The “Youtube” Democratic debate is getting fairly heavy coverage here – CTV (what liberal bias?) had a gushy little segment on it last night. Via Slate, this moment,, seems to be getting some attention on the blogosphere;
Biden’s obnoxious response when he insulted the gun owner toward the end as being nuts. It wasn’t so much a personal gaffe as a moment that projected an ugly image of the Democratic Party as out of touch with rural voters and gun owners — big problems the party has been trying to overcome. He got a huge cheer from the audience, but that just compounded the problem.
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE DO
WL Mac — I already have a Dad, it’s in the post we were discussing. I don’t need another one.
Phantom — I’m glad you brought up freedom at the same time that WL is soapboxing about the government conspiracy to criminalize gun owners.
If guns are that important to both of you, which they clearly are, join the service and use them to preserve all of our freedoms.
I have no respect for gun-owners that won’t pony up and put their asses on the line for our country. There is no advantage for me as an unarmed citizen to allow you to possess guns unchecked if you’re too spineless to use those guns to defend the country we both share if it were to be invaded. In my post I’m not talking about drafting all gun-owners and shipping them to Afghanistan, I’m talking about a call to arms.
Citizens who legitimately own guns ultimately carry a heavier burden than those who don’t. Their guns are their responsibility under criminal law, just like WL Mac says. As an extension of that burden, gun-owners should be willing to defend the country that affords them the rights they hold so dearly. If gun-owners can’t handle that burden, maybe they shouldn’t own guns.
Charles J:
You’re mixing apples and oranges.
Or are you saying that only the State functionaries, the police and the military, should have guns?
Mad Mike — No. Try to keep up.
I’m keeping up just fine, thank you. I’m actually making an effort to tug you along.
Your “call to arms” is commendable, but unlike myself, many citizens are not able to join the Armed Forces. Further, in my mind the definition of a responsible citizen explicitly implies the commitment to defend ones country, uniform-wearing or not. Ergo, law abiding citizens can own guns.
But persuant to Kates rules below, I won’t carry this further.
Charles J: You need all the adult guidance you can get to make it through your convoluted world view and civil naivety.
You make some dyslexic connection between owning a firearm and military service and somehow owning a firearm justifies being put in a presumed criminal liability….rather elitist, intolerant and bigoted not to mention presumptive to tell other people what they should do…you have the makings of a first rate brownshirt who would blindly accept the tyranny of either fascism or Stalinism.
Civil rights (including my charter legal rights to be presumed innocent and to due process) are not “situation” based rights and really do not require me to please your prejudices on order for me to exercise them.
I think you would be more comfortable in the Cuban utopia because statist communism holds the same dyslexic ideas about truncating basic civil rights as you do.
There is no justifiable reason to expose a peaceful citizen to 100% criminal liability simply by virtue of the property he owns or by some vaporous unprovable assumed guilt of criminal intent.
Guns are not “important to me”. They have been part of my experience as a Canadian citizen from the time I was a kid controlling pests on the farm with a .22, to my hunting activities and into my involvement in organized competition…but it is what the freedom to own and use them symbolizes about our civil liberties which is “important to me”.
Most of all it is about the relationship between my government and myself….I do not feel justified in asking someone’s permission and being criminalized to do something I have done peacefully and responsibly for years before some stilted bureucrat decided that I was a threat to society. If they don’t trust me and deem me to be some potential hazard to society they better be able to prove it….but they haven’t…and they can’t because there is no way they can prove guilt in the absence of any crime.
That basic premise of guilt by association is the basis for all civilian gun control and it us UNCIVIL, unjust and at odds with the basic tenets of Canadian legal precedent as well as charter rights guarntees.
I (all responsible gun owners) have done nothing to justify the legal repression and criminal liabilities imposed upon us…we never were a “criminal problem” to society and delegating guilt to 9 million Canadians by presumed association to criminal intent is an abomination of both due process and the rule of law.
If this is not apparent to you, you have not investigated the issue very deeply nor thought seriously about the social/civil contract with government in a free and democratic society under rule of common law.
Charles J, who do you think you’re talking to here anyway, some pencil necked Toronto cubicle clone? I wouldn’t cross the road to protect your freedom. Get your sorry a$$ busy and protect it yourself.
Gun owners have a heavier burden because of a piece of property? Only in a top-down control socialist utopia run by gun haters. In a free country, a gun is like a table saw. Do I have a heavier burden to serve my country because I own a table saw? How about a truck?
And Charles, just so you are brutally, crystal clear on your situation in life, you as a non-gun owner are in no position to be dictating terms to anyone. Particularly not government. No, your position is much more like those washroom sinks in the next thread.
Are we communicating yet?
wlmr, excellent.
You want my gun Charles? Come and get it.
WL Mac — Yeah sure, I’m an elitist and you’re fighting the good fight for the little guy. Yawn.
Phantom — Your stuck on military service. I never said a gun registry would force anyone to join the army, but it could offer the opportunity to enlist with accellerated rank based on ability with a firearm. A good idea I think. I’m also particularly proud of the nationwide gun-sharing network. You’re familiar with Canadian Gun Nutz? Imagine it on steriods and subsidized by the government.
Oh, and as for carrying a heavier burden because you own a truck. Any vehicle operated on Ontario roads (not sure about other provinces)must be registered with the government and you need a licence and insurance to operate it. So, I guess that is a burden on the owner.
All that aside, the responsible gun-owners in Canada have been fighting a losing battle for years because they can’t see beyond a basic ideology. That’s was my basic assertion that started this whole discussion in the first place.
You could build a great network of gun-owners who have rights and priveleges that you never thought possible and pitch it to the public as gun control if you wanted. The timing is perfect.
Instead, you’ve got guys like WL Mac and A Storm stroking their own vigilante alter-egos and making you all look like crazy rednecks. I know you’re not, but the majority of Canadians don’t have the experience I do around responsible gun-owners.
The gun registry will be back, it’s only a matter of time. Why not make it work for you rather than against you?
I disagree Charles.
The registry has no positive benefit to gun owners nor to the government. All you’ve got is a list of people willing to obey a stupid law. The cops can’t trust it because criminals don’t register, and its of no use to the military unless they want to come and borrow you and/or your gun. Its only functional use (other than graft) is as a list of people to confiscate guns from.
A registry of criminals and people judged unfit to have firearms would be of some small use to gun shop owners and police. It might even be worth the money it cost to set it up, but I doubt it.
As to vehicle registrations, they control who uses the -public- roads. Is there a registration for race cars? No. Do I need a license for my dune buggy? No. Should I need a license and registration for a firearm I keep in my house and use only on private land? I think not.
Some argument can be made for concealed carry permits, but even that assumes the average citizen to be dangerously incompetent without super special training and certification. As in some bureaucrat has to examine you and judge you worthy. As if he can tell.
The gun registry is a stupid idea. The RCMP and federal public servants quietly killed the first attempt under the old FAC system (somebody erased the files, shredded the papers!), the hand gun registry has never done a pinch of good, and this new system is worse. I expect it will be quietly strangled to death by budget cuts and office vandalism just like the last one. Unless Harper and company summon up some guts and finally keep their word, anyway.
The Phantom and WLMR have very ably demolished the concept of the gun registry. More power to them!
How many times must non-registered firearms be used in a criminal act before we realize that the registry is a typical Liberal waste of time and resources.
The guy in the Youtube video did seem more than a bit nuts to me. To refer to your gun as your ‘baby’?
Of course he did, he was meant to look like a kook, a classic intentional set-up.
Just remember it was those huys in Germany in the 30’s that brought us gun control laws!!!
HITLER and LENIN were big time GUN CONTROL supporters