Right to Bear Arms: Canada vs. US

[Spinster]

It's not illegal to own guns in Canada. Lots of folks own them there. They are rifles used for hunting game. No handguns are legal in Canada. Let's get that straight. Canadians aren't weak lame people by any stretch of imagination. They are quite capable individuals. Police in Canada actually take care of business, haven't been handcuffed by correctness, and therefore simply don't spend their shifts eating donuts and drinking coffee. They actually have authority to do their jobs and perform admirably. Imagine that!

 

[Spinster]

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

No, when they do commit crimes, they go straight to jail without collecting $300. Jails are typically warmer than outside, just not fuzzy places to be.

 

[Kondor3]

...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?

Let's just cut through all the bullshit...

Fine.

Conceded.

However...

Constitutional Law is far more fluid and able to change with the times that some give it credit for.

Even if that was the original intention of the Founders, we must remember that the Founders were fallible mortals, and their ideas are subject to modification over time.

And so, if by some chance, you are right, and it was their intention to allow the citizenry to maintain arms, for purposes of militia service...

The times have changed, over and again since those words were first laid down, and various judicial rulings, and custom and usage, have rendered it otherwise.

The Constitution is a set of guidelines... it is neither suicide pact nor straight-jacket... it is an instrument of the Will of the People.

And it is the Will of the People to sublimate the "militia" aspect of the Second as nothing more than the rationale du jour, at the time, and that other justifications for a Right to Bear Arms have long-since overtaken and superceded any original "militia" basis for establishing that Right.

Once articulated and agreed upon and established, a Right can be a devilishly-difficult thing to take away.

You cannot have the guns.

But you CAN get a lot of support for the idea of (metaphorically) crucifying (at-law) those who commit violent crimes with guns.

Especially the lowlife inner-city thug-gangs who kill women and children for fun.

Then again, perhaps Chicago and Detroit and other ghetto shit-holes would benefit from a few public executions of such vermin.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Switzerland who does have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe?

 

[JimBowie1958]

""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.

No, the happenstance of using phrases that have multiple meanings to mean a particular thing, does not automatically dismiss all other plausible meanings in use, jack ass.

"Render military service" and "bear arms" are NOT always synonymous.

If I am rendering military service, I am bearing arms, but if I am bearing arms I am NOT necessarily rendering military service, stupid ass.

 

[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?

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Switzerland who does have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe?

Interesting - so, I wonder - what's the "key" - I suppose as said from the beginning, it's all about enforcement.
In same, way shape or form.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Do you think it's just a "coincidence" that the crime rate is lower in Switzerland who does have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe?

Interesting - so, I wonder - what's the "key" - I suppose as said from the beginning, it's all about enforcement.
In same, way shape or form.....

I agree with that, but also that there are multiple factors like culture and training.

If you deducted the violent crimes in New Orleans, Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago the US crime rates would be comparable to any other western nation.

So what is omitted? Four cities controlled by Democrat political machines that feed on lawlessness and crime.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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 population of Canada is 35 million people which is less than ten percent of the U.S. population, so they will have lower gun deaths than us.

Plus Canada is not a melting pot nation like the U.S. and the conflict between cultures is less likely than here in the U.S. ...

 

[2aguy]

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?

No, it doesn't. Our gun murder rate stems from single teenage mothers raising boys without fathers. the majority of our shooters are Black Americans and their out of wedlock birth rate is 75%.

whites have more guns in their homes but do not commit as much crime...blacks have fewer guns but commit the majority of crime.


and it is not race...it is just as I pointed out....single teenage mothers, raised in poverty, raising boys without mature, civilized, adult male role models.

 

[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 population of Canada is 35 million people which is less than ten percent of the U.S. population, so they will have lower gun deaths than us.

Plus Canada is not a melting pot nation like the U.S. and the conflict between cultures is less likely than here in the U.S. ...

I'm not sure if the rates are "per capita" so the 1st point might be moot. Depends on where you find your stats.
The 2nd point is excellent.

 

[2aguy]

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.

And the fact that we never experienced the mass murder, genocide or ethnic cleansing that occurred in Europe....12 milllion people sent to gas chambers by the countries of Europe.

Also, Americans us guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives...according to bill clinton and supported by research conducted by barak obama.

In a country of over 320 million people, we had 8,124 gun murders in2014....the majority of which were violent criminals murdering other violent criminals during criminal activity...

So you can't say America has a gun problem, we have a violent criminal problem.

The research should be why our criminals feel the need to murder people more than criminals in other countries, countries that have access to guns as easily as our criminals do. European criminals can get guns easily, the difference between them and American criminals is the intent to murder each other.

 

[2aguy]

There have been studies done on this...

The Science is Settled: Guns Don't Cause Crime - The Truth About Guns

For example, Canada has had “strictly regulated handguns for more than a century” and required the registration of all handguns “since 1934.” Yet, although the northern-most U.S. states adjoining Canada “have a three to ten-fold higher prevalence of handgun ownership… no consistent differences were observed in violent homicide rates.”

In other words, in the absence of guns Canadians prone to violence were able to find other lethal means to use.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...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?

Let's just cut through all the bullshit...

Fine.

Conceded.

However...

Constitutional Law is far more fluid and able to change with the times that some give it credit for.

Even if that was the original intention of the Founders, we must remember that the Founders were fallible mortals, and their ideas are subject to modification over time.

And so, if by some chance, you are right, and it was their intention to allow the citizenry to maintain arms, for purposes of militia service...

The times have changed, over and again since those words were first laid down, and various judicial rulings, and custom and usage, have rendered it otherwise.

The Constitution is a set of guidelines... it is neither suicide pact nor straight-jacket... it is an instrument of the Will of the People.

And it is the Will of the People to sublimate the "militia" aspect of the Second as nothing more than the rationale du jour, at the time, and that other justifications for a Right to Bear Arms have long-since overtaken and superceded any original "militia" basis for establishing that Right.

Once articulated and agreed upon and established, a Right can be a devilishly-difficult thing to take away.

You cannot have the guns.

But you CAN get a lot of support for the idea of (metaphorically) crucifying (at-law) those who commit violent crimes with guns.

Especially the lowlife inner-city thug-gangs who kill women and children for fun.

Then again, perhaps Chicago and Detroit and other ghetto shit-holes would benefit from a few public executions of such vermin.

Actually you're wrong. There hasn't been change.

All that has happened is the Supreme Court is keeping within the Constitution, but pandering to the right on guns.

Take the Heller case as a perfect example of this:

"(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

It doesn't mention what the right to bear arms is. It just says the right exists. Now, if you interpret it one way or another, you can make this decision say whatever you like.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Here is the part that's important. They don't say WHAT they uphold, they just mention the cases. The Presser case, simply said, shows that the 2A does NOT protect the right of citizens to walk around as they choose armed. But the Court didn't say this. They just said some case that people who want to ignore can ignore. However it's very important. They UPHELD Presser.

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Forbidding people to associate together as a military organization is NOT protected by the 2A, that means carry arms. Which means the right to bear arms is NOT "carry arms".

 

[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?

The population of Canada is 35 million people which is less than ten percent of the U.S. population, so they will have lower gun deaths than us.

Plus Canada is not a melting pot nation like the U.S. and the conflict between cultures is less likely than here in the U.S. ...

Ever heard of per capita statistics? Canada wouldn't have lower murder rate just because of less people, in fact the US is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

""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.

No, the happenstance of using phrases that have multiple meanings to mean a particular thing, does not automatically dismiss all other plausible meanings in use, jack ass.

"Render military service" and "bear arms" are NOT always synonymous.

If I am rendering military service, I am bearing arms, but if I am bearing arms I am NOT necessarily rendering military service, stupid ass.

You either want to debate, or insult. You can't do both.

 

[Bonzi]

Well it's actually not the "civil debate" forum, but, personal attacks still I don't think should be in a debate. IMO

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

there are a lot of guns in Canada

 

[jon_berzerk]

...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?

Let's just cut through all the bullshit...

Fine.

Conceded.

However...

Constitutional Law is far more fluid and able to change with the times that some give it credit for.

Even if that was the original intention of the Founders, we must remember that the Founders were fallible mortals, and their ideas are subject to modification over time.

And so, if by some chance, you are right, and it was their intention to allow the citizenry to maintain arms, for purposes of militia service...

The times have changed, over and again since those words were first laid down, and various judicial rulings, and custom and usage, have rendered it otherwise.

The Constitution is a set of guidelines... it is neither suicide pact nor straight-jacket... it is an instrument of the Will of the People.

And it is the Will of the People to sublimate the "militia" aspect of the Second as nothing more than the rationale du jour, at the time, and that other justifications for a Right to Bear Arms have long-since overtaken and superceded any original "militia" basis for establishing that Right.

Once articulated and agreed upon and established, a Right can be a devilishly-difficult thing to take away.

You cannot have the guns.

But you CAN get a lot of support for the idea of (metaphorically) crucifying (at-law) those who commit violent crimes with guns.

Especially the lowlife inner-city thug-gangs who kill women and children for fun.

Then again, perhaps Chicago and Detroit and other ghetto shit-holes would benefit from a few public executions of such vermin.

Actually you're wrong. There hasn't been change.

All that has happened is the Supreme Court is keeping within the Constitution, but pandering to the right on guns.

Take the Heller case as a perfect example of this:

"(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

It doesn't mention what the right to bear arms is. It just says the right exists. Now, if you interpret it one way or another, you can make this decision say whatever you like.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Here is the part that's important. They don't say WHAT they uphold, they just mention the cases. The Presser case, simply said, shows that the 2A does NOT protect the right of citizens to walk around as they choose armed. But the Court didn't say this. They just said some case that people who want to ignore can ignore. However it's very important. They UPHELD Presser.

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Forbidding people to associate together as a military organization is NOT protected by the 2A, that means carry arms. Which means the right to bear arms is NOT "carry arms".

It doesn't mention what the right to bear arms is. It just says the right exists.

if we ever settle what millers shotgun is

well then you may see many more full autos around town

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

It would be even more fun to play the you are moron game with the likes of you. The government doesn't have the right to stop someone from owning guns unless they screwed up. The fact that you have no concept of citizen rights proves you are a moron and belong in a country where you will be a subject instead.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ever heard of per capita statistics? Canada wouldn't have lower murder rate just because of less people, in fact the US is one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

Bullshit. We have a LOT of dense people like you.

For example, the murder sprees are a fairly new phenomenom, yet we've always had guns. Became a country because of it. And morons like you think the problem must be guns. It literally gets no stupider than that.