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

On Thursday, 17 December 1998 13:00, Thomas Barclay
[SMTP:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca] wrote:
> John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
 
> 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). 

Nope.  'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' is from the
Declaration of Independence.
 
> > 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? 

I prefer the 105mm myself.  I have a friend that owns a Sherman tank,
complete with main gun and MGs.  They are all operational, and perfectly
legal.

> You'd deny that the FBI and ATF regularly capture 
> folks with 60mm Mortars, .50 BHMGs, and the like? 

Regularly?  No.  Most of the press hype is directed to so-called assault
weapons, which are semi-auto look-a-likes to current issue military
weapons.

>Are these used to 
> hunt ducks? or deer? or modern animals like the flying squirrel? (to 
> steal a joke from the SImpsons) 

Except that people *do* own such weapons, legally, and very, very, very
rarely are they ever used in the commission of a crime.  Ever been to
Knob Creek?  Tons-o-people who legally own these weapons, bring them
together, and have fun shooting at paper targets, tin cans, etc.  No one
gets hurt at these events, even with all that firepower gathered there.

> 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. 

This 'fact' is no such thing - except in the way that if cars did not
exist, we wouldn't have car accidents.

>  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.

Sometimes, people are dumb, but most people are not.  Danger varies
according to circumstances and the most important factor is the person
involved.  There is no 'one size fits all' solution.  This, I believe,
is one of the basis for a free society.  If *I* do things that please
me, as long as they do not hurt you, you cannot stop me from doing them.
If I do them, then, and only then, can I be punished.

>  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. 

Guns have many uses, from hunting, to punching holes in paper targets,
to shooting people.  Swords and knives also have such uses.

> BTW - I am a shooter. And I am soon to be a gun owner. 

What do you shoot?

>And I am Canadian. I don't think I NEED to own a gun. 

Since when is NEED a basis for denying anyone something in a free
society?  You don't NEED cars either, nor computers, not the Internet.

>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. 

All controlled by people who may or may not agree with the government.

> 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

Again, since when is NEED a basis for denying anyone something in a free
society?  I cannot understand this 'one size fits all' attitude.
Because *you* see no need to allow the populace to possess firearms,
this justifies not allowing them to have them?

> 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), 

Checked the crime rate of the 'Wild West?'  Much less than today....

>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...

Neither do most people.  Most gun owners included.

> > > >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...

Not even close.  He called me a 'gun nut', many times.	I questioned the
civility of his statements and responded to his arguments (such as they
were).	In neither did I ever insult him nor call him names.  I could
even say 'He stared it', but since I didn't insult him in return, I
won't.

> > 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. 

This is another debate entirely.

> 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. 

True, as well as provide for the limitation of those, whether as
individuals, groups, or 'governments' to limit their ability to infringe
upon those rights.

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

True.  

> 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. 

Where did 'I jump the gun' or 'leap to conclusions'?  I was insulted by
a post, and expressed my displeasure with said post.

> (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.)

True.  However, this is not the first time that such post expressing
views similar to Brian's have been posted.  This time, I decided not to
just 'let them go.'  I figure a little bit of mental self-defense goes a
long way.

ObFT:

With the unification of the UK, Canada, and the US under the Crown, I do
believe that the NAC government would *not* allow the average subject to
own any type of firearm (except, maybe single shot .22 cal rifles),
crossbow, or sword.  The Crown has a long history of keeping its
subjects unarmed.

I also see this law being regularly violated, sometimes with a
'wink-and-a-nod' from the local constabulary, especially on frontier
planets.

vargr1							 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
Meyers-Briggs personality type: ENTJ		    vargr1@jcn1.com
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with."	  dmoody@bridge.com