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

>> these are non-controversial rights - 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 - pardon, the "right" to bear arms,
and
>> want to tie this into safety, etc etc. ("Yes, I can only be safe in
my
own
>> home if I own a big handgun that my 3-year old will blow his brains
out
>> with!")
>
> You mean like the "right" to defend yourself against the individual's
>two greatest enemies:	Criminals and The State... as if there is really
>a difference.

Sure there is.	The State is a lot more dangerous.  Otherwise, no.
(Disagree?  Try not paying your taxes some time.  People who take your
money
by force or threat or force are called what?  Either robbers or IRS
agents).

If I recall correctly, there are European countries that require
universal
military service; in some cases, reserve service members are required to
have their weapons at home.  Switzerland, I think, and perhaps Israel? 
What
is the incidence of accidental firearm-related deaths there?  Whatever
it
is, it isn't high enough that the anti-gun nuts normally point to it and
say, "See, in Switzerland they have the same thing, and three-year-olds
blow
their brains out with depressing regularity."  It is my assumption,
therefore, that Americans have as many incidents as we do (and I have no
idea how many that "many" is) because people can get a gun without
getting
the training in how to use it.

Of course, if you want to have a gun to prevent government control, you
may
want to avoid having government regulations on who can get a gun and who
can't.	I don't, however, see the NAC as permitting unrestricted
purchasing
of weapons.  Therefore I think it may be a reasonable compromise that
the
NAC permit weapons to people who have completed certified training.