Right to Bear Arms: Canada vs. US

[Bonzi]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

 

[The Great Goose]

There's all sorts of factors.

 

[Auld Phart]

Dunno

Vermont has some of the loosest gun laws in the country, and most of their gun problems are suicide.

"Vermont gun deaths increased from 52 in 2007 to 78 in 2011, according to Department of Health statistics. About 90 percent of those deaths — 65 of 70 deaths in 2010 — were suicides. In 2008, there were eight firearm-related homicides, none in 2009, one in 2010, and four in 2011, and two in 2012. The remaining gun deaths in the VPC report were accidental."

Gun death report criticized

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

 

[Bonzi]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

 

[Spinster]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

No, it has to do with, I believe, an completely different attitude about the penalty than we have here in the States. I've spent considerable time in Canada and have witnessed on many occasions when someone gets carried away and breaks the law, that person instantly gets carted off to jail. Here in the States we don't have that same level of immediacy. We hem-and-haw around about an offense, and when we finally get around to doing something about it, the perp usually winds up with a slap on the wrist. Justice needs to be swift, striking while the iron's hot, otherwise the flame dissipates. We get so caught up in "correctness" we fail to follow through and actually act. This reluctance to penalize is why crime in the States is higher.

 

[Auld Phart]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"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."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"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."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

I'm sorry, where did I say the right was A) given and B) for the militia?

Oh, wait, I didn't say either.

 

[Bonzi]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

No, it has to do with, I believe, an completely different attitude about the penalty than we have here in the States. I've spent considerable time in Canada and have witnessed on many occasions when someone gets carried away and breaks the law, that person instantly gets carted off to jail. Here in the States we don't have that same level of immediacy. We hem-and-haw around about an offense, and when we finally get around to doing something about it, the perp usually winds up with a slap on the wrist. Justice needs to be swift, striking while the iron's hot, otherwise the flame dissipates. We get so caught up in "correctness" we fail to follow through and actually act. This reluctance to penalize is why crime in the States is higher.

I see a lot of "jokes" about crime in Canada (see below) so I didn't know why that was. Interesting.....

 

[Auld Phart]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"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."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

I'm sorry, where did I say the right was A) given and B) for the militia?

Oh, wait, I didn't say either.

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Nope, no need be in the militia to have the right to bear arms.


Militias at that time consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

The lame reading that belonging to a militia was a requirement would have prevented women, boys under 16 and men over 45 from owning firearms.

 

[candycorn]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

Its no coincidence.

A fun project is to ask people a what-if; if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment, would we need to ratify an amendment allowing anyone who wants to buy one, buy a gun? The answer from any sane person is "no" given the likely millions of murders the US has suffered from having the silly thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"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."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

I'm sorry, where did I say the right was A) given and B) for the militia?

Oh, wait, I didn't say either.

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Nope, no need be in the militia to have the right to bear arms.


Militias at that time consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

The lame reading that belonging to a militia was a requirement would have prevented women, boys under 16 and men over 45 from owning firearms.

Er... no, you don't need to be in the militia to have the Right to Bear Arms. The RBA IS the right to be in the militia. You have the right whether you're in the militia or not.

Yes, militia included all able bodied me between certain ages, as set out in THE MILITIA ACT, like of 1792 and the Dick act. This is law. The Constitution is ABOVE this law. The Constitution protects you right to be in the militia. The law merely states it.

The Dick act put all men aged 17-45 (or something similar) into the unregulated militia, why? Because they had made the National Guard, and the wanted it to be professional. They didn't want individuals demanding to be in the National Guard, as they would have been able to do were the National Guard the only militia available. So they made a "militia" that didn't do anything, had no power, nothing, and men were in it for the purpose of not being able to demand.

 

[Toro]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

No.

Most Canadians think America's right to bear arms is insane.

 

[Auld Phart]

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"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."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

I'm sorry, where did I say the right was A) given and B) for the militia?

Oh, wait, I didn't say either.

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Nope, no need be in the militia to have the right to bear arms.


Militias at that time consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

The lame reading that belonging to a militia was a requirement would have prevented women, boys under 16 and men over 45 from owning firearms.

Er... no, you don't need to be in the militia to have the Right to Bear Arms. The RBA IS the right to be in the militia. You have the right whether you're in the militia or not.

Yes, militia included all able bodied me between certain ages, as set out in THE MILITIA ACT, like of 1792 and the Dick act. This is law. The Constitution is ABOVE this law. The Constitution protects you right to be in the militia. The law merely states it.

The Dick act put all men aged 17-45 (or something similar) into the unregulated militia, why? Because they had made the National Guard, and the wanted it to be professional. They didn't want individuals demanding to be in the National Guard, as they would have been able to do were the National Guard the only militia available. So they made a "militia" that didn't do anything, had no power, nothing, and men were in it for the purpose of not being able to demand.

Er... no, you don't need to be in the militia to have the Right to Bear Arms

Correct

The RBA IS the right to be in the militia.

 

[Kondor3]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

Canadians are placid sheep by comparison.

 

[Bonzi]

Maybe it's just too cold to go out and commit crimes!

 

[Mad Scientist]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

No.
Most Canadians think America's right to bear arms is insane.

Who would be stupid enough to invade Canada when it's right next door to the most powerful country on earth? Canadians benefit from that protection whether they realize it or not.

Canadians may not like America's Constitutional Rights (which doesn't mean sh*t), but they do LOVE Americas tax laws don't they? Especial the Florida Tax Laws eh Toro?

 

[Spinster]

I've always been in favor of the right to bear arms. That being said....

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Canada who does NOT have the Right to Bear Arms?

No, it has to do with, I believe, an completely different attitude about the penalty than we have here in the States. I've spent considerable time in Canada and have witnessed on many occasions when someone gets carried away and breaks the law, that person instantly gets carted off to jail. Here in the States we don't have that same level of immediacy. We hem-and-haw around about an offense, and when we finally get around to doing something about it, the perp usually winds up with a slap on the wrist. Justice needs to be swift, striking while the iron's hot, otherwise the flame dissipates. We get so caught up in "correctness" we fail to follow through and actually act. This reluctance to penalize is why crime in the States is higher.

I see a lot of "jokes" about crime in Canada (see below) so I didn't know why that was. Interesting.....

Canadians have an interesting sense of humor rather like British humor--dry wit. It's delightful.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"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."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

I'm sorry, where did I say the right was A) given and B) for the militia?

Oh, wait, I didn't say either.

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Nope, no need be in the militia to have the right to bear arms.


Militias at that time consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

The lame reading that belonging to a militia was a requirement would have prevented women, boys under 16 and men over 45 from owning firearms.

Er... no, you don't need to be in the militia to have the Right to Bear Arms. The RBA IS the right to be in the militia. You have the right whether you're in the militia or not.

Yes, militia included all able bodied me between certain ages, as set out in THE MILITIA ACT, like of 1792 and the Dick act. This is law. The Constitution is ABOVE this law. The Constitution protects you right to be in the militia. The law merely states it.

The Dick act put all men aged 17-45 (or something similar) into the unregulated militia, why? Because they had made the National Guard, and the wanted it to be professional. They didn't want individuals demanding to be in the National Guard, as they would have been able to do were the National Guard the only militia available. So they made a "militia" that didn't do anything, had no power, nothing, and men were in it for the purpose of not being able to demand.

Er... no, you don't need to be in the militia to have the Right to Bear Arms

Correct

The RBA IS the right to be in the militia.

You're not getting it, are you?

If you are not in the militia, you have the right to be in the militia.
If you are in the militia, you also have the right to be in the militia.

Let's look at an important document, shall we?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were debating this version of what would become the 2A. The last part says "shall be compelled to bear arms", now they chopped and changed the last part of this proposal. The first one similar on the 8th June said:

" but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So you see that "render military service" and "bear arms" are synonymous.

Mr Gerry said:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Again, it seems clear to me that Mr Gerry was using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty".

Mr Jackson said:
"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So, what is bear arms? Well if you didn't bear arms, Mr Jackson wanted you to pay money to not bear arms. Would this be to carry arms around? No one has ever suggested that those who didn't carry arms around with them in their daily lives should pay for the privilege not to. However people have suggested if you didn't do your duty in being in the militia, then you'd have to pay.

Then Mr Jackson said:

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

"bear arms" and "render military service" being used synonymously again.

Mr Sherman said:

"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. "

"there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. "

Mr Vining said:
"Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."


So, it's clear that the members of the House thought that "bear arms" meant "militia duty" or "render military service". The question is, why don't you understand that this is what it means?