Very well said, Hyzmarca.

I must say, this is by far one of my favorite Dumpshock threads. I'm very impressed as to the quality of the posts provided from both sides, as well as the general lack of name-calling and mud slinging that usually accompanies such a discussion.

Well done, Dumpshock. Well done.

I was speaking in the sense of the long sordid history of arms control, which goes back well before the invention of the gun, and probably for as long as humans have had both weapons and organized societies. It goes all the way back to 1100 B.C. , at least, when the Philistines placed restrictions on the Israelites' use of iron (because no one needs an iron assault sword, which is good only for killing and has no sporting purpose, unlike bronze swords).

With the advent of feudalism, restrictions based on class became common. Few noblemen wanted their peasants to rise up and stab them to death or worse (just ask Louis XVI). And as class became less important wealth became a larger factor.

I'm sure that most Western countries these days at least try to appear egalitarian in scope and application. But I have to ask you how many Canadians are afraid of the possibility a billionaire or a multi-millionaire going on a killing spree with his weapons and how many are more concerned about being robbed or shot by poor people? How do those two compare.

If I drove to Canada tomorrow with $20,000,000 in my pocket, hobnobbed with the mayor of Vancouver, dropped say 5 million in his reelection campaign, had dinner with the police chief, and maybe rented him a hooker, how long do you think it would take for me to get a firearms license? Do you imagine that my paperwork might be processed significantly faster than that of someone who doesn't drop large wads of cash into the laps of bigwigs and that I might be significantly more likely to get approved than a poorer person with fewer political connections?
And, of course, if my paperwork does not go through with any speed, how easy do you think it would be for me to simply hire a bodyguard who is licensed to carry a weapon, perhaps an off-duty police officer?

Gun control laws do tend to discriminate based on financial means, if for no other reason that that people who have a certain level of disposable income can hire people to shoot people for them. And while bodyguards may have to jump through hoops to get a carry permit, it is one of the few civilian jobs that will satisfy the most stringent may-issue laws.

But, most likely, the rich person does get his license faster. Because, lets face it, rich people don't usually hold up liqueur stores. There is less concern, in general, about allowing the wealthy to have access to weapons than there is about letting the poor have access to weapons.

This is an unintended consequence that I don't think gets enough play in conversations about how society works, and it's one that can be applied to all manner of situations even beyond firearm ownership. Quite simply, a person with ample resources will be more likely to get the benefit of the doubt in many situations than a desperately poor person, and unfortunately for people who happen to be accused, poor and innocent, it's not an entirely unfounded scenario. You would never really expect a rich man to rob a liquor store; he could simply purchase some liquor without a problem if he wanted to and has plenty to lose by taking such a foolish risk. Meanwhile, a guy working a minimum wage dead end job has a built in motive in the eyes of the public.

For example, Andy Reid, coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, is the father of two adult sons who have been imprisoned on drug charges while living at their father's home. While many have criticized Reid as a parent, I have never heard anyone ever accuse Reid of any direct involvement in the situation or of introducing drugs into his home himself. After all, Reid has a lot to lose and certainly doesn't need drug money. But take a poor family and put them in the same situation and I assure you that some questions about whether this is the "family business" or whether the parents had a financial stake in turning a blind eye to their children's activity would come up. If you're struggling to get by and your kids are bringing in some cash, it'd be tempting to overlook some shady behavior, after all. Again, it's not an entirely illogical or unwarranted for the public and the authorities to think that way, but it does have implications on how people are treated when accused regardless of any noble intentions.

Hear hear. On a related note, I don't think car ownership is anywhere near as controversial as it ought to be, considering the automobile-based death toll world-wide.





Hey, what can I say? I'm a crazy lefty through and through.


Wait, wait, wait... you're saying that doesn't happen already? Man, I'm out of touch...


To be honest, I think that countries that set their governments up to be servants while trusting them have tended to do a better job of it all-round. I mean, if you hire a butler and then wave a gun in his face and tell him 'one wrong move and you're out the door, sonny,' you'll get worse results than if you treat him with respect and let him earn your trust.


A very large part of anyone's values comes from the society they are brought up in, not just their parents, so yes, attemting to keep a society's values in line with what the majority consider important is a big part of the government's job.


Personally, given the choice, I'd rather continue in the fine tradition of letting my weapons wither away from disuse, rather than perpetuating conflict.


Wait, so I'm not allowed to agree with specific parts of someone else's values, but not others? Thats ridiculous! There is nothing hypocritical about deciding for myself what I do and don't agree with. Hypocrisy would be agreeing with some parts of the constitution but not others, and still damning it wholesale or lauding its virtues indiscriminately.


Unless, of course, you might be a terrorist. Then it's perfectly alright.
I could also argue that humanity has matured enough that we need not worship at all, but I'd wager I'd lose that debate. =P

That's fine, and you're free to make that choice for your weapons. You make the choice to let yours wither away from disuse, and hope you never need to use them. I'll continue to train diligently with mine, and also hope I never need to use them. But which of us will be better prepared if and when the need does arise?


I was using the generic "you" in that sentence/paragraph/rant, not in the "you, Platinum Dragon, are not allowed to..." way. There are plenty of people right here in America -- lobbying groups, politicians, the American Civil Liberties Union, name it -- that are all about exercising one right while condemning others. Lots of folks are gigantic fans of the First, and would merrily act as if the Second did not exist, for instance.

That is when I feel someone's being hypocritical. When someone can relax and enjoy and take shelter behind some of the freedoms America grants her children, while doing their damnedest to take away other freedoms. In the same breath some people praise the perfect wisdom of the Founding Fathers for granting us freedom of the press, they'll use that freedom of the press to insist the Founding Fathers were wrong about the RTKBA. It irritates me.



Please show me where I said that, before putting words in your mouth and rolling your eyes at me.

The right to worship as you please includes the right to not worship at all. America hasn't got an official national religion, unlike some countries. Again (just as with weapons training), I believe quite strongly such decisions should be left to each individual person -- I won't force you to carry a gun and worship my god, in exchange all I want is for you to not take my gun away and tell me I can't worship.

Critias, you are bothered by the idea that someone might want to take away a right which you believe you deserve as a citizen. But, if a person in a democracy feels a law is wrong, isn't it his -responsibility- as a citizen to act to change the law? Even if others think it is not a wrong law? Presumably the net effect of everyone acting responsibly is that laws develop to match the needs and views of as many as possible, and may well involve compromises.

I realize that acts (? don't know the term?) in the U.S. Constitution hold a special place different from laws enacted by legislative bodies, and at the same time my understanding is that even they are subject to democratic scrutiny.

Peter

But isn't it possible that the founding faters were wrong about one thing, yet right about others? The decisions they made are over 200 years old, it seems like a good idea to review every so often and see which parts of the constitution are still relevant. Times change, and so do people's opinions. Sure, it shouldn't be easy to change a constitution, but it should be possible, otherwise you end up living in a country who's policies are out of date.


Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply anything at all about you, personally. I was commenting on your country's conduct over the last few years (and not just yours, mine as well, and plenty others). People used to have a right to privacy. Now they have a right to privacy, unless the government thinks they might be a terrorist! It's a little sickening.


I'm not going to tell you that you can't own a gun or worship, I'm not a US citizen and I'm therefore also not a politician in a position to make those choices. I can, and will, state my opinion (and that's all it is, really) that you probably shouldn't own a gun.

For years people have debated does the 2nd ammendment to the constitution actually protect the right of the individual to own a gun. it never made it to the supreme court on that until this year. a man challenged DC's rules against ownig handguns in your own home. The ruling was pretty much that it was too restrictive to say NO guns. That the state could regulate but not completely block off.

The ruling was more than that, it said you could not make handguns or any general class of firearms illegal, as it would violate the 2nd amendment, which applied to the individual's right to bear arms.

Given the tangents and derailing that have gone on in this thread, I am emboldened to add one of my own, though I can in a twisted way connect to the original post by saying that the current Prime Minister of Canada is at this very moment being forced to make a Knockdown Test in order to stay in power. Forgive me if this is a bit long, but it has been quite a long time since something this cool has happened in our politics.

Both the United States and Canada had elections recently, and most here in this country acknowledged that the U.S. election was way more interesting. The Obama "Yes, we can" thing was far more emotional than anything our contenders could come up with. Many electors were heard to say, "I wish we had as interesting an election as they do." Careful what you wish for...

Canada is a Parliamentary Democracy, whose rules of election and succession are way easier to understand than the American system, at least to most of us out here. The people elect local representatives, who usually belong to one of the accredited political parties. We have four political parties that have members elected to parliament: the Conservative Party, representing a recently (some years ago) combined group of parties seen to be on the "right" of the political spectrum, the Liberal Party, a centrist party that talks slightly "left" but behaves slightly "right" (and has far and away had the most time in office as the government), the New Democratic Party (NDP) which represents the moderate "left", and the Bloc Quebecois (Bloc), which fields candidates only in the province of Quebec and, overtly or covertly depending on the winds of popular opinion, aligns itself with the separatist movement in Quebec. That's right, separatists. A couple of elected members of parliament are independents.

Nobody casts votes for the Prime Minister directly, though his or her influence is strongly felt in the choice of local candidates. The Prime Minister is chosen by the elected representatives, and in almost all cases he is the leader of the party that got the most elected members. If a party gets the majority of seats in parliament (over half of the 308 seats), then it gets a Majority and runs things pretty much the way it wants, sort of like how the house majority does things in the U.S., except that the Prime Minister is always of the same party as the majority, and parties tend to vote more as a block here than in the U.S. If no party gets a majority, then the usual practice is that the party that got the most seats gains a Minority, and runs the government, but with far more need to listen to the other parties, as on important votes such as a budget the combined votes of the Opposition parties can vote down the government bill, and force a state of Non-confidence... the elected members of parliament no longer have confidence in the government. This usually leads to an election.

The Prime Minister is not the head of state in Canada. That position is held by the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, who is the Canadian representative of the Queen of Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (also Queen of that other place on the other side of the pond). The Governor General plays a small role in the running of the government, except in those few times when she is called upon to exercise Royal will and prerogative. Most often, this is in dissolving parliament before an election or forming government after an election. She almost always follows the advice of the Prime Minister in these matters. There are rules and guidelines for when to follow that advice, and when not to. More on that shortly.

In the last session of parliament, the Conservative Party formed a Minority government, and the Prime Minister was Stephen Harper. During the course of that session, he got a lot of things done that conformed to the platform of the Conservative Party, despite being a Minority, because he astutely took advantage of the disorganization, poor leadership and contradictory goals of the opposition parties. He continually poked them with the proverbial sharp stick, making many ordinary bills Confidence Motions, meaning that if they were voted down by the majority of the elected members who were not Conservative, he would call an election, and "who knows what might happen then.. the Conservatives could win a Majority." This worked remarkably well for him. He made several reforms, repealed an agreement with the First Nations of Canada, a 5 billion dollar deal decades in the making, stalled on environmental issues, and instituted a standard length for term of office, as they have in the U.S., ostensibly to prevent opportunist governments from calling an election when their popularity was high, as has often happened in the past in Canada.

Well, shortly after passing that law, he broke it, and called an election when he thought the popularity of his party was high. He figured he could get a Majority, and then really go to town with the Conservative ideology. A perfectly logical and typical Canadian political move, except for the broken law thing. As it turns out, he didn't get taken to task for his flip-flop, but neither did he get what he wanted. After a two month campaign, and 300 million dollars of public funds, he was right back where he started, in a Minority government.

So he went right back to his past behaviour, daring the opposition to challenge his bills and force another election. Nobody wants another election only 8 weeks after the last one, right? The latest sharp poke must have been right in the eye of the opposition, because they finally had enough. Something about removing public funding of parties based on the number of votes they got (instituted by the Liberals years ago to protect the system from wealthy special interest groups). Something about removing the right of public servants to strike, and cutting back their pay (unions being the staunch supporters of the NDP). Something about a mini-budget that was doing nothing to address the global melt-down and our descent into recession. Of course, it was a Confidence Motion.

The three opposition parties with members in parliament promptly formed a coalition. The Liberals and NDP would form a government, and provide ministers for the cabinet, and the Bloc would support this coalition for 18 months. Then they promised to bring down the government on the Confidence vote on Monday, and sent a letter to the Governor General saying that they were ready to form a government with the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion as Prime Minister. They called Harper's bluff, and he is basically toast.

Conservatives say this is undemocratic, which is not true. Coalition governments are a fact of life in Parliamentary Democracies all over the world (some more stable than others), and in fact have occurred in Canada, though you have to go back to 1917 for the last one. In fact, in 2004, Harper tried to form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc to overcome the Liberals in power, but failed. Conservatives also say that the people elected the Conservative government, which strictly speaking is also untrue. The People elect representatives, and the representatives choose the government. Government rules not by the direct vote of the people, but by the confidence of the elected representatives of the people. Normally this key fact is not apparent to most of us. In the case of a Minority, a coalition may actually more closely represent the will of the people than a Minority government.

So, here we are, in the middle of a world-wide economic crisis, and our parliament is infighting like nobody's business. The Prime Minister has gone to the Governor General today to ask her to "prorogue" the parliament, which means basically to dissolve parliament for a short period of time. He's looking for the end of January, at which time his finance minister will present a full budget. The only reason for this delay is to give him time to sway public opinion against the coalition, and to allow the coalition time to splinter itself. Otherwise, as I say, he and his party are toast. Usually the Governor General accedes to the requests of the Prime Minister.

But, she has the power to say no. It is her primary duty to ensure that the government is serving the people on behalf of the Queen. If she thinks a coalition would be better for Canada right now, to take over right away and continue to deal with the financial crisis, she can form a new government on the spot. Especially when a legitimate alternative has been offered to her. Harper may go ahead with the vote in parliament on Monday and ask the Governor General for a new election if the bill is defeated. Again, she may say no. Rare, but possible.

So, we may be without any government sitting for a couple of months (What, NOW?), we may be in for another election being called some 8 weeks after the last one (What, AGAIN?), or we may be in for a new, coalition government consisting of centrists, socialists and separatists (WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!).

Ah, interesting times.

Peter

Governor General Michaelle Jean agreed to prorogue - or suspend - parliament until 27 January when the government is set to present its budget.

Ms Jean - the representative of head of state Queen Elizabeth II - has the right to make a final decision on such matters.

"Today's decision will give us an opportunity - I'm talking about all the parties - to focus on the economy and work together," Mr Harper was quoted as saying by AP news agency after the meeting.

But hey, at least you guys still have fast broadband and cheap housing, right? >.>

Seriously though, that's messed up.

Fast broadband, yes. Cheap housing I'm not so sure. Anyway, as Chrysalis says, we now have a government in hiding for a couple of months. Oh God, the TV ads we will suffer.

Peter