Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> As for prosperity, what nation believes this?  Since a Canadian wrote
> it, I assume that's a claim that all Canadians are either rich or at
> least comfortably middle class.  Refutation is left as an exercise for
> the reader.

No the right to prosperity is the right (I think) that you Yanks have 
in your Constitution - the right to pursue wealth through endeavour. 
You (I believe) call this the right to be free. Or at least it is 
subsumed under that (life liberty and happiness). 
 
> > > - but when you get Americans of a
> > > certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the
> > right
> > > to
> > > own lots and lots of artillery
> 
> Yes, of course a hunting rifle is indistinguisable from a 155mm
> howitzer.  Only if you're blind, deaf, and stupid as well.

Now, John, you'd deny there are folks in the US who'd want to own 
155mm howitzers? You'd deny that the FBI and ATF regularly capture 
folks with 60mm Mortars, .50 BHMGs, and the like? Are these used to 
hunt ducks? or deer? or modern animals like the flying squirrel? (to 
steal a joke from the SImpsons) 

> > My, how ... *open minded* we are.  You have a problem with others
> > thinking or acting differently?  Or do you just prefer to personally
> > insult them by calling then 'nuts'?
> He's implying everyone who owns a firearm is a lunatic.  An objective
> comment would be that everyone who owns a firearm and fails to secure
it
> properly with small children in the house, probably shouldn't have
bred
> in the first place.  Thus we place the onus on safety and security of
> firearms, rather than on an inanimate piece of metal. 

I'm not sure if you characterize the original point correctly. But 
definitely the presence of guns in a household increases the 
likelihood of those guns being used in either a crime of passion or 
in an accident. This is obvious and a known fact. And there are 
plenty of bits of anecdotal evidence to suggest that kids are good at 
getting around even convoluted gun security in households - witness 
that shooting a few months back - the ambush outside the school. The 
kid compromised the security on the firearms and stole them. (Now, he 
was 14 or so, so perhaps you'd say an adult). The point being that 
guns are potentially dangerous around the house. 

 After all, how
> many people own power tools which could cut your three year old in
> half? 

Power tools are dangerous too. As dangerous as guns? Probably not. Is 
a sword as dangerous as a pistol? No. If you think so, I'll give you 
a sword, me the pistol, and we'll complete the demonstration. Are 
both dangerous, yes. Do power tools have a function other than 
hurting people, yes. Do guns? I've heard of people using them as 
hammers, but that's just plain dumb. 

 We probably all drive cars, which items kill more people per year
> in the US than firearms kill people in the US, Canada, and UK
combined,
> yet we don't condemn those who own them, simply those who use them in
an
> unsafe, reckless, or homicidal manner.

True, but the car fills a niche in our society - it transports us 
from A to B. It CAN be a lethal weapon, but that isn't its only 
purpose. Now, with guns, if someone said they hunt with them, I might 
buy that. But other than that, plus a few ISU shooters who punch 
paper targets with .22s, the purpose of a gun is defence or offense 
against other human beings - in short - to hurt someone. It doesn't 
transport you like a car. It doesn't build you something like a power 
tool, it isn't multi purpose like a knife. A gun was originally 
designed to be a military weapon and even when used to hunt its 
ultimate purpose is to inflict damage on something at a distance. So 
you clearly cannot equate in every particular cars, guns, and power 
tools. 

BTW - I am a shooter. And I am soon to be a gun owner. And I am 
Canadian. I don't think I NEED to own a gun. And I don't delude 
myself that maybe sometime a firearm in my possession (even if 
secured) might be involved in a tradgedy. Nor do I delude myself that 
such a firearm would keep me safe from some gov't misdeeds - as the 
gov't has tanks, trained soldiers, and nasty big weapons. Nor do I 
believe my police cannot protect me - protection is not 100%, but 
chances are if I've got my gun stored legally so the kids can't get 
at it, I won't be able to access it quickly in a home invasion. Nor 
will I have it with me in my car or out at the mall. The police are 
my best bet. And some crisis reaction training. I enjoy target 
shooting, but I don't think there is a necessity to allow the 
populace to possess firearms, and I do see some risks inherent in 
them. My support for them isn't based on a utopian view of guns as 
democratizing (look at the old west - gangs of baddies roamed around 
and the fast gun won - hardly an argument for perfect democracy), nor 
of some cock-eyed justification that says they are the same as cars 
or power tools. In truth, they are a weapon. But I enjoy shooting 
them. And I prefer a government and a society that lets me take some 
risks (calculated ones within reasonable bounds) as a form of 
personal freedom - they let me drive a car (which can kill someone or 
me), they let me own a gun (same), they let me eat fatty foods (which 
will kill me and cost medicare money), and they let me drink (both of 
the above risks). They TRUST me to make good judgements and accept 
the risks attached. They punish me if I screw up. That's the way it 
should be - I can't condone a society where a government thinks it 
should be your big brother since they do it SO badly.	

But I don't try to make guns what they aren't. Or forget what they 
are...

> Ah, now we've got all persons who have a religion (apparently
including
> Buddists and Hindus?) lumpin in with all gun-owners, who are all
> "nuts".

By you maybe. I think there are some gun nuts, and some religious 
right gun nuts. Just as I am sure there are anti-gun nuts and 
atheist left gun nuts and anti-gun nuts. The world has lots of fringe 
groups. I don't think Brian was saying the world or the US was 
exclusively composed of them, though they get a lot of press.

  This becomes a truly confusing little political manifesto if
> one takes into account that secular humanism is as much based on
> unwavering faith in certain premises as is Judaism or Christianity,
and
> could really be considered as much a religion as anything else.  We're
> all nuts, so we all should be able to get along.

:)
 
> > >This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
> > > administrations that had a majority of gun nuts, while the rest of
the
> > > citizenry in other regions wouldn't bother with 'rights' like
this.
> > 
> > Again with the personal attacks.  How civilized.

Et tu Brute? Yours  may be veiled in nicer language, but it amounts 
to the same thing...
 
> He's also switching back from citizen to subject.  Very important
> distinction--one is a subject of a monarch, or one is a citizen of a
> nation.

I believe this distinction has some importance. You have no 
"inalienable" rights - except to die. It's the one thing any living 
person does. Otherwise, every "right" can be taken away from you. 
But maybe as a society we should try to create these things called 
rights for our citizens, and since the rights spring from the society 
(because they do not exist in nature), the society must place some 
sort of a judgment on how they affect the large mass of us. 

Being a citizen is not a priveledge. Being a citizen is a 
responsibility. As is being in governance over same.  

> I think we can write this drek off as the ranting of a confused
> Canadian, presumably their villiage idiot, who should be kept off
> international forums until such time as he can express himself in a
> rational manner.

Hmmm. John, your expertise in matters of engineering is undoubted. 
Your expertise in matters of diplomacy or analysis may be contested. 
Your ability to attribute (on the sparse evidence of a single email) 
any point of view or any mental condition to another person casts 
some aspersions on the validity of your assessments.  

No one piece of mail can convey a persons entire world view, and it 
lacks any context. I'd think you and Dan must be kind of tired with 
all your excercise - jumping the gun, leaping to conclusions, etc. 

(now lets all just ease off here. Nothing here merits an 
international incident, and if it does we should take it off list. 
This is a civilized forum. It is also a forum for gaming.)

Tom. 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/