Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Au revoir les amis !

Benedict et al ...

Back to original query.
I would agree that overall, the members of this forum are prone to attack versus debate. Benedict, as any good Frenchman (which I am) was brought up in a society in love with words, philosophy and debate. But, contrary to the US, in France they learn to debate without picking a side, or, to enjoy debate simply for debate, without emotionally trying to justify a "side" they feel strongly to be correct.

This is how I enjoy discussion as well, for If I have not put my beleifs at stake, I have nothing to lose, yet much to gain in discussion.

I would suggest that we may want to try harder to lose the aggression and focus more on the discussion. And Tom, you should maybe pop a few Valium or Ridulin before you log-on as your overall demeanor on this forum seems rather hostile and overly sarcastic. Again, try to debate the issue without emotions, simply with thoughts and where possible, facts.

*Disclaimer* I am not perfect, and know that I show signs of intolerant debating as relates to religion and God, this I regret.

Manitou - Pianist - Technician

Manitou, on the other hand, if you don't care about an issue why debate it at all? While jodi might want to discuss the advantages of a Buckeye over a Chantecler, I'm certainly not going to argue for a Jersey Giant or Wyandotte over either of those.

In the case of firearms, property rights, and the right to self defense, I would say that they are inseparable.

However, don't y'all go shootin' holes through the house with your Casull. Shooting someone inside an inhabited building calls for a careful mindset in weapon selection.

My favorite? A 20 gauge Youth Model 870. Built on the LT frame, it only weighs 5 lbs, and is less than the length of many .22 rifles. Standard combat load is all 2 3/4" shells - 2 #7.5, 2 #3buck, and 1 7/8 oz slug. At short range within a house, fine shot is just as lethal as buckshot, 'cuz you are going to drive the wad through them anyway, and the finer shot tends not penetrate typical stick construction.

I guess the one difference between gun ownership and property ownership in "my world" would be that I would say that one has the right to bear arms until that point one holds up the liquor store with a weapon.

At that point, I believe that individual should abrogate that "right." That is, one strike and you lose the right to bear arms. It is important that this "right" not be abused.

Ken

I think the government should provide for universal government provision of fishing lures (only those that can be used in the context of a well-regulated militia; I'm still mulling on anthrax spores), which doesn't mean they can't heavily regulate them (or even take them back!) without Constitutional interference.

Point taken. But, I'm a simple American businessman. Within the "rules" I play to win. Nothing personal. I'd buy benedict dinner tonight. I like the guy--he was, in this debate, simply the "opposition." Nothing more. Tommorrow he may be my friend.

He and his coterie attacked apple, who is my friend, and I took her side. Nothing more.

But.........I play to win.

JB:

Nothing puzzling

All pistols including single and double action revolvers are out. Some exceptions however, may be made for antique muzzle loaders if the owner is registered collector.

Are our communities that dangerous and violent that we *need* weapons to defend our lives and property from others? Self defence and defence of property are perfectly a legitimate excuses to justify the mass distribution and consumption of firearms. We have come to rely on credible deterrence as a means of defending or at least a means justifying the expense and maintenance of defence whether it be nationally or as in this case, personally.

Gryphon goes to great effort to show statistics of crime and murder rates in order to justify the rationale behind the excuse to own firearms. But how often are these weapons used in domestic violence rather than self defence? How do the statistics reflect the misuse of the right to bear and own firearms? It is not a God given right but rather an earned right own and operate a firearm.

But then again, the right under discussion here was never intended for self defence but rather against government encroachment on private property. Goes to show that the state really is the organ of mass repression by the elites on the private property of individuals.

What purpose does debate, for the sake of debate, serve?

I would propose, the same as any dissimination of information, where no oppportunity for action or change is possible. I.e, this very forum.

Here we trade and receive information. But, unless one of us is positioned in society, in a way to utilize this info, and affect society; then the purpose of discussion here serves only those who can gain knoweldge from it, personally.
We all talk and discuss things which, because of our lack of influence, are in a sense meaningless, yet we continue to talk. This is good, and normal.

P.s, glad no one caught, or commented on my typo earlier (Ritalin), brain was slow this morning..

Manitou

Not to worry, a strong coffee or two will pick things up. All the same, you seem fairly sharp to me this fine morning.

Renauda, no, I did *not* use statistics to show the need for firearms. I used statistics to show that firearms ownership is not directly correlated to homicide rates. Just the opposite.

You see firearms ownership as a priviledge, I see it as a right. So do a lot of other people. We have a right to be able to defend ourselves.

Here's a few random stats. Death by:

autos, 43,000
falls, 16,200
poisons, 11,700
firearms, 9,300 (that includes all justifiable and self-defense)
knives, 1,800

It is acknowldged that driving an automobile is not a right, it is a priviledge that has to be granted. But we don't prohibit auto ownership even though auto accidents kill five times as many people as firearms. Now you asked about domestic violence? There's no direct statistic for this re firearms. We know that 12.7% of all murders were the result of domestic violence, but that includes beating, stabbing, poison, suffocation, etc. as well as firearms.

Anyway, to get this back on topic, and just to use you as an example, even though Canada has restrictive gun ownership, your homicide rate is not that far behind ours at 73% of our rate. Other more restrictive countries are higher than the US. Does that prove anything? What does it all mean?

The US has well over 200 million privately owned firearms. (Some say this is pretty low estimate). 45% of all US households have guns. In the US, it is estimated that there are 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year. The US Deptartment of Justice found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed.

But the issue is whether or not you think people should have the right and the means to defend themselves. I do.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, the US's leading constitutional lawyer (who by the way is liberal and decidedly pro-Clinton) and who wrote American Constitutional Law, a standard text used in law schools since 1978, has even acknowledged that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.

So if Canada doesn't want to allow firearms ownership, that's up to Canada. It's in the fabric of our founding documents, though, and that's the difference.

Finally, something I can relate to. Big 10 football. (Go Illini!) But, they must've added a few more teams since I was there...

:p :rolleyes: :p

(how on earth did you get from guns to chickens?)

Jodi

Gryphon:

This is where I cannot follow your reasoning. I do not question that you or anyone has a right to self defence when threatened. But when you speak of the right to bear arms is it for self defence or is it the right to own and defend private property from state encroachment? Please tell how it is that you feel so threatened in your daily life that it is a constitutional or implied Divine right to own a firearm. I truly cannot accept the argument or excuse that gun ownership has anything to do with the right to self defence but rather defence of private property from state encroachment.

A firearm is a tool that requires responsible handling and training. Ownership and operation of such a tool is not a right but rather an earned privilege. People are not born with the innate right to own and operate firearms any more than as you say, they are born with the right to drive a motor vehicle.

What this country's laws are regarding firearm ownership is neither here nor there. Canadians purchase firearms for three purposes 1) hunting 2)target shooting and 3) collecting. Self defence against criminals or defence of private property from state encroachment do not factor into the purchase of a weapon. We are are not that cynical about the country and community in which we live.

Good. Then tell me how my 125 pound wife is to defend herself against a couple of 200 pound rapists? We have a right to defend ourselves from the government or any who wish to do us harm. Period. A firearm is just a tool to assist us in this, nothing more. That statement is a non-sequiter (or something) If it is a constitutional right or a divine right, then whether I feel threatened or not doesn't enter into the question. And I have already shown you that it is a constitutional right. But this only applies to the US. People are born with an innate right to defend themselves. Our country's founding documents say that firearms are part of that right. Whether you think man has the right to own a firearm or not in Canada is immaterial. And your friends, why can't they hunt with arrows. Or go to the foodstore like everyone else? We are.

Hey, just looking at some numbers. I didn't realize it, but the crime rate in Canada is over twice that of the United States.

Canada 8,572 per 100,000
USA 4,160 per 100,000

And since your homicide rate approaches ours, what makes you feel so safe?

I was afraid so but thank you for confirming it anyway. It shows.

As do we have rights that are constitutionally upheld. What's so hard to see about that?

Impaired driving (in excess of .08% blood alcohol or under the influence of narcotics), Dangerous driving as well as simple possession of controlled substances fall under the Federal Criminal code. Right now we are trying to have Marijuana possession removed. These could account for the statistically higher crime rate. I don't know.

Why do I feel safe? Don't know but probably because I do not associate with criminals or frequent their venues as a matter of social intercourse.

But as Shantinik has reasonably demonstrated not all Americans concur with your interpretation of this right.

It's a question of private and personal property always has been, even in the Civil War.

There are no more (federal) Constitutional rights to own an "arm" (be it a pistol, hunting rifle, or nuclear weapon) than there are to own a can opener (or a fishing lure) except in the context of it being useful to a well-regulated militia. Courts have been very consistent on this since 1939, the last important case - in which both Rehnquist and Burger concurred - in 1981 (and the last time the NRA has dared to contest the issue.)

Needless to say, you DO have the right to own a can opener, unless the government sees fit to regulate it, limit it, or ban it entirely, unless, of course, a court finds a can opener to be an arm of use to the militia.

But a liberal weenie who is afraid of guns doesn't hold the same legal weight as a constitutional authority. If one day enough of the country thinks the US should no longer guarantee that right, then I suppose they could amend the constitution to state so. Just as they could take away the freedom of religion and make us an Islamic state.