Phone Scoop

printed May 22, 2015
See this page online at:

Home  ›  Forums  ›


Back to message list

Rebut to Whitehorse: Rights and freedoms. Long, but stay with me.

by ZombieJ    Feb 13, 2006, 3:12 AM

Ok. I really want you to sit down and think about what you type next time. I assure you I get my information from every source, but the difference being I make my decisions based on facts, not partisan beliefs. In the last 8 years I have voted at every end of the political spectrum (I voted Conservative in the last provincial election for example). I have no political affiliation and belong to no political party or subscribe to any one party doctrine. My political leanings are to the left, especially when it comes to social policies. The reason being the left is the biggest defender of the rights and freedoms of all, not just some. And no, I'm not going to come with the 'your an insane right winger argument", because I don't need to. I'm going to use something called facts.

Your first and biggest mistake is asserting that an armed society consists of citizens and an unarmed society consists of serfs. Bullocks! No wait... more than bullocks, that's bull*hit. How many times does it have to be disproved before Americans stop beating this tired idea into the ground. Guns are literally or virtually outlawed in several countries. England would be a shining example of this. Has this resulted in massive oppression of the proletariat? No, not in the least. More examples exist, but I cannot be bothered to list them.

It doesn't matter how many 308's you own, or if you have a desert eagle in the drawer next to your bed. Think about it. You have quite possibly the strongest, at the very least, most technically advanced military in the world, hands down. Occupation by a foreign country is not something that is in the cards. No Whitehorse, the British are not coming, and if they did you would see them coming over in boats and planes through satellite imagery and blow them out of the water like fish in a barrel. So I guess the most compelling argument for the 'right' to bare arms would be to keep your government in line so to speak. You know. A way to keep them truly accountable because you have a population that is armed. Well I hate to break it to you but this logic is flawed as well. Lets say for instance some govt officials and military officials go batsh** insane and undertake a coup. What the hell are citizens with little to no military training and what amounts to a collection of hunting rifles going to do against an armed military presence that is trained and outfitted with the latest weaponry? Not a damn thing, thats what. There is absolutely nothing you can do against tanks, chain guns, rocket propelled grenades and oh, say, an Apache. Owning arms for the expressed purpose of acting as some kind of deterrent toward the government of the United States is laughable. Some countries would need this type of legislation. Countries, for instance, that don't have a strong military, or have a weak government. The US does not have this problem. This basic 'right' became useless in regards to its original purposes a long, long time ago. Get over it. You can look at History all you want, but when all your Governments Army had was Muskets and so did you... well then it made sense to want the right to have them as well. But when your government has laser guided missiles, the latest in advanced combat rifles, tanks, helicopters, UAV's... man the list goes on. Well you can see it doesn't make sense to fight for the "right" to own the gun anymore. History cannot factor into this equation because it doesn't apply for the above reason.

"subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Here's a good example of this in action: Right now gay marriage is legal in Canada, as it was found by the Supreme Court to be Unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. Fine. Now we have elected the Conservatives into power, they would prefer to keep the traditional definition of marriage and have the the 'marriage' of gays treated as a civil union. Now this is a right that has been granted by the supreme court, and the Conservatives oppose this on the grounds that it infringes on the rights of religious people. They are however able to go back on it through a vote in Parliament, if the vote passes (it wont) then the traditional definition of marriage stays and gay marriage is treated as a civil union. EVEN though it was recognized as a charter right, because it would be found to infringe on the rights of a MAJORITY it was overturned.

You must understand that in a democracy politicians are held accountable in free and fair elections not at the barrel of a gun. "What happens if free and fair elections are not held, then surely you would have to bear arms!". No, same problem as before. The only way to properly protect your rights that matter in todays society (ie: free and fair elections) is to ensure you have an open candidate selection and unhindered media in all forms. This will guarantee that the candidate selected best represents your beliefs and values and will use his vote to keep the system in line, not his musket. It is when your government starts to infringe on your rights of say... freedom of association, freedom of the press, how about being about to wiretap you without a subpoena? When the government is allowed to get away with these things it sends a clear message to them that no right is sacred. Is that really what you want to do? Do you honestly think if by some horrible set of circumstances it does snowball out of control, Cletus and his 308 are going to be able to stand up for your rights? You're dead wrong man. Wake up... join me in the 21st Century. The intended purpose of including 'the right to bare arms' has long since become obsolete. This "right" has now become a sacred cow for the right wing, for no reason other than to garner votes from simple folks who are too slow to realize this or just plain want to ignore it because it doesn't fit into whatever indoctrinated beliefs they have. Either way, one word, asinine.

I wouldn't bring up the "we need guns to protect ourselves against criminals", numbers speak against that being a necessity.
Here's some states in case you do not have them handy. Deaths of people under the age of 18 by gun violence
Japan: Strict gun control (prohibition) - deaths
Great Briton: Strict gun control - 19 deaths
Canada: Strict in comparison, though not prohibited - 153 deaths.
So you can see there is a direct correlation in strict or prohibition of guns and a decline in gun related death. (by the way USA - 5285 under the age of 18 killed by guns)

How about a more broad example including a whole pop. as opposed to an age group, as well as taking into account violent crimes involving guns? Gladly. I will use the German model though this type of result has been duplicated in other countries:

Germany, 1972. Mounting pressure from German people, and a peak of terrorist activities in the country force the govt to take a tough stand on guns. As a result one of the toughest gun control laws in the Western World was set in place. Violent crimes involving guns in 1971 was a staggering (for Germany) 13,000 incidents, dropped to just 4000 by 1990, 18 years later. More than two thirds reduction! This is not to indicate that crime went down during this time and thats why gun violence went down. Crime actually went up ( it went up in all Western societies during this time period. But in area with lax gun laws it seen gun violence grow exponentially with rising crime rates, where in Germany they seen gun violence diminish DISPITE rising crime rates. This is not an isolated incident by any means. Germany was only following the model set forth by others before it with the same results. I would also like to point out that the German justice system is much softer than Americans, as is Canada's. Yet both countries enjoy considerably lower gun violence? Oh and the proposed debunk that USA has a higher population and thus would have higher rates of gun violence just doesn't hold water. I will concede the fact that gun violence in the USA has been on the decline since 1993. Hmmm, wasn't that when Clinton was in power? a left wing Democrat looking to stifle 'freedom' from the American people. The bastar*. I wont claim a direct correlation, but he was much tougher on the gun industry than Bush Sr. or Reagan. Something to chew on. Anyway my point is that even the most conservative gun violence stats (taking into account the population of america) are still much higher that that in ANY other developed country, per capita.

Want to talk about how it's illegal guns in the hands of criminals committing the crimes? Sure, most cases it is illegal guns committing the crimes. That doesn't mean they are from Cuba. It's just guns that people walked into a Walmart and stole. Or paid off the shady gun store owner to leave his alarm off one night. Or even purchased at a trade show, where waiting periods, background checks and even identification(!) are not always necessary to purchase a firearm. These guns came into your country legally because your laws and economy allow for them to. Then and only then, did they became illegal when they were obtained through illegal means. 9 times out of 10 that gun is completely legal, its just illegal in that particular persons hands.

If this reasoning doesn't interest you surely the cost of tending to the wounded alone, which in 1995 was 4 billion annually!! (K.W. Kizer, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995). If stupid statistics of people you don't even know dying doesn't force some logic into the discourse, certainly 4 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in medical costs will do it? No? So you don't value life and you don't value money?... oh yea I forgot... its "Freedom". HA!. You don't even know what that means anymore.

Report to moderator


Reply You must log in to reply.

Back to message list

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Phone Scoop on Google+ Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram


All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.