms and technology change and that they left it open to allow for those changes.

Posted by bthewolf
2010-02-04 16:06:26

No they did not, just ask Warner, he will testify to that.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-04 16:07:30
whats_up

YES YOU DID WHEN YOU SAID THIS:

This statement is idiotic on its face. The founding fathers nor anyone alive at that time had access to pistols that carried fifteen bullets in a magazine, they didnt have access to semi-automatic rifles. Etc…
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:06:07

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-04 16:44:17

Jesus, you cant even keep your lies straight, that was in response to this idiotic post from you:

There is nothing available to average citizens today that wasnt available then. So take it someplace else.

Posted by tblrk2006
2010-02-04 15:18:48

Are you really trying to make the claim that those who lived in 1775 had access to semi-automatic weapons?
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

I’d like to see this definition. Sure – call me a skeptic.

But you were the one declaring that they could not have imagined weapons of mass destruction as we have today, leaving the only possible definition as rifles and pistols. Make upi what passes for your mind what argument you are trying so badly to make, and make it already.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Are you really trying to make the claim that those who lived in 1775 had access to semi-automatic weapons?

I believe he’s saying they had access to the same basic weapons carried by the soldiers of the day — rifles and pistols, even cannon. Today, we don’t have any access to military-level weaponry. We’ve lost the final, last-ditch method by which we are supposed to be able to fight against a tyrannical government if necessary. If we adhered to the Constitution as written and understood, most able-bodied adults would belong to a local civilian militia with access to assault rifles, grenades and light artillery, at least.
Realpolitik

most able-bodied adults would belong to a local civilian militia with access to assault rifles, grenades and light artillery, at least.
Posted by CavalierX
2010-02-04 17:05:52

Which is what the 2nd A really meant.
StanInTexas

Which is what the 2nd A really meant.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 17:26:17

You would do well to memorize this quote, RP!
““The militia is composed of free citizens.” Samuel Adams“
Realpolitik

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-04 17:29:50

Great quote. I concur wholeheartedly.
StanInTexas

Great quote. I concur wholeheartedly.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 17:33:18

I find that difficult to beleive in light of your opening salvo on this thread…

“Praise God, Who prefers life, for gun registry.

The founding fathers never conceived of the types of “arms” available today. Their attitudes would have been different.
Posted by Realpolitik 2010-02-04 14:45:39″
RtWingNtCase

Militia means the people, not the military.

I still don’t understand what part of the following phrase liberals can’t get:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”

“…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”

What exactly is it that folks don’t comprehend?
tblrk2006

Which is what the 2nd A really meant.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 17:26:17

Sorry, but you dont know what a militia is. Its individually armed citizens forming their own unit. A militia, by definition, cannot be armed by a govt. That is the whole reason for the 2nd amendment and its simple wording. The founders saw it fit that we are always well armed so that we can protect ourselves….especially from people like you in the govt. You fail the lesson miserably.
tblrk2006

What exactly is it that folks don’t comprehend?
Posted by RtWingNtCase
2010-02-04 17:47:35

The whole thing about people not trusting their govt enough to surrender completely to it.
Smithwick

What other rights have perquisites (like joining a government run militia) before you are allowed to exercise them?

Free speech, if you work at a government sanctioned newspaper (the founders never heard about radio, internet, telegraph etc so those are right out) but certainly not if you’re just a regular citizen.
tblrk2006

What other rights have perquisites (like joining a government run militia) before you are allowed to exercise them?

Posted by Smithwick
2010-02-04 18:05:04

A militia isnt govt run…..thats an army. A militia is citizen run.
smelvertising

Are you really trying to make the claim that those who lived in 1775 had access to semi-automatic weapons?

Are you really trying to make the claim that those who lived in 1775 had acces to the Internet?

Because that would invalidate the 1st when it comes to speech on the Internet.

Also, you’re an idiot.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

I don’t think gun registration is a horrible imposition of tyranny, but it shouldn’t impede ownership to responsible citizens. Governments should live in fear of their people.
tblrk2006

I don’t think gun registration is a horrible imposition of tyranny, but it shouldn’t impede ownership to responsible citizens. Governments should live in fear of their people.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2010-02-04 20:53:33

Its not that it impedes ownership….it makes you guilty until proven inocent.
tblrk2006

Are you really trying to make the claim that those who lived in 1775 had access to semi-automatic weapons?
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:53:08

No, and that isnt what I said. I said available to the average citizen….meaning in comparison to those he would use it against…but that isnt the point and wasnt meant to be called into question by the founders. Thus the reason they said “arms” and not musket or cap and ball. Thats something you and RP dont seem to grasp…and the fact that a gun doesnt kill…a person does. If the founders wanted the govt to maintain an edge on citizens it would have eliminated the 2nd in reference to militia.

Oh, and when you said this:

“This statement is idiotic on its face. The founding fathers nor anyone alive at that time had access to pistols that carried fifteen bullets in a magazine, they didnt have access to semi-automatic rifles. Etc…
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-04 16:06:07″

You are trying to say that the founders couldnt have imagined anything today and thus didnt know anybetter when writing the 2nd. And then you claim you werent saying that….so what were you trying to say?
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Its not that it impedes ownership….it makes you guilty until proven inocent.

Dang, you feel that way when you have to register your car, too?
Toastrider

The official gun control stance, after you scrape away the rhetoric, is that a woman who is raped and strangled to death is morally superior to one who center-punches a rapist with a pistol.

End. Of. Line.
sabiticus

Do you care to back this statement up with anything that the founders may have written to support it? Or are you just blatantly putting words in their mouths?
Posted by sabiticus
2010-02-04 15:34:07
Oh, yeah – prove what the founding fathers did *not* think. Fun-ee! I’ll leave such nonsense to Warner Todd.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-02-04 15:56:14

So, in other words, you have absolutely nothing more to back up your assertions than what you pull out of your own ass.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Which is what the 2nd A really meant.

So you agree that the Second Amenndment was written to ensure that the government could not infringe on a private citizen’s right to own military-level weaponry. Good for you!
StanInTexas

Dang, you feel that way when you have to register your car, too?
Posted by Christopher_Taylor 2010-02-04 23:36:09

Driving is a privilidge, CT. Bearing Arms is a RIGHT.
RtWingNtCase

To say nothing of the fact that driving isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing Arms is.

I’m fine with background checks(instant check like with credit card purchases). I’m not okay with a registry – it implies I needed the government’s consent to exercise one of my rights.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

You guys are right, but that’s irrelevant. He said you felt like it was treating him as guilty, which seemed odd, since the mere act of registration does not do so.

Registering (as he admitted) does not infringe on your right to bear arms. So what’s the problem again?
StanInTexas

Registering (as he admitted) does not infringe on your right to bear arms. So what’s the problem again?
Posted by Christopher_Taylor 2010-02-05 16:15:11

Bearing Arms is our Right, CT. We do not have to register with the government to be able to use any other right.

And when registration becomes confiscation, it will be too late.
DrEvil

The Constitution recognizes our right to arms, which was understood at the time of the founding as an weapon employed by a single individual. The right does not cover artillery or bombers or atomic weapons – those would clearly fall under the heading of ordnance and the founders did not recognize a right to ordinance. A machine gun operated by an individual falls under “arms” but a crew-served weapon probably falls under “ordinance” and would not be covered by the Bill of Rights. The weapons owned by the Colonists were by and large superior to the standard weapon of the British army at the time so there is no logical reason to believe that free American citizens shouldn’t be able to own the most advanced arms, e.g. assault rifles.

Since I didn’t have to register this statement with the Federal Government there is no reason that I should have to register any weapon. The States are a different story as they have rights under the Constitution that the Fed lacks but the States cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, which even the SUpreme COurt is beginning to recognize.

Have an Evil day
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

We do not have to register with the government to be able to use any other right.

That’s not true. You have to register to have a protest over a certain size. You have to register with the government to own a house (property). You have to register with the government to get a real job. You have to register with the government to have a radio job.

Whether that’s proper or not is another question but you do have to register to exercise many rights.

There are places where the slippery slope argument is valid, but registration does not necessarily or even within a few steps lead to confiscation. That’s like saying “if they stop me from yelling fire in a crowded theater, they’ll cut my throat to stop me from talking soon.”

All rights have their free expression restricted, the 2nd amendment is not somehow uniquely separate from this reality.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

You have to register to have a protest over a certain size. You have to register with the government to own a house (property). You have to register with the government to get a real job. You have to register with the government to have a radio job.

So the fact that the government infringes on our rights in other ways proves that it has the right to infringe on our rights by forcing us to register our legally owned and peaceably operated firearms?

Yes, all rights have limits. But the idea that our right to keep and bear arms is so limited that we can’t even exercise it AT ALL without getting permission from the government is simply ludicrous. That’s the problem with all the examples you listed above. All those “limits” only come into play when certain conditions are met. Protests over a certain size are a public safety concern, for example. But the mere act of owning a firearm does not in any way threaten someone else. It doesn’t create any public safety concern any more than the mere act of owning a butcher knife or a hatchet implies that you want to chop people up and make them into meat pies.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Another thing. The permit requirement for protests over a certain size only restricts how you exercise the right to peaceably assemble. You are not required to register for a permit if you and three friends want to hold up signs. Only if the size of your protest grows so large that public safety is a concern are you required to register.

How, pray tell, does the mere act of owning a gun create a public safety concern? And why does owning a gun create enough of a public safety concern to necessitate registration, but owning axes, knives, and household poisons doesn’t?
tblrk2006

Dang, you feel that way when you have to register your car, too?
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2010-02-04 23:36:09

When you register a firearm you are giving the authoritative body the ability to run your registered info anytime they have, whatever they call, reason. Example….a crime was commited with a certain caliber or kind of firearm. Who are the first people checked? The easiest ones….you, b/c your info is right there and you have that firearm.
Toastrider

And just to cap this discussion off:

Before someone whines about the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy, consider looking at the UK. They instituted ‘registration’ and then passed bans, confiscated firearms from those registered.