What do you value more? Freedom of belief or freedom

To be free of others' beliefs?
Freedom to own a gun or freedom to not be surrounded by people with guns?

Freedom is the ability to choose what you choose to choose (sic).

Very good.

My rights are far more important than restriction of the rights of others.

it's a warlord approach

your freedom ends where it interferes with others freedoms. It's called living in a society. Either there is no point in living peacefully in a community and respecting others needs and freedoms.

Your approach might work on an archipelago, a desert or a wild mountain range, but it's probable you'll be at constant war with your neighbours. It doesn't work in a crowded modern industrial DEMOCRATIC nation.

Example :

My freedom says that your guns are dangerous and threaten me an my family, therefore they should be banned

My freedom says that your religion is obscene and its interference with daily matters and society a threat to my way of living. Therefore your religion should be confined to your church and private sphere. In any case it can't be used as a motive to pass law.

Sorry MAJORITY RULE is THE RULE as long as the minority has a right to express its demands and the guaranteed possibility by elections to change the majority rule.

"My freedom says that your religion is obscene and its interference with daily matters and society a threat to my way of living."

That combined with the freedom for everyone to own a gun.... leads to a few problems eh?

religion and guns don't mix

look at the KKK, Talibans etc...

so I gave an either/or response. Naturally, I'd prefer to have both.

Of course, the real nature of the beast is, yes, I get to have my guns. And should I inhibit the rights of others with them (i.e. I shoot someone) then I pay the price by going to prison.

You're right. My rights do end when they interfere with the rights of others. But the simple fact that I own a gun, or that I practice a certain religion does not interfere with your rights at all.

Majority rule is not the rule. Democracy is not democracy unless the rights of the minority are protected. Otherwise, it's simple mob rule.

the problem is not that you are a nice guy with a gun that you use for hunting and goes to a nice church and help your neighbours. The fact that you have those freedoms can still interfere with others. That why society has to put rules = limits.

Society doesn't have to take the risk to have somebody killed because it's easier to do it with a gun than without, besides the fact that you can go to prison if caught (we don't even take that risk). Therefore it can put a limit on the conditions for ownership of the gun, the gun type and its purpose. Your freedom in this case is an exception granted as a privilege and not the rule.

The practice of your religion can interfere with others : the fundies are a good example of that. In many other western countries they would be stopped by the simple fact that for example laws (majority rule) prohibit the use of religion in other spheres than private. That is to say they can express the will of teaching creationism at school, but they can't because its's forbidden in law (Majority says school = neutral). The pnly way they can change it is by CONVINCING by legal means (elections) that the law can be changed. Which means that they have to take a majority in government.

We agree about majority rule, you expressed better than I did.

In my opinion a person's rights are infringed only when such an infringement actually occurs, not when the potential is there. Restricting or limiting a person's rights should be an absolute worst-case scenario. I'd rather deal with culprits who decide to infringe the rights of others than desperately try to keep each and every person 100% safe with preventative measures.

Of course, I also don't believe in helmet laws and I'm for complete drug legalization. So I guess I do have a nasty libertarian streak. :evilgrin:

it sounds utterly silly.

Or anyone who's ever lived through a war.

or your version(if you have one) of the Bill of Rights?

I've never heard of it being spelled out that way anywhere...

We have a clause about a right to be safe and it falls under that.

how long has it been illegal to own firearms in Canada then, eh?

Has?

Guns are not illegal..however guns meant to kill people are.. you can't just carry a handgun here...you can't get a semi auto here...etc

then how can the constitution say that people have a right not to be surrounded by armed people?

IF you're in a park, or at a mall... a right not to have the other people at the park or mall armed.

as crazy as we are.

Is that we aren't just aloud to carry them anywhere, which is the point I'm making.

what do hunters do then, eh?

To have it with them as long as they are going to a shooting range or hunting, gun store...etc, you just can't throw it in the trunk for no reason and keep it there.

Michael Moore mentions us prominently, though not completely accurately. He makes note of the fact that though we have at least as many guns here per capita, we have a far lower murder rate in our major cities than in American cities (for instance). He erred when he said that we keep our doors unlocked in our cities, though. That would be stupid of us, because Canadian criminals still steal stuff, even if they don't kill people as often. I'll bet he went to a hundred different Toronto houses before he found the two or three that were unlocked.

That being said, there has been an alarming rise lately in gun violence in Toronto, where I live, especially within the Jamaican community, bringing our homicide rate all the way up to a proportionately larger, but still small, fraction of what it is in, say, Detroit. Why, just the other day, a Toronto bus driver was shot in the face by a gang member, and he's lost the sight in his left eye. The TTC has told him that while he can't drive a bus anymore, he'll always have a job with them.

I think the difference is that absolutely EVERYONE in Canada considers it a personal failing of all of us when someone gets shot, that society is to blame. We're pretty communitarian, as people go. I get the impression that there are certain elements in the US who don't share that philosophy. At any rate, it could be a reason why we're not as violent (even though, ironically, we have one of the most violent national sports in the world). Violence makes us feel mortified and ashamed.

I hope that makes sense...?

But I'm a Canuck

...the difference being the gun violence.

Basically anything used by a reasonable person to hunt is allowed

Just seeking clairifcation.

at least once a month at a firing range, and you can't carry them.

home/personal defense is not a consideration?

are guns that are used for hunting.

glocks aren't used for hunting.

but they're nice in close quarters.

Or are we just gonna keep arguing semantics of the last sentence?

Point is you can't get a handgun unless you use it once a month at a shooting range only. You can't get a semi-auto, fully auto or anything that could be used to take out a shitload of people at once. You can't carry a gun unless you're going somewhere that invloves you needing the gun.

Final result, when you walk down the street you aren't surrounded by people carrying guns.

here's what you posted:

"We don't allow the same kinda guns...

Basically anything used by a reasonable person to hunt is allowed"

I asked if home/personal defense wasn't also a consideration(when considering what guns you're allowed to own)...

then you came out of center-left field with something about transport permits

as a disabled person- i'm not a hunter, and i don't go to a firing range...but i like to know that i'm safe against intruders in my own home.

and believe me, I am.

You can have a handgun, or shotgun, or rifle IN your home, but you can't take it outside of your home without a distinct purpose. So you could have a revolver...but you have to prove you use it at a firing range on a regular basis in order to keep it.

"Freedom to be free of others' beliefs."

Sounds like freedom to opress those that I disagree with.
Not a very laudable philosophy.

France for instance with the "no wearing of religious symbols" thing.

Even more free in some cases

But what do they know?

:sarcasm:

and gave us the fucking Statue of Liberty.

France, in their form of government and in their public schools and universities, are SECULAR. France has huge population of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Their government is based on secularism and that is what makes France unique.

Bet you thought Chirac was some kind of left-wing wacko.

It was great when he won an election by basically promising to send the immigrants on boats back to from where they came.

but there was a "charter policy" at one period yes, but I never heard of that as an electoral promise. Please show your source. BTW he granted the legalization of millions of illegal migrants...

About the religious symbols /

it's only a rule that applies ONLY to high schools DURING CLASS, because public schools are free from religion by definition. The rule after debate has been accepted by the majority of the BIG Muslim organizations in France. What I know of 6 young women out of millions of school pupils have chosen to leave public school and go to a private to keep their scarf on daytime.

The main opponents to the scarf are associations of Muslim women in France and they wanted a TOTAL ban. They didn't get it because frredom of religion in the private sphere in that case didn't interfere with the secular organization of society.

ANd sent me an email about the story years back.

Remember -- Chirac basically got in because he was far LESS right-wing than the alternative! Scary!

You have been weighed
You have been measured
And you have been found wanting.
Begone, and while you're gone, read a book already.

In one's private life one is free to wear whatever one wants to.

matter alot,like freedom from tyranny,freedom from others abuse of power,domination,sadism,torture,that is important for every person with a conscience to be free from.

Freedom from other people with no conscience who are scamming,busybody,religious,control freaks who desire for control over me overrides justice..Be it my tastes,my body,my life,my speech,ect. I have a right to be who I am and like what I like , when I am harming no one else or forcing them to be like me, in the pursuit of what gives me joy.. Freedom from all unprovoked ,sexual abuse(sexism) racism, attacks and the bullshit from bigots of all kinds who are intolerant of me being alive being who I am. Freedom from intrusive rude,pushy controlling social engineering,greedy,elitists censorious fuck head bullies and abusive pieces of shit..Freedom from the effects of others corruption and corrupt people.Freedom from frivolous death and suffering.. Freedom to have the necessities of life,that all people should be entitled to for being a decent member of a civilization.

That''s a start.

even considered owning a firearm until GW was re-appointed. Now I own two. Love my country , fear my government.

I don't own guns and never did, BUT I would rather our government know what its citizenry is armed (to the teeth) and not waiting like sheep for the round up. And I guess I am willing to accept the danger of living near guns. And I do have some experience with that, having experienced a school shooting/murder in 1989.

you either own guns or are just waiting to be slaughtered?

to be free of others' beliefs. For example: If you live next door to me and believe women should not be allowed to wear pants, that's fine so long as you respect that the women in MY house don;t have to live by your belief.

Guns are something altogether different, because a gun is a physical object, not a belief that can be limited to its adherents.

This is discussing a freedom as separable from justice, separable from
liberty. There is no freedom when you are paying by your taxes every
day an agressive occupation of another nation and the murder of its
people with impunity. Sure, one can hang out in Whyoming and pretend
that the two are not connected, but if freedom to be rich is to support
a mass murder exercise, then there is no justice, and the freedom is
spoilt cream.

Liberty is to be included in "our" government, and i choose liberty
or death.

That covers both freedom to have your beliefs and freedom from the beliefs of others. It also means freedom not to be spied upon or have my privacy invaded by the government or anyone else.

As far as guns are concerned, I'd much rather have the freedom to walk in safety, not surrounded by gunslingers. "Security of the person" is in the Charter of Rights.

To me, freedom of expression is absolute, but it doesn't presuppose the right to an audience for your expression. You can say or think whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own home.

But along with these rights, which are reactive, I think, should come responsibilities, which are proactive. And these should go hand in hand. One has the right not to be fucked over by one's neighbour, sure, but there should also be a legal responsibility not to fuck your neighbour over, and if you abandon your responsibility by fucking someone over, you should expect to be taken to court and dealt with. A corollary of this would be, yes, you have the right to say what you want, but you also have the responsibility not to say something that imposes on someone else's freedom, or creates an atmosphere of hostility detrimental to another person or a protected group in society. That's what hate-crime laws are about.

In other words, you can't go to jail for what you're thinking or what you say, but if you think or say something that will adversely affect another, that's another thing, so keep it to yourself and I'll do the same.

Clear as mud?

It's the responsibility that comes with freedom. Too many people see freedom as an 'out'. The "it's a free country" mentality. What most people don't seem to want to recognize is that by valuing your own freedom, by demanding it in fact, you are honour-bound to value, respect and protect the freedom of those around you. Part of that is possibly limiting things that you are in fact free to do.
Being 'free', places a heavier burden of responsibility on a person.

I can argue back or change the channel.

I'll leave the gun talk to the eejits. If anyone wants to shoot me, they'll have to bring their own gun.