Moore on Aurora.

[Paul Wolfe]

I have visited the United states 23 times in my life (That doesn't include jaunts across the border to see your side of Niagara Falls), if I was to add up the days that is a grand total of about 120 days.
I have a gun pointed in my face twice.
I have guns offered to me for sale 3 times.
5 separate occasions out of 120.

Seriously.
Your country has a gun problem.

Interesting, I've lived in the United States for 46 years. I've had a gun pointed at me once - by a friend goofing around in his garage, not by someone committing a crime. I've never had anyone offer to sell me a gun - even in pawn shops or sporting goods stores where they are sold.

That's less 5 minutes out of 24336000...

I understand your point, however, I would have to say it may have to do with where you chose to be when visiting the States.

Wasn't there recently a shooting in Toronto with 2 fatalities and 23 injuries? Wasn't Ryan John Lewis just arrested for threatening to commit a mass killing similar to the tragedy in Colorado?

It's not really futile to discuss this subject with Americans. When you talk negatively about the States and play up Canada as superior, most Americans will defend this country they live in.

I agree that the gun laws need to be modified here. I also feel that there is way too much emphasis on violence as a form of solution in our entertainment culture. However, killers and psychos live in every country on earth.

Rather than discussing it on a guitar-centered message board, people need to act proactively to limit the mentality of killing. I don't let my kids play video games involving killing or shooting, they don't watch movies with such activities, anytime these subjects come up, there are discussions in this household as to what happened and why it's a negative thing. We can change the world only if we change the mentality one person at a time using a ripple effect.

[oth]

i dont know if we are so violent because of the violence we glorify in movies etc because europeans can get exposed to to tons of violent movies and they dont go postal.Maybe its cause we dont have sex promoted as much-people makinmg love in full nudity on TV at 4pm on basic cable.We sure have enogh sexual innuendo but when it comes down to the real thing we hide tits,nipples,dicks,pussy with black bars or blurr it out.They even do this on American websites!Ive seen history shows on TV where they are showing a nude statue and they blur the genitalia-it is insanely repressed.

[Stiltzkin]

It's not really futile to discuss this subject with Americans. When you talk negatively about the States and play up Canada as superior, most Americans will defend this country they live in.

You don't even have to be Canadian to get people all hotheaded

people makinmg love in full nudity on TV at 4pm on basic cable.

what kinda TV channels do you watch?

no, but joking aside, the censorship rules are almost as ridiculous as the 2nd Amendement

[Paul Wolfe]

I saw this article and immediately thought of this thread! Buy a diamond and get a free gun...

[Stiltzkin]

anyone up for a good read?

http://www.deanguitars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=94979

[RRFan4Ever]

All that I saw was a log in to dean guitars? And I read that quickly;)

[Paul Wolfe]

For those who don't want to register at Dean:

When PHILIP LABONTE, lead singer of ALL THAT REMAINS, wrote an Op-Ed for AP on the right to bear arms, last week’s shooting in Colorado had not yet happened. The Op-Ed was set to run in an upcoming issue. However, in light of the horrific events, Labonte revised his column in order to address last week’s tragedy. His position hasn’t changed: He still believes Americans have a right to bear arms. Whenever there’s a shooting of this scale, the ongoing debate over gun control comes back into the national spotlight. But amid all the arguing and finger-pointing that always accompanies a topic this controversial, Labonte offers a thoughtful look at the Second Amendment and what he believes the words directly state.

In light of the tragic events in Aurora, Colorado, and at the request of Alternative Press, I've written a piece on the Second Amendment. Before I go into the discussion, I want to extend my deepest sympathy to the families of those affected by the violent and inhuman acts perpetrated on that fateful night.

While popular opinion is that these horrible acts are a uniquely American problem due to the liberal gun laws we have, I submit that it is a problem worldwide. July 22 was the one-year anniversary of the massacre in Norway—a country with very strict gun control laws—perpetrated by Anders Breivik where 77 people (mostly children) lost their lives. In June, there was a shooting in a Toronto mall where one man was killed and seven others injured. Again, a country with strict gun regulation. There was also the March 11, 2009, shooting at the Winnenden School in Winnenden, Germany, leaving 16 dead and 11 injured. Germany also has strict gun regulation. There are violent and mentally damaged people all over the world. If they are looking to harm innocents, they are going to do it, regardless of law.

A lot of people have a misconception about what the Second Amendment means. Adopted Dec. 15, 1791, the Second Amendment’s purpose was to ensure tyranny would not take hold in the United States and that a truly free people had the means to defend themselves from those that would use force against them, whether that force be from an invading army, a criminal trying to steal private property or a government who would subjugate its people. I'm going to go through what the founders meant, what the Supreme Court has found and how it has been gutted over the years. Let’s start with the text:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The framers of our Constitution did not believe in standing armies. They believed that a free people had the right and responsibility to secure their own safety, property and liberty. America had just fought an eight-year war against the British, the strongest military on Earth. They came close to defeat many times. They understood that had they not had weapons to defend themselves, the Revolution would have been crushed. While it is true the United States had allies in France and the Netherlands, the ability of the individuals in the colonies to defend themselves in the early phases of the Revolution came down to one thing: They were armed.

People who are pro-gun control often say that individuals do not have a right to be armed and the Second Amendment was intended only for the militia. That is a gross misinterpretation. That point was made clear on an individual level in 2008 with D.C. v. Heller, and in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago. Both decisions upheld the individual's right to possess a firearm on a federal and state level. Combine that with the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the police have no constitutional obligation to protect an individual. (I believe this is primarily to prevent liability suits) and it is clear that it is an individual’s responsibility to secure their person, family and property. Without a means to protect these things, one is at the mercy of an aggressor and consequently, deprived of liberty.

There are plenty of clichéd pro-gun slogans that do not give adequate reason for why the Second Amendment exists. While these slogans may look good on a bumper sticker, they do little to support the right and responsibility of an individual living in a free society to protect themselves, their family, property and community. Furthermore they tend to make people with an anti-gun bias shut down and label an individual as a "gun nut" or a shill for the NRA. While an argument can be made that I am the former, I could in no way be thought of as the latter. In fact I do not think the NRA does enough because they tend to only engage in fights they believe they can win.

It is clear that people who would seek to outlaw all guns are a tiny minority, and the overwhelming population believes as the Supreme Court has decided, that individuals have a right to carry a firearm for self-defense. So the question remains: What, if any, arms should be outlawed or regulated? By the letter of the Second Amendment, the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 all infringe upon an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by limiting or restricting what an individual can possess. The Second Amendment does not say "firearms"; it says "arms" meaning weapons of any kind. Requiring a tax stamp, fingerprints or paperwork to own anything under the National Firearms Act (short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, silencer) not only violates the Second Amendment, but it violates the Fourth Amendment’s Right to Privacy clause as well. I believe that anything the U.S. military or a contractor to the federal government can own, a private individual should also be able to own.

It is clear that we live in a police state. The National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act and the Transportation Security Administration all prove this. I know everyone will not agree with my opinions, but my facts are sound. The Second Amendment is a right that was given to us to prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical. Proponents of gun control would do well to learn the history of gun control and the terrible tragedies that often follow the disarming of a population.

*****************************************************


Make no mistake people....Gun control isn't about guns - It's about control!

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America's mainland because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message
to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important
than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT
TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward.

**********************************************

WHY GRAMPS CARRIES A GUN

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life
when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's
when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not
on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a
cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
inadequate...

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful
to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to
take an "ass" whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

BAM! Nailed ya with a wall o' great text! Laughing
Hopefully it's hitting you right between your ears and behind your eyes.... Wink

[RRFan4Ever]

Thanks for posting that up, Paul. Phil is an incredible vocalist and a rational man obviously: I like how he supported his stance without too much fear mongering. I definitely enjoy ATR's positivity. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said here but overall heis message is compelling. I wonder how different WWII would have been if the citizens of Germany were armed.

[Stiltzkin]

I wonder how different WWII would have been if the citizens of Germany were armed.

Well, Hitler talked them into following/supporting him...but...like you said, if they were "unarmed", maybe they wouldn't attack Poland and France
(and no, I'm not including the russians ) but on the other hand, that would leave them open for incoming attacks
so that's the basics of what Phil said. Too bad you can't read above mentioned thread. It's not so much what Phil said,
more what the boardmembers say afterwards maybe you should create a lurker account?

[rice_pudding]

Wow, just wow. That's really a very badly written article, lacking balanced debate. The guy is good at spinning things from his angle, which is ok. But writing an opinionated piece, under the guise of authoritative factual statements pisses me off.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The framers of our Constitution did not believe in standing armies. They believed that a free people had the right and responsibility to secure their own safety, property and liberty. [...] the ability of the individuals in the colonies to defend themselves in the early phases of the Revolution came down to one thing: They were armed.

Without getting into interpreting the above, it's clearly very debatable. America does have a standing army now. And gun ownership has little to do with participating in a regulated/organised militia. There is a recurring stance in this article that guns solve problems. Having guns in circulation is one thing, being organised in how you apply a military force is another.

People who are pro-gun control often say that individuals do not have a right to be armed and the Second Amendment was intended only for the militia. That is a gross misinterpretation. That point was made clear on an individual level in 2008 with D.C. v. Heller, and in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago.

Application of the law is often on the basis of interpretation. It has little to do with the original intention of the constitution. Equally courts could rule differently in the future. Calling it a gross misinterpretation is contentious; historical opinion is always open to debate, it reaches conclusion in the courts because it must.

It is clear that people who would seek to outlaw all guns are a tiny minority, and the overwhelming population believes as the Supreme Court has decided, that individuals have a right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Is it? Statistics would be handy here.

The Second Amendment does not say "firearms"; it says "arms" meaning weapons of any kind. [...] I believe that anything the U.S. military or a contractor to the federal government can own, a private individual should also be able to own

This is frankly ridiculous. Need I say why?

The Second Amendment is a right that was given to us to prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical. Proponents of gun control would do well to learn the history of gun control and the terrible tragedies that often follow the disarming of a population.

Again, apparently guns solve problems. Nevermind that exercising democracy might stop the rise of tyrannical governments in the first place.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
[...]
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information ... because it's a load of crap. How can you ignore the social and political background to these cases and simplify it as "guns would have saved people". Picking some of the most vile, oppressive regimes in human history hardly has any bearing on the rest of the civilised world. I mean the guy is talking about Pol Pot's Cambodia! Pol fucking Pot! I don't even know where to start. It sure is a creative leap.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America's mainland because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

I'm not even going to dignify this stupidity with a response.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

Switzerland is a special case because "does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia to defend their country. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations." (Sounds similar to what the founding fathers may have been on about? )

It's also worth pointing out that Switzerland's gun related death rate is only fractionally lower than Northern Ireland, which should set off alarm bells in any rational persons head. "LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!" Where did he get this?????? So presumably England, Spain, Germany and countless others are not civilised!

------------------------------
The overall tone of this article, (the part that is rational) seems to be that guns solve problems. "Criminals and mad men will always exist, but if we have guns we can shoot them" "We live in a democratic nation, but if we fuck up and shit goes wrong we can shoot the government"

The guy rationalises gun ownership on the basis that the police can't prevent crime, only react to it. But guns are not a preventative solution.

[rice_pudding]

I wonder how different WWII would have been if the citizens of Germany were armed.

It would have made very little difference. The NSDAP were a legally elected party, in what was a very turbulent time in German politics. In the last election prior to Hitler being appointed Chancellor the Nazis gained 33% of the vote (11.7million) maintaining their position as the largest party in the Reichstag with 37% of the seats.

German gun control had not been introduced at this point, according to the well informed Philip Labonte. Interestingly the other two large party's in Germany at the time SPD and KPD, were to various extents involved in open physical conflict with the SA. Around the time and in the years previously. The Nazis greatest opposition at the time (violently and democratically) were other political parties. And Adolf came out on top, consolidating his power and eventually achieving ultimate power in 1934 with the death of Hindenburg. I've never come across any source to suggest the public at large were interested in violent opposition in the period prior or after.

And no, guns would not have saved the Jews either.

Rob

[oth]

We have a regulated militia-its called surprisingly,the military.
This militia talk is men-with-small-penis syndrome.
Again,you can never get a gun nut/nra to agree that mentally ill people should not be allowed to own guns.

[Paul Wolfe]

We have a regulated militia-its called surprisingly,the military.
This militia talk is men-with-small-penis syndrome.

+1

[RRFan4Ever]

Its a circle jerk; both views have evidence and hypotheses however the way that this works out everytime is that the fact that are too many fucking guns amd many in the wrongs hands is always overshadowed, both sides have stacked the deck in their favor and forget about that.

[RRFan4Ever]

Its a circle jerk; both views have evidence and hypotheses however the way that this works out everytime is that the fact that are too many fucking guns amd many in the wrongs hands is always overshadowed, both sides have stacked the deck in their favor and forget about that.