For NJ Second Amendment excersizers/supporters....

"MountainCommand" (MountainCommand) 08/17/2013 at 00:14 • Filed to: gunlopnik

2

15

good news after the break! (possibly political so ill leave it out of eyes reach)

I hope all of you people in jersey realized we barely escaped some of the most crazy, and restrictive legislation against our second amendment to date. Luckily the 3 most idiodic bills have been vetoed. (with just about a day before they would have become law if the governor decided to say nothing about them).

Remember though. This is not the end. They will be back. So please, dont think its all safe just yet. We still have some of the worst restrictions in this country.

here is a copypaste from ANJRPC:

GOVERNOR CHRISTIE

VETOES FINAL GUN BILLS!

FIFTY CALIBER BAN - DEAD!

SWEENEY F.I.D. BILL - DEAD!

TRACE DATA BREACH - DEAD!

Sweeney and Trace Data Bills Conditionally Vetoed

Please Thank Governor Christie for Vetoing these

Measures That Targeted Only Gun Rights

And Ignored Criminal Behavior!

In a huge blow to anti-gun politicians and the gun ban lobby, today Governor Christie flat-out vetoed the fifty caliber ban (A3659) and conditionally vetoed two other bills - Senate President Stephen Sweeney's "kitchen sink" F.I.D. card bill (S2723), and a bill that that would have forced the State Police to breach confidentiality of protected gun trace data in violation of federal law (A3797). A fourth bill creating a task force to study school security issues was signed by the Governor (A3583).

A "conditional veto" means that the legislation is dead, unless the legislature reconvenes to resurrect it through amendments that meet strict conditions imposed by the Governor. Whether anti-gun Democrats have the stomach to swallow those conditions (see details below) remains to be seen. Alternatively, the legislature could try to override any veto (conditional or otherwise) by a 2/3 vote of both houses, which is highly unlikely given the current composition of the legislature.

"After 7 months of intense battle over misguided legislation that won't stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has finally ended the discussion on the worst of the bills by tossing them onto the scrap heap where they belong," said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. "These vetoes put gun-banning politicians on notice that exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda against legal gun owners, instead of punishing violent criminals, will not be entertained."

Today's actions come in the wake of last week's signing of ten gun bills by Governor Christie (two helped gun owners, two were opposed by gun owners, and six were neutralized based on gun owner input but are appropriately very tough on violent criminals). New Jersey already has some of the strictest and most extreme gun laws in the nation.

The bill flat-out vetoed by Governor Christie today was:

A3659 - the fifty caliber gun ban that would have: prohibited high muzzle-energy guns of any caliber; blocked heirlooms from family members; held grandfathered owners civilly liable for damages if their firearms were ever used in a crime; and forfeited the pending purchase orders of licensed gun owners for these $10,000+ firearms.

The notion that banning any particular tool makes society safer is demonstrably false, and ignores the obvious reality that someone intent on doing evil will not be stopped or deterred if one particular tool becomes unavailable. "If box cutters could take down the World Trade Center, does anyone really believe that banning box cutters will stop the next terrorist?" commented Bach. "The same is true of firearms - banning the fifty caliber or any other firearm will not stop someone bent on doing evil."

The Governor's statement on A3659 criticizes the scope of the ban, notes drafting errors that would defeat grandfathering, and observes that rather than combating crime and terror, the bill only serves to threaten law-abiding gun owners with imprisonment for lawful recreation.

The two bills conditionally vetoed by Governor Christie today are:

S2723 - Senate President Stephen Sweeney's "kitchen sink" FID card bill, a 42-page monstrosity universally despised by gun owners and sportsmen. The bill, touted by Democrats as the "centerpiece" of their gun bill package and a "national model," would have: thrown out existing FID cards and replaced them with a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID; suspended Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training; ended firearms sales directly between background-checked licensed gun owners; and had numerous other impacts.

Under Governor Christie's conditional veto, S2723 could only be resurrected if both houses of the legislature agreed to the following conditions:

- Remove all provisions that would have created a new electronic FID card (keeps the existing permitting system in place);

- Remove all provisions that would have suspended Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training;

- Remove all provisions that would have ended firearms sales directly between background-checked licensed gun owners; and

- Add a provision requiring the State Police to develop and promulgate literature regarding safe firearms storage and ownership.

It is unknown whether Democratic legislative leadership would accept these conditions. While doing so would salvage what is left of their "centerpiece," the final bill would be a gutted version, stripped of the most blatant attacks on legal gun owners, and very likely an embarrassment to Democrats.

If Democrats decided to swallow that bitter pill, other key provisions of the Sweeney bill that would be retained would include: requiring an FID card or other permit for all ammunition purchases; limiting shipment of online ammunition purchases to the address on the FID card; making it a 4 th degree crime if injury or death results from the failure to properly secure firearms; making it a 4 th degree crime for someone prohibited from possessing firearms to possess ammunition; requiring mental health screeners to inquire about firearms ownership of those being considered for involuntary commitment for mental health reasons; and revocation of NJ concealed carry permits upon conviction of a crime of the 4 th degree or higher.

The Governor's statement accompanying his conditional veto expressed support in principle for some of these provisions, yet also criticized the legislature as "shortsighted" for focusing on gun control instead of comprehensive violence solutions. The statement also noted the bill's failure "to directly combat violence," and the current unavailability of the technology that would be required to implement the digitized FID card.

A3797 - conditionally vetoed because of one section that required the State Police to breach confidentiality of federal gun trace data in direct violation of federal law that limits the data to law enforcement only. This was an attempt by frustrated gun banners to circumvent that federal law, so that idiosyncrasies of the ATF's trace system could be exploited and manipulated to falsely suggest that law abiding citizens are a source of "crime guns." ATF has opposed similar efforts to circumvent confidentiality, which could compromise ongoing investigations. If the legislature amends the bill to remove this illegal provision, the amended bill would then return to the Governor's desk.

Lets Just Drive > MountainCommand 08/17/2013 at 00:26

0

As a Canadian, I just need to know and since you posted, I'll ask you MC...

What's with the love affair with guns?

MountainCommand > Lets Just Drive 08/17/2013 at 00:37

2

Well its been a family kind of thing. I grew up with them. And now that im old enough, i can learn and carry on past times. I enjoy shooting with my granpa, and apart from cars, its one of my other favorite hobbies. Plus they are such awesome pieces of design, i cant help but take them apart and learn their inner workings. Like the engine in my car, the watch on my wrist, the attention to detail and amount of thought that went into a part is simply awesome.

Plus, In the US, we have a bill of rights in the constitution. Some will argue til kingdom come about it. But that 2nd amendment gives us the right (not absolute) to own a firearm. And as i do with my other rights, i try to exercise those as much i can.

But i dont understand why its such a taboo question.

Thats like me asking you, Whats with the love affair with mustangs?

To me a firearm is not a scary mean evil man eater. Unfortunately too many people only see them as such.

Lets Just Drive > MountainCommand 08/17/2013 at 00:57

0

I love Mustangs because I'm insane. I cannot and would not be able to explain to you in rational, logical terms why that is. I don't know if that's a good reason to love guns or not, but I enjoy shooting as well.

Please, MC, appreciate that I'm not trying to troll you at all. I know this topic can get out of hand very, very fast so I shall endavour to avoid offending you or anyone else.

And again, I'm a Canadian. To say that Canadians do not also have a connection to firearms would be a baldfaced lie. However, acknowledging that, I hope you can appreciate that in Canada it's not a fundamental or political issue - by and large Canada has fairly stringent rules governing the ownership of firearms. Of course, whenever the issue comes before the house, or becomes a political imperative, we have our arguments but they never seem to carry the heat, the passion of our American cousins when having the same discussions.

Perhaps because it is not assured by our Bill of Rights, ownership of a firearm that is, and there isn't the same cultural connection to firearms as is present in much of the United States, that we're able to detach ourselves somewhat, or perhaps more easily, from the impassioned arguments and approach the issue as logically and evenly as possible. We don't always succeed, however.

I enjoy shooting. I enjoy gun ownership, but if the government told me I had to give up my long guns (keeping in mind that pistol owners make up a small portion of the gun owning populace up here and that we have enforced rules which dictate how much ammution a firearm may contain in its magazine and the rate at which it can be discharged) I don't think I'd shed a tear.

That said, if that same government told me I couldn't have my Mustang anymore and had to spend the rest of my life behind the no-wheel of a driverless Google Car, I think I'd explode.

I'm always trying to get a better understanding of gun culture south of our border and constantly probing my American friends for their own ever changing opinions.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Lets Just Drive 08/17/2013 at 01:29

0

I'll toss my hat in this discussion as well. Much of my love of firearms comes from my dad teaching me how to shoot fairly early in my childhood. When I was six, he cut down a .22 for me so I could learn the basics. He taught me how to be safe and responsible while handling a firearm, and I take it all to heart to this day. In that time, listening to others say that guns are evil tools that only serve to promote violence, I have done some thinking as to why I do need a gun.

What I have come to realize is that as human beings, we all have a right to exist, and to exist peacefully. However, some do not recognize that right, and may attempt to threaten, harm, or kill me and my family and friends. I also do not believe in a fair fight. If I am being assaulted, it is then my duty to bring the conflict to a swift, decisive end. A gun is merely the easiest way to do that. So, I carry a gun whenever I can. To the theater, coffee shop, when I go out for dinner. I will do what I can to protect myself and those around me.

In fact, there has been a couple times where I almost had to use a gun. Once, a shady guy approached my friend's car as he was leaving my house and was cussing him out. He was clearly on drugs, but my friend left the area rather quickly, rather than stay and deal with the guy. Additionally, states with higher gun ownership tend to experience less crime. Statistics prove this over and over. So, for me to hand my guns over to the government would be tantamount to me giving up my right to defend myself, and thus my right to exist. We don't mandate that bears give up their teeth and claws because some hikers get mauled, or that scorpions have their stingers removed, or snakes have their venom sacks taken out. So why would we remove the individual's best means of self-defense?

And then there's the more traditional arguments that, while true, not many people listen to, such as "If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns," and "If the government turns on its citizens, we have to be able to defend ourselves." Those are overused and don't really get to the root of the issue, which is one of individual rights.

Who needs sway bars anyway > MountainCommand 08/17/2013 at 01:46

1

This is great and goes well with the CDC study that was just put forth as well, article here . Coming from another state with ridiculous firearm legislation I hear your cries and you are really lucky that these measures were vetoed. Unfortunatly Massacusetts legislation never got to that point and we ended up with aproved firarms lists and Licenses to carry similar to the bill s2723. The democrats are pushing nonsensical gun legislation on the grounds that it will reduce crime but all that has to be done is to look at our already present crime statistics, or at the other nations of the world that have banned firearms to know that taking away the weapon doesn't prevent criminal acts. Giving the populace the tools, moral integrity and the education to stand up for themselves is what at the end of the keeps crime from happening. However because keeping people dependent on the Government and afraid is what perpetuate liberal voters, they are going to do everything they can to perpetuate that environment

Lets Just Drive > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/17/2013 at 03:22

0

All of our rights are subject to the conditions of their implementation. You may perceive that you have the right to defend yourself, but rights and entitlements are purely human inventions to which we hold one another and, often delude ourselves into thinking nature will abide by. Viruses and bacteria intent upon killing you have no concept of your right to freedom, liberty or an American way.

I've never seen someone defend themselves from flu with a sidearm.

That subjectivity of right and entitlement is exactly why many people outside of the United States have trouble understanding the countries cultural obsession with the gun.

That's why we have trouble rationalizing the idea that guns, liberty and the right to life are somehow interconnected. I realize that there are many arguments for gun ownership, I've heard most of them, and what shocks me most is that every one of them deals, fundamentally, with concepts influencing actions which many other countries simply cannot understand. The statistics approach, for example; for every statistic you provide saying why firearm ownership is a good thing, another statistic can be sourced to dispute it and, more important from where I'm sitting, as a Canadian, is the fact that despite our fairly stringent firearms regulations society has not broken down, the government has not turned itself into a tyrannical dictatorship and we're somehow able to go on with our lives.

As a Canadian, it's is hard for me to understand how giving in to any measure of gun control is a violation of your rights as an American... rights which are purely contrived, imagined things. I mean, if you were looking at another country, let's say Canada, and we were constantly fighting amongst ourselves for the right to have sixteen sled dogs, instead of the usual fourteen, you'd be like, "What the fuck, Canada?"

I understand that it's cultural. I understand that it's a part of your life but I have to wonder, if cigarettes were Constitutionally assured, despite the very real fact that they can be very, very bad would there be pro-smoking rallies where everyone would get together and get cancer? It's a dramatization, an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but I think that if you could step outside your preconcived notions and regard the gun-debate from a detached perspective you might think, "Well, maybe there is a case for taking a look at this. Maybe it's not so sacred we can't touch it. Maybe."

But then, I have my inexplicable passions for things like internal combustion engines and manual clutches though, I'm not sure they really compare nor do I really think that when it comes to firearms, or cigarettes for that matter, an inexplicable want should be enough to shape policy and action.

MountainCommand > Lets Just Drive 08/17/2013 at 21:51

0

Haha, no worries. We are all buddies here. And i know you take time with your responses, so i try to be serious in nature while thoroughly replying.

I understand you have a non american view point. And it is very interesting to hear that totally unique viewpoint. You just have to kind of chalk this one up to an American thing. We come from two different worlds. We are brought up with the fact our country stands with her constitution and everything that it entails. For good and for bad. I may not agree with everything in our constitution, but by golly, i will support it. For i trust the founders of our country were smart, smart enough to plan well enough into the future. And when you read their document, its a rather brilliant work of art. Very little has been left to the imagination. They gave us the instructions, and we are left to uphold and live by them.

Let me just say that owning guns for hunting, sport, collection, etc etc, is not what our 2nd amendment was intended for. It is written:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That right is an "auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."(blackstone).

And keep in mind Militia is NOT military like marines navy or airforce. And the other keyword is "right of the people". All people. Not just some people, or just militia.

Now dont get me wrong, the courts have thus interpreted and ruled in cases where it was necessary, and we live by their decisions. Such as courts ruling that we can have firearms for self (personal) defense. That was not specifically written in our document, but was made applicable by the decision of the court.

So when you grow up and live by ideas and concepts that are apart of the culture, and what makes up america. You might begin to understand why so many people get their jimmies rustled when they "come after yer guns". They have been apart of our culture from the beginning. They were guaranteed by our founders. Some people would like to take that away from us, however, being that its strictly business, and that im a constitutionalists, i cant let that happen. We have a document to live by. To enforce. And enjoy.

For instance, this right to a firearm is a right. You can agree with that. We do not however, have a 'right' to drive a car. Own one? i would be willing to bet it could be protected under the constitution. But drive them on public roads? Public is the key. That is not protected.

So like you, i would be INFURIATED and out of my mind if i could not longer drive my car places. But it is only a privilege....

When people are so willing to give up their rights, or heck, even the privileges they have been granted. Things can spiral out of control. Dont be so quick to give up what people have spent time, lives, and effort, trying to achieve so other could enjoy them as well.

On a related note, the whole NSA spying thing WILL be a hot topic in a few years in our supreme court. No doubt. I find it appalling that people just say "oh i dont care if they spy on me, i dont do anything wrong"...THATS NOT THE POINT! ITS PRINCIPLE!

You give them an inch. They will take a mile.

Or for you canadians.

You give them a millimeter, they take a kilometer.

MountainCommand > Who needs sway bars anyway 08/17/2013 at 22:01

1

The thing is Jersey already HAS a FID card system. They wanted to spend even more money to do the same thing, with more databases, make mandatory training (which is not free$$$) with the same info, and put it on your drivers license....

We have a banned firearms list as well already too.

I agree with you fully. Dependance is never a good thing.

Honestly, i had to make a 911 car for a guy who got injured. Police show up 15 minutes. Ambulance in 17 minutes. Uhhhh, now if this was a much more life threatening situation, i for sure will be using anything at my disposal to protect myself and other against harm. And considering the fact that we have maybe 4 troopers patrolling 13 towns at any any given moment, i have a better chance of finding a yetti than an officer.

I wish you luck that your state can recover, and you can vote in the 2a friendly people. Gather support, and keep calling your legislators. Often time they honestly just tally the amount of people who call in for one side or the other, and they vote based on how much more support one side got... Sad but true.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Lets Just Drive 08/18/2013 at 15:09

0

To me, rights are not something that are contrived or created. I believe that we all operate under what many call "Natural Law." This means that we all have a right to exist to the best of our ability. Everything has that right. From viruses which live off of other life, to humans, by attempting to kill the viruses to prolong our lives. Wherever a conflict appears, the stronger survives. If a bear attacks me, it is likely because it fears for its life, and it is using its right to defend itself in order to survive. However, I am not attacking it, but I will do my best to survive at the same time. Honestly, anything short of a gun will not help me much. Same goes for a criminal who attempts to rob me at gunpoint, or someone who breaks into my home to take my belongings or kill me, or a government that tries to make me a slave to it. In order to exist well, we must have rights. Without rights, I could stand in your bedroom whenever I want, I could root through your financial and medical records, I could break your legs, and I could violate you. You would agree that I can't do that, because you have the right to a peaceful, private existence. Guns are a useful tool to maintain that right.

Much of our love of guns comes from the British under King George III oppressing us. They started with the Stamp Tax, then the Tea Tax, then put soldiers in Americans' homes, and finally, they tried to take our guns. That last act started the American revolution. Without guns, privacy, or rights, we were merely a source of money for the King of England. We are human, therefore we are more than just money trees or slave labor. Some will not recognize that right, so they must be dealt with. If someone infringes on the right to be free humans, they must be stopped. If words and reason fails, then force is necessary.

I suppose that the main difference between the U.S. and Canada is that we view rights as absolute and necessary to freedom and prosperity, while Canada does not.

Lets Just Drive > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/18/2013 at 18:41

0

Wow. That last comment, about Canadians not viewing rights as absolute or necessary was quite the sweeping statement to make. You're welcome to interpret what I post here however you want, including incorrectly, but please don't label all Canadians by what I put down in words as that would me no more just or accurate then everyone outside of the United States judging every American citizen by W.Bush style politics, or Tea Baggers, or whatever. We're every bit as diverse and dynamic as you all.

Additionally, I understand the historical imperatives just fine. Fortunately, as a Canadian student in Canadian public schools, I was instructed in North American history, not just Canadian, and thus have a fair understanding of the various events which lead to America's Founding Fathers putting down in writing, by way of your Constitution, the right to bare bear arms (little joke, just for fun). Apparently, however; you are not as well instructed in Canadian and pre-Canadian colonial history as the way of the gun, the fight for freedom from oppression and the struggle for self identity were every bit as important in the foundation of our country as yours. Our Bill of Rights gaurantees the same right to freedom, liberty and all those buzz words also, it simply does not say it should be protected at or by the point of a gun.

I suppose what confuses me most, and understand that while I am speaking as a Canadian I am not speaking for Canadians, is that hundreds of years later and in the face of civil and social developments, often by force of revolution, there are so many in the US who cling inexplicably to the idea that this, this thing, cannot ever be changed, adapted or shifted to accommodate a changing reality. To me, accepting measures of gun control which are practical and make sense isn't heretical, it isn't treasonous and it isn't even Un-American.

To draw a parallel - we have vehicles which are capable of incredible speed and performance available on the market yet we all accept that there need to be conditions on their development and application. While I am fascinated by firearms technologically in much the same way I am interested in cars technologically, I don't think that speed limits or safety standards are a bad thing for the society we live in. True, I'd love a return to cowboy style freedom-making but that dystopian dream is just that and if we're going to continue as we have, away from anarchy and complete freedom of expression and action, then maybe it's the responsible social choice to elect to let go of those things you considered untouchable, or at least consider adapting the application for present day standards.

The argument that ceding ones rights, in any measure, equals a slippery slope into tyranny is bogus. It is complete and total bullshit, but it's a hot button for the ill informed. You see, there have been people living for many, many generations before you and if you think that they all had the exact same idea of freedom of liberty or even of rights and entitlements, you're kidding yourself. These are adaptable ideas, as demonstrated by history, which are subject to inevitable change.

You'll hear me decry change, you'll see me post rant after rant about expecting better of ourselves and fundamentally changing the human condition. This is because these are my hopes. I am not, however, out of touch with reality and so long as people want more, want better and keep breeding "rights" (which are contrived things, the creation of social pressure no matter what you tell yourself) like the freedom to carry a an automatic pistol under your jacket will change despite the common and incorrect arguments that once you control guns, criminal empires will spring up because only crooks will have guns and that fundamental rights can never change or else the end of society will unfold and basically anything you hear anyone who didn't at least graduate high school shout, loudly, without the benefit of understanding or fact.

Fact; in the developed world The United States stands alone, high above every other developed western society in occurances of gun violence. That is a fact, now you can argue the relevancies of that fact all you like but when you get right through all the bullshit you'll realize that what it really means, and all it really means, is that all of America's peers on the global stage have less problems with guns. Period.

It's not sacred. It's not untouchable and just like your right to free speech, subject to social change weather you see it and accept it or not. The Bible, regardless of its spirtual implications, is comprised of documents a lot older then the Constitution of the United States of America and that book has ideas in it which were held by many as sacred and unchanging. This is not to incite a religious debate, but rather to illustrate that important ideas and concepts change over time, despite the resistance of some, many or even most.

In Canada, perhaps because our Charter of Rights and the Constitution of Canada are expected to change, are expected to evolve as we, as a culture and country, evolve there is less importance placed on ideas for living which, while relevant two hundred or more years ago, may not be the best guidelines for living in this time.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Lets Just Drive 08/18/2013 at 21:10

0

I do apologize for painting all Canadians as thinking that rights are not absolute, but that was the impression I received from your posts, at least that you think that rights are not absolute. I still receive that impression.

As for your slippery slope into tyranny comment, that is bullshit. Germany, before WWII. Everyone gave up their guns to the Nazi regime. Soon, millions were being rounded up and executed. Russia, when Stalin came to power. Guns were given up, tens of millions died. Cuba. Vietnam. Etc. Etc. Same story, over and over. It may have not happened yet in England or Australia or Japan (where they can lock you away indefinitely, for no reason), but England experienced much higher violent crime as a result. Australia never had home invasions (or at least too few to be recorded effectively), but ended up experiencing them all the time.

Of course America has higher gun crimes than other nations. But those high gun crime rates also come from states, or especially cities where guns are heavily restricted, or that were hit hard economically or law is almost nonexistent. See Compton, Chicago, New York, Flint, Detroit. Economist John Lott did an incredibly thorough study proving that increased gun ownership reduced violent crime, with or without guns.

Does human nature change? I'll wager that no, it doesn't. So, there will be one concept of freedom and liberty that ends up being right, regardless of what the latest fad in "freedom" really is. If rights are merely whims of social pressure, then we can rule that the majority has a right to fuck the minority in the ass, if we so choose. Let's say you're the minority. That's not very nice to you now, is it? Do I have a right to kill someone I disagree with? You should invariably say "NO." Is that because of social pressure? Or is it because killing someone you disagree with is fundamentally WRONG? If there are no absolute rights, is anything absolute? Is life sacred? Do I have a right to defend my family if an intruder is pointing a gun at my wife? Or do I just let him do it as I run to the house next door to use their phone to call the police in hopes that they show up in time?

Lets Just Drive > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/18/2013 at 21:34

0

I love how, in defending the humanistic perspective you employ additional human ideas and emotions to defend those same perceptions as being implacable.

I met a dog once, who killed another dog, because he didn't like the way he smelled. Is that fundamentally wrong? Has the animal kingdom, of which we are a part and actively strive to distinguish ourselves from, got it wrong then? Should that dog be put on trial for his actions?

Your right to freedom is a perception which is unique to you. More importantly the entire idea of freedom is unique only to the human race. Animals adapt or become extinct and we do the same with preconceptions - those that do not adapt, fail. Leaving aside for the moment the specific, case-by-case arguments, what I believe that you fail to realize is that our social structure is impermanent and changing as a species and the tools we use to govern ourselves socially are based purely on conscious and unconscious consent on an individual and collective scale. You state that rights and freedoms are absolutes, or should be regarded as such, while I vehemently disagree and cite as evidence the fact that, by and large, Nazism is regarded by the majority of the population as a bad thing and I promise you that there were people within that belief structure who believed with more vehemence than you can muster to defend the right to bare arms that their ideas were implacable, absolute and above adaptation.

Now, on to the topic of Germany, since you brought it up. Let's start by just mentioning the fact that occurances of gun violence are exceptionally low in Germany, let's further add that occurances of violence employing weapons which are not firearms is also exceptionally low. Now let's just consider that the German Zeitgeist, having endured the rise and fall of Nazi fascism, has moved into a phase where those absolutes you cling to are not regarded as absolutes given their unique perspective on what happens when a people agree on absolutes and how wrong those same absolutes can be. It's true, the issue of gun control was elemental in the rise of the Nazi regime but to cite that detail as instrumental is a mistake. When you further consider that the situations sounding your other two citations, Cuba and Viet Nam (and I'm inferring here, since your supporting argument seems to be in naming countries) are utterly beyond comparison with the American Gun Control debate. As is typical of the pro-gun argument, you're relying on false equivalencies here and that's a very poor way of approaching the subject.

And again, I'm not trying to pull you into a debate about the merits of gun ownership as, having pointed this out above I am a hypocrite myself and have an inexplicable passion for things that, if someone told me I couldn't have, I'd be outraged. But again, I don't think that inexplicable love is a good reason to defend firearm ownership, and that's my opinion. I've further come to believe that virtually every argument for gun ownership and against gun control attempts to use that inexplicable passion, defended by whatever supporting facts it can employ, to explain the right to own guns, any guns.

Just as an example:

In Canada, semi-automatic weapons are highly restricted. Magazines are limited to five rounds. Handguns ownership is exceptionally low. Long gun ownership requires registration of ownership and the firearm. Certain calibers are flat out illegal, and so on.

Yet, we're able to get on just fine. We, nationwide, have far lower rates of gun violence (even per capita), lower rates of non-gun related violence (per capita) and haven't had our rights stripped from us nor our country turned into a government run internment camp.

And we're just Canadians.

My point is that if we can do it, you can do it. Maybe you're right and the transitional period is going to be hell (by all evidence it is, given we're in that transition now) but unlike driverless cars, I'd be willing to endure that transitional phase if the end result was an overall decrease of gun and non-gun related violence in your country.

Look, I could be wrong. Maybe gun control is a terrible thing and the best thing to do is to go all cowboy all over the world, see who makes it through with the most guns and then start over again but since Dystopia kind of sucks, wouldn't you rather a Utopia, even if it meant you had to let go your guns?

I wouldn't do it if I had to give up my Mustang, but again, that's an inexplicable love beyond explanation and I don't think that's a great way to govern firearms.

But what do I know?

Lets Just Drive > Lets Just Drive 08/18/2013 at 21:37

0

If even the physical laws that govern our universe are, in fact, not the absolutes we thought they were, if under certain conditions those absolutes prove themselves to be impermanent, then what in the universe makes you think we, tiny species we are, even understand what an absolute is? If that is the case, how do you justify social standards as absolute when even gravity itself is not a constant throughout the universe as we so long thought?

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Lets Just Drive 08/18/2013 at 22:09

0

Perhaps the idea of freedom is unique to the human race because we are aware, and can reason. For animals, perhaps it is instinctual, and not consciously recognized. Animals have no-or at least a loose-governing structure. Ants, bees, and the like operate collectively, wolves operate in small packs with an alpha male that keeps order and generally leads, but even so, animals generally operate to survive as comfortably as possible. Humans are no different, we just have the ability to recognize it.

As for Canada, I suppose that the culture there is more homogeneous than in America, leading to fewer disputes. Just a guess, as my very brief time in Canada, coupled with the usual stereotype of Canadians, isn't all that great for judging a whole country.

I just feel that the entire argument of the right to bear arms comes down to the existence (or non-existence) of the right to defense of self and others.

Lastly, guns are damn fun to shoot, especially semi-auto. It appeals to a certain primal instinct, in a way.

Lets Just Drive > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/18/2013 at 23:05

0

More homogenous then America? Pardon me, but do you have two official languages? Is your country a self described melting pot or multicultural?

I suppose you're right, though not in any physical or ideological way that we are fairly homogenous as a country if only in our approach to peaceful coexistence with one another. We are different countries with different cultures and histories, it's true, but we are not so different that our differences outweigh our similarities.

The fact that, after all of this back and forth, you still cannot concede even slightly that there may be merit in the opposite argument tells me that this isn't a discussion that can be approached from a purely logical or empirically scientific point of view but rather it is an issue that will need equal parts logic, ethics and passion. As a Canadian, and one who is flummoxed by the utter resistance to even the idea of change when it comes to firearms legislation, perhaps my contribution and the contributions from all sources outside the country will never be enough and perhaps this sort of change will have to be carried out internally and of purely internal momentum.

But don't take it the wrong way when I say that I think you're pretty gun crazy. I've a good friend down Colorado way with whom I constantly lock horns over this very topic and though we don't agree when it comes to the topic, we're still great friends. It is my hope that I have not been too inflammatory or provocative in this discussion.

Thank you!