Gunco Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
On a Canadian Gun Discussion Board, CanadianGunnutz, I asked members to reply to a local newspaper editorial which demanded "reasonable" gun control laws. See our thread, Angry responses show reasonable gun control is far off . In less than an hour, one of our brothers to the North wrote and emailed the following:

From: Bruce Mills <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Angry Responses Show Reasonable Gun Control Is Far Off

"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."

Despite all the liberal-leftist attempts at semantic jerrymandering, the
fact remains that the Founders intended this to be an individual right.
Indeed all rights can *only* be individual rights, since neither rights nor
responisbility are cumulative or tranferrable.

It is exactly this that makes it impossible for there to be *any*
"compromise" with even the most moderate of "gun control" advocates: all
so-called "gun control" laws are an infringemnt on our sovereign right. All
"gun control" laws boil down to one of two fallacious arguments:

1) somebody (else), somewhere, did something bad with a gun

2) somebody (else), somewhere, *might* do something bad with a gun

Both of these arguments involve actions either taken, or possibly taken, by
somebody else. Prior restraint aside, this is simply an attempt to transfer
responsibility for an illegal action from the person who committed that act,
to someone who didn't. Law abiding gun onwers should in no way be held
responsible for the criminal actions of others! This is just fundamentally
wrong. Not only that, these kinds of laws have absolutely no effect on the
real problem - the criminal misuse of firearms. Criminals will always be
able to get guns, no matter how many laws you try to pass.

Let's just take a look at what you think "reasonable" gun control is for a
minute. You start off slowly enough with mandatory trigger locks, safe
storage laws and waiting periods. Each of these are completely fallacious
in their own right, but let's just assume that these are, in fact,
"reasonable". You then go on to say that there also needs to be a ban on
"handguns for civilians" and a "revival of the assault- weapons ban". You
then try to ameliorate this hard-line, anti-gun position with a(nother) plea
for "compromise" on trigger locks and waiting periods. Nice
try, but we aren't buying it. There's nothing "reasonable" about your
anti-gun agenda!

There's another clue to your anti-gun beliefs: in talking about your
shotguns and .22 rifle, you say "such sporting arms should never be taken
away from citizens". This puts the final lie to your claim that you "love
the Second Amendment" - nowhere does it refer to "sporting arms" in that
article, and with good reason. The Founders knew all too well what the
standing armies of King George were capable of when it came to supressing
the freedom of the people. They fully intended that all citizen-soldiers,
who comprised the militia, have the latest armaments at their disposal so
they could repel attacks from invaders, or overthrow their own government
should it slip into tyranny. Without access to these military arms, the
State can run roughshod over *all* the rights of the people. It is the
Second Amendment that protects all the others.

In all of your "reasonable" anti-gun rhetoric, you did actually manage to
get one thing right: those who commit violent crimes by misusing guns should
get long prison sentences. Targetting criminals, and not law abiding gun
owners, is the only way to reduce the amount of violence that is sweeping
our societies.

As for acknowledging the victims of firearms misuse, pro-gun advocates do
honour them, and mourn their loss. What we do not do is dance in their
blood and try to use their good names to manipulate the emotions of others,
to further an irrational belief in the eradication of guns from the hands of
civilians. That, sir, is your purview and that of your gun grabbing

:thankyou: :thumbup1:

3,690 Posts
I dunno what "reasonable" gun control consists of, but I do think there is such a thing. I think it would include laws prohibiting selling full-auto weapons to drunken 10 year-olds. It's what else it would include that I don't know.

But, seriously, doncha think that selling full-auto weapons to drunken 10 year-olds should be illegal? Yet it's gun control.

Stoned, maybe. But drunk?

1,523 Posts
I don't know many 10 year old drunks that try to buy machine guns..hehe

That being said, I think the only thing gun control should meen is not selling guns to violent criminals.. Notice I did'nt say fellon, as I belive not all felons should be barred from owning guns.. Lets say the type that got charged for fellony tax evasion, and other non violent crimes..

19,433 Posts
We have evolved into a society where everything is regulated on the basis of the least common denominator or at best some real or imaginary anecdotal tale of woe or disaster.

I don't see that going away as we are increasingly self absorbed and risk adverse.

Gunco Goddess
773 Posts
I agree, Custer. It's as if legislators take worse-case-scenarios and make laws to prevent them. Instead of going off on a tangent and trying to fix problems that simply don't exist (anywhere but in the minds of a few sick individuals) by implimenting blanket laws that affect the normal citizen, they should be using punishment. Punish those who do wrong and leave the rest of us alone.

1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You guys may have missed the point. The letter I copied into the topic was from a Canadian! It seems that he understands the Second Amendment much better than most Americans. I was simply stunned when I read it. The image we get of Canadians is negative, mostly provided by their own media. I wonder whether Canada is undergoing a political upheaval, with conservatives able to express why their side is correct?
1 - 6 of 6 Posts