I am Canadian, and as such am not protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Here in Canada, we have no rights to have guns. Self defense laws lean heavily in the favor of the criminal. If someone broke into your home in the middle of the night and you shot and killed them, you would be charged with murder. Handguns are legal for purchase, but are only to be kept at home and are not to be used for self defense. The only acceptable reason to own a firearm is for sport shooting, collections, or hunting. Guns kept at home are to be unloaded, locked in a gun safe with trigger lock, and ammunition is to be locked up separately. Hardly convenient for self defense. My argument is that I think the founding fathers of the USA had it right to protect citizens right to bear arms. I feel deeply that the right to own and carry firearms for self defense is a fundamental human right, and should not be infringed. As such, regardless of policy in my home country I will defend myself if the need arises. I will carry the protection I feel is necessary to protect my life from those who may wish to take it. I am at odds with many of my fellow Canadians. Many of them believe there are no use for guns, and there should be a national gun ban. I believe this is an obvious denial of human rights. What say you?
I completely agree and wish I could do more for my northern neighbors in that regard. You'd be welcome in the States, and personally I think Canadians should advocate there province breaking from Canada and joining the US.
No, ownership of guns is NOT a human right. . .although it is a constitutional right in the US. And even that.. .I believe that our forefathers had their own reasons to encourage a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" to own guns! Those reasons are no longer valid, as ANY army (especially the US military) would far outweigh any firearms owned by private citizens. . .unless those are organized TERRORISTS! Our forefather certainly didn't have in mind the type of "arms" the average citizen has access to today. . .and WHERE IS THE REGULATION as stated in the Constitution?
Because...? Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Self defense is a god given right of any human being. The ability to defend your life, or the lives of your loved ones, from an aggressor is universally recognized. Every country in the world has some form of state self defense, designed to protect its citizens. How is it possible that that right does not extend to the individual? You couldn't be more wrong. The Bill of Rights does not GRANT anything. It recognizes the fact that there are things that no man or government should infringe on, and one of those is the right to self defense. Ownership of arms is the means to ensure self defense is always possible. Your interpretation of "well regulated milita" is just wrong. I'd suggest researching how "well-regulated" was used during that time period. It was a different vernacular. Access to guns and self defense could have any level or measure of loss in the "rule of law". Localized rioting, natural disasters, or anything else turns people that aren't armed into dead people. We have seen that over and over through history. A civil war type "tyranny war" in the US would certainly result in many of the US armed forces switching sides. They are sworn to defend the CONSTITUTION after all, not the current federal government. You can keep living in a make believe world where gun control has a positive effect, but I think explosive vest laden, full auto AK-47 wielding crazies running around Belguim and France proves your laws have ZERO effect other than to make people even more vulnerable to the crazies.
Defense of self, family, community and country are a human right. At this time, firearms are the best technology to do those things, hence, firearms ownership is a human right. When we get to some kind of practical energy weapon, that might change.
why in God's name would they want to join the USA? we have much more inequality, much more violence, much more consumerism and materialism. they have universal healthcare and a much more peaceful society.
Let's trade Ronstar for savage.. Others have addressed this well, but what the heck. Of course it is, I bet even you would say that self defense is a human right, a gun is a tool for self defense. It's a recognized natural right in the US. Yes they did and those reasons are more valid today then they have ever been. You couldn't be more wrong, I addressed that here.. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=432975 have a read. Doesn't matter one bit, even SCOTUS disagrees with you. "regulation" in capitals or not, in the vernacular of the day was more equal to organized. It's like saying "A well organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state(COMA). Notice organized/regulated refers to the militia not the arms.
The forefathers didn't predict bras or airplanes either. The "we should use muskets" argument always gives me a good laugh.
Even if we weren't laughing at it it's factually incorrect. Muskets weren't the most advanced "arms" of the day. In fact is was a major aspect of why we won, Americans had and were more skilled with rifles(rifles aren't muskets). Men like Timothy Murphy who killed at a great distance for the day Sir Francis Clerke and General Simon Fraser with his double barreled over/under rifle.
No need to repeat ad nauseum the silly "rational" for the epidemics of guns in the US. NONE of those arguments weigh ANYTHING against the number of people (most of them INNOCENT, or at the least. . .not found guilty!) that are DYING every day at the ends of Americans with guns. And it is hypocritical to reject refugees because of "FEAR" that some of them MIGHT, maybe have bad intention and might kill people here. That is hypocrisy and totally illogical. Actually, this kind of ideology makes America a laughing stock in the world!
I say you have a firearm injury and mortality rate far far far lower than the USA - that is a GOOD thing and the right to keep breathing as far as I am concerned trumps any "rights" to fondle your gun
All the Constitution does is protect our natural rights FROM government so you have that wrong. The right to self defense includes the most logical way to defend yourself and that is with a force multiplier. - - - Updated - - - I always wonder why the gun banners are so obsessed with sex? Repressed maybe?
I think this graph almost says it all - USA stands out for all the wrong reasons - Canada, while not as small as Australia is still only a 1/5 of the USA [ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...f_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.jpg But then Canada seems to have more logically thinking people who are not carried away by dreams of what might be starring them in a central hero role so long as they have that gun..............
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, "Insanity is posting the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Canada is probably a safer place to live than the US so the need for firearms for self defence is probably lesser. As to it being a human right, I hardly think so. If it were then every citizen should claim a firearm from government to fulfil that right.
you have a natural right to defend yourself when attacked. do you have a natural right to do it with a gun, and not a tank or machete or bazooka or anthrax or vx gas? its up to each society to decide what weapons they believe are appropriate for use for self-defense by civilians.
A human right. Not a legal right. - - - Updated - - - Exactly. The confusion about self defence from the anti-firearms law people is disturbing.
i support the right of citizens to own basic firearms for self-defense purposes. why? cause back in 1787, firearms were VERY basic and had to be loaded for each shot. would be near impossible to commit a massacre back then, with the average firearm.
