Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man stopped at border carrying 166 firearms(Barf Alert)
vancouversun.com ^ | 28 July, 2011 | Matthew Robinson

Posted on 07/30/2011 6:11:45 AM PDT by marktwain

A United States resident crossing into Canada has found out a broken rifle is not just a broken rifle when it's accompanied by 166 other undeclared and prohibited firearm parts.

Brian Joseph Maack was charged with smuggling and possession of prohibited devices after a July 18 vehicle search at the Pacific Highway border crossing produced 151 high capacity ammunition magazines, a silencer and 14 other various parts of weapons.

According to a press release issued by the Canadian Border Services Agency, Maack was pulled aside for inspection after he declared he was in possession of a broken gun.

Last week, two other U.S. residents found out their weapons were not welcome in Canada.

Border services allege Herbert Enrique Soto failed to disclose the .40 calibre and two .357 calibre handguns that were in his personal belongings when he was crossing into Abbotsford on July 18. He was charged the next day with ten counts including making false statements and possession of prohibited firearms.

On July 20, another U.S. resident was turned back at the Pacific Highway crossing after officers found an undeclared shotgun in his trunk.

Travelers are required to declare all firearms and weapons in their possession when they enter Canada.


TOPICS: Canada; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; border; canada; registry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
I do not know how the Canadian courts define guns, but from the story and the picture at the link, it does not appear that the man possessed more than the one "broken gun" that he declared.

Yes, he had a lot of magazines. I have considerable doubt that he possessed a "silencer", but again, that is a matter of the definition in Canadian law. Notice that he is not charged with making false statements.

When you are crossing the border, remember that you essentially have no rights.

1 posted on 07/30/2011 6:11:50 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t a northern gunwalker scandal we haven’t uncovered yet.

It all works toward the same goal.


2 posted on 07/30/2011 6:20:39 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

A magazine is a firearm?

Wow, abuse of the English language to this degree should be a crime.


3 posted on 07/30/2011 6:30:28 AM PDT by mike-zed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“...Notice that he is not charged with making false statements...”
-
Are you reading the same thing I’m reading?

“...failed to disclose the .40 calibre and two .357 calibre handguns...
...charged the next day with ten counts including making false statements...”


4 posted on 07/30/2011 6:30:54 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yet another reason to confine one’s travels to the United States.


5 posted on 07/30/2011 6:31:46 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

The pistols are from a different case than the one involving the magazines.


6 posted on 07/30/2011 6:35:21 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Just think of how many cars Canadians have is those old tire lots!


7 posted on 07/30/2011 6:35:40 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Public employee unions are the barbarian hordes of our time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

That was a different person


8 posted on 07/30/2011 6:35:47 AM PDT by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

That part of the article referred to a different individual, in a totally separate border crossing incident.


9 posted on 07/30/2011 6:36:07 AM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-Free zones are playgrounds for felons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Magazines are NOT "firearms".

And they were LIKELY REGULAR-capacity magazines, NOT so-called "high-capacity".

Anti-gun, anti-FREEDOM TURDS at work, ehh?

10 posted on 07/30/2011 6:38:34 AM PDT by DocH (Official Right-Wing Extremist Veteran Seal Of Approval)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

There’s only 1 gun in that haul. The rest of the items are a handful of AK parts and assorted magazines. I’m really sick of hoplophobic pansies who are afraid of anything having to do with guns.


11 posted on 07/30/2011 6:49:44 AM PDT by Dayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
When you are crossing the border, remember that you essentially have no rights.

Incorrect. You have the right to be a dumbass.

12 posted on 07/30/2011 6:50:33 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; nuconvert; deoetdoctrinae

different case...
different person...
different individual...
-
My bad.
(I hate what passes for “journalism” today.)


13 posted on 07/30/2011 7:19:42 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Ron White:
“I knew I had the right to remain silent, but I didn’t have the ability...”


14 posted on 07/30/2011 7:21:42 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

The only people that don’t make mistakes are those who do not do anything.

I make plenty of mistakes.

Thanks for participating.


15 posted on 07/30/2011 7:27:38 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“I do not know how the Canadian courts define guns, but from the story and the picture at the link, it does not appear that the man possessed more than the one “broken gun” that he declared.”

“undeclared and prohibited firearm parts.”

“Travelers are required to declare all firearms and weapons in their possession”

Doesn’t say “guns”.
The Canadians are entitled to have their own laws, and if you want to go there, you have to follow them or suffer the consequences.


16 posted on 07/30/2011 7:28:53 AM PDT by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mike-zed

Yes, that title was a doozie. I’d love to see the guy retain an attorney and yank a few million out of that paper’s bank account.

How do they get away with this?


17 posted on 07/30/2011 7:36:16 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ($1.8 tril yearly deficits = $18 tril in ten years. So now we're proposing $4 tril in cuts? Really?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Doesn’t say “guns”. The Canadians are entitled to have their own laws, and if you want to go there, you have to follow them or suffer the consequences.

They are entitled to their own laws. It is up to us to determine what we have to do to prevent becoming ensnared in those laws.

There is likely a lot that we are not told from the article. Perhaps the magazines were in a concealed compartment. Perhaps the "broken rifle" had the bolt mailed to Alaska in advance, in an attempt to follow Canadian law.

It is becoming much more difficult to follow the law when there are thousands of pages of law that even the law professionals do not understand.

When I traveled through Canada a couple of years ago, I legally brought a combination gun with me. The Canadian registration form that I filled out specifically had a block for "Combination Gun" as well as "Rifle" and "Shotgun". I showed the registration document every time I crossed the border.

One Canadian border official asked me: "What is a combination gun?"

A combination gun is one that has a combination of rifle and shotgun barrels.

18 posted on 07/30/2011 7:39:32 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
How do they get away with this?

They are Canadian. If you could show that the title was "Hate speech", they could be in a lot of trouble./S

19 posted on 07/30/2011 7:42:07 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Looks to be hate speech against gun owners to me.


20 posted on 07/30/2011 7:52:58 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ($1.8 tril yearly deficits = $18 tril in ten years. So now we're proposing $4 tril in cuts? Really?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
When you are crossing the border, remember that you essentially have no rights.

You have lots of rights if coming INTO this country, especially from the south!

21 posted on 07/30/2011 7:55:39 AM PDT by SouthTexas (You cannot bargain with the devil, shut the government down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I am a minister in the International Hoplology Society....these are not firearms, but religious symbols!


22 posted on 07/30/2011 8:00:07 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

And my lone boycott of leftist canada continues...


23 posted on 07/30/2011 8:07:40 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yep, shrill headline alert ... hardly a “gunrunner” and definitely not fast and furious.


24 posted on 07/30/2011 8:08:06 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (From her lips to the voters' ears: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "We own the economy" June 15, 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; nuconvert

Sorry for what I presume to be a naive question. Though, am keen to understand.

(Broadly, I understand the “right” to carry arms is the 2nd amendment in the US constitution (Bill of Rights), to protect yourself ?)

But, what does that *exactly* mean, since, and nowadays? Does it mean that every & each US citizen, in the US, can carry a gun & *shoot it out* when necessary with another citizen, or a non-citizen, before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?

To an outsider, it may sound like the “wild wild West”..


25 posted on 07/30/2011 8:14:35 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Last trip to Canada was my last, ever.

Crossed at Niagara Falls to show my wife the Falls.
I guess being from NC set off a trigger that I might be smuggling cigarettes.

Anyway they searched the car and luggage thoroughly.
I just sat there biting my tongue.

I was stewing the couple hours we were looking at the Falls. Absolutely ruined the experience.
Couldn’t get out of Canada fast enough.


26 posted on 07/30/2011 8:16:57 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odds

You got it right! In proven practice having oneself armed makes it unnecessary for “shoot out” because the outlaws are pretty confident they will not be the only one armed. Most of the time the crooks are not looking for a gun battle with the possibility of losing a life that is very dear to them.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


27 posted on 07/30/2011 8:32:31 AM PDT by dusttoyou ("Progressives" are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: odds

The 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That has been interpreted to mean several things. Anywhere from avg. citizen to National Guard.
Most of the States have a similar clause in their Constitution.

Generally the States require background checks and then fingerprint you. After laying down anywhere from $50-250 you can receive a ‘concealed carry permit’.
There are restrictions as to where you can carry and cannot carry. It varies from State to State.
In general, no Federal or State bldgs., businesses that post No Firearms signs, no bars, no felons, etc. Some States allow some or part of those or even more restrictions.

Of course, about 99% (or More) of the shootings do not involve someone legally carrying a firearm.

Guess more Freepers will chime in.


28 posted on 07/30/2011 8:36:58 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Here’s a summary of Canadian gun laws for travellers.
http://panda.com/canadaguns/

Prohibited firearms, devices, and weapons include:
silencers
large capacity magazines for a semi-automatic center-fire firearm.

What constitutes “large capacity” varies; as a general rule, the maximum capacity is 5 rounds for long guns, 10 rounds for handguns “commonly found in Canada”, and 5 rounds for handguns “not commonly found in Canada.” Magazines for rimfire cartridges, the 8-round clips used in the M1 Garand, and 10 round Lee Enfield rifle magazines are exempted by name from this prohibition.


29 posted on 07/30/2011 8:40:05 AM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odds
But, what does that *exactly* mean, since, and nowadays? Does it mean that every & each US citizen, in the US, can carry a gun & *shoot it out* when necessary with another citizen, or a non-citizen, before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?

It is not as simple as it should be, because the people in power, as with most people in power throughout the world, do not like the idea of people that they wish to control being armed. So, for about the last 80 years, the waters have been muddied by a concerted effort to eliminate the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms by those who desire to increase the power of the government in the United States. This has not been done in a forthright fashion, but by deviously attempting to change the clear meaning of words and phrases.

It is obvious that you can read English, and that the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms is fairly clear to you. Recent United States Supreme Court cases have started to restore the Constitutional right to its previous understanding, so the exact legal ramifications of the Supreme Court decisions are in a state of rapid change.

The court has ruled that legal residents of the United States have a right to have loaded guns that are commonly available, including pistols, readily available for self defense in the home. There are court cases in the works to clarify that this right extends to outside the home as well.

Because of our federal system, most of the states are ahead of the Supreme Court on this issue. In most of the States, people can easily and legally carry weapons openly and concealed for their own defense, but there are a few states that severely restrict that right, most egregiously Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. As you may have guessed, these states are those that have the most burdensome state governments that are the most restrictive in many other areas as well.

While having a significant proportion of the population carrying weapons for defense does not seem to significantly affect crime rates, the preponderance of the evidence shows that it reduces violent crime against individuals by some amount.

In the United States, you have the right to defend yourself and others against unlawful attack. In most cases where firearms are used to defend people, the mere presence of the firearm is enough to defuse the situation and prevent the attack. Most defenses are against a criminal armed with something other than a firearm, so "shootouts" are rare. Criminals are forbidden by law from possessing firearms. Most criminal acts are committed by a small group of irresponsible males who have a long history of violence and criminal acts. Most people carrying firearms for defensive purposes are successful, responsible older men and women.

30 posted on 07/30/2011 8:46:21 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well said, better than my retort.


31 posted on 07/30/2011 8:56:36 AM PDT by dusttoyou ("Progressives" are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Travelers are required to declare all firearms and weapons in their possession when they enter Canada.

Once when crossing into Canada, I was asked if I had any firearms, to which I replied no. I was then asked if I owned any, to which I replied "not in Canada, no". She then said "sir, do you OWN any firearms?". I said "I'm an American, I own LOTS of them". They spent half an hour stripping my car down.

32 posted on 07/30/2011 9:05:20 AM PDT by jdub (A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odds
before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?

I would like to have some insight into your thinking. The above wording is particularly alien to me.

Nearly all crimes of violence occur "before the cops arrive", so using it as a qualifier makes no sense to me. Please explain.

"Justify their actions in court, if caught" seems to imply that people who defend themselves would attempt to evade the police. This is exactly opposite to the American experience, where non criminals involved in a deadly force incident nearly always immediate call police. In fact, in a large number of the cases, the police have already been called and are on their way when the individual is forced to use a firearm to defend themselves or others.

It is true, that when the mere presence of the firearm defuses the situation, the criminal runs away, and no shots are fired, many citizens do not bother to report the situation to the police.

In the United States, there is a saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

33 posted on 07/30/2011 9:08:12 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Did the FBI give him the money to buy the guns? Or do they only do that for Mexican gangs?


34 posted on 07/30/2011 9:08:25 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Did the FBI give him the money to buy the guns? Or do they only do that for Mexican gangs?

We have not yet uncovered a link to Canadian "gunwalking", but I would not be surprised to find one.

35 posted on 07/30/2011 9:14:09 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

No amount of corruption in the FBI surprises me.


36 posted on 07/30/2011 9:17:58 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; dusttoyou

"before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?"

I would like to have some insight into your thinking. The above wording is particularly alien to me.

Nearly all crimes of violence occur "before the cops arrive", so using it as a qualifier makes no sense to me. Please explain. _________________________________________

"before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?" - It means that in most western countries, self-defense & self-protection are Not denied, when attacked.

But, in most Western countries, the "right" to take the law into their hands by being armed is not a given.

IOW, in most western countries, unlike the US, it is not pre-empted that people should have the "right" to own guns to possibly defend or protect themselves in the case of an attack. Nor, more specifically, to own & use guns as a deterrent against potential criminals.

37 posted on 07/30/2011 9:43:14 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

>>I am a minister in the International Hoplology Society....these are not firearms, but religious symbols!<<

Big laugh out loud. Now there’s a line I’ve never heard before.


38 posted on 07/30/2011 9:45:48 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Send that off to Dave Cordea and ask him to publish it. I like it!


39 posted on 07/30/2011 9:50:07 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: odds

One of the great injustices in America is that the Constitutions, both federal and state, are frequently ignored; this is especially evident in regards to firearms.

Consider the prohibition on felons, more properly called ex-felons, even though they have served their sentence they do not have their full rights restored (such as voting and firearm ownership).
But the injustices are even more grotesque, the gun-control law has been amended so that people with restraining-orders for [allegations of] domestic violence are prohibited people; this is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment which holds that “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [...]” and in this case the due process being violated is either the 6th or 7th Amendment.

In American jurisprudence there are two types of law, criminal and common (aka civil), the 6th Amendment holds that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” and if the matter be civil then the 7th Amendment says “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved [...]” and in either case there is no defense against the restraining order allowed so any such person has their right to keep and bear arms stripped away by fiat.

And in the case of States, many of them have completely different wording with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Consider New Mexico’s Constitution says:
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Yet, despite this there are state statutes which do exactly that; in particular one prohibits firearms on university grounds, this means that it is depriving all students who are citizens and live in on-campus housing of the rights to both keep and bear arms, a direct contradiction. Also, though there is no actual law regarding it, the (state, county, municipal) courts have ‘rules’ prohibiting firearms therein, which violates both sentences in New Mexico’s constitution in the case of county and municipal courts.


40 posted on 07/30/2011 9:51:47 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; marktwain

Thanks. Based on your post & marktwains #30, it seems that gun laws, the constitution & related details are not as simple as I thought or some non-Americans may think.


41 posted on 07/30/2011 10:00:16 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: odds
I think you are both mis-understanding the Founding Fathers intent and purpose in the 2nd Amendment.

The original intent was both for citizens personal protection and a citizens protection from a tyrannical government wishing to deny their God given rights.

In the criminal context, how would protection of oneself be consider outside the law with any common sense when the inability for timely response by law enforcement protection is impossible? America has it right, or maybe better put “had it right” and is attempting to put it right again.

42 posted on 07/30/2011 10:05:02 AM PDT by dusttoyou ("Progressives" are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dusttoyou; marktwain

In my initial post #25 I said: “But, what does that *exactly* mean, since, and nowadays?” So, I don’t think I am “mis-understanding the Founding Fathers intent and purpose in the 2nd Amendment. Nor that “The original intent was both for citizens personal protection and a citizens protection from a tyrannical government wishing to deny their God given rights.”

Also, there is a difference between self-defense/self-protection Vs. owning & using guns as *deterrent*, per my post #37.

Actually, my original post #25 was not meant as a criticism, but to understand relevant details & specifics. Not only in relation to laws & constitution of the US, but also culturally & socially.


43 posted on 07/30/2011 10:19:10 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: odds
Thanks. Based on your post & marktwains #30, it seems that gun laws, the constitution & related details are not as simple as I thought or some non-Americans may think.

Sadly, it's just the opposite; it is very simple: following the Constitutions would eliminate a LOT of the government's power, so they have a vested interest in 'complicating' the matters.
As several have noted, the Second Amendment states perfectly clearly the purpose it was included "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"... how could a state be free if it is governed by tyrants? It cannot.

This is why there are such a proliferation of often contradictory laws; as Ayn Rand noted in the novel Atlas Shrugged:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted1 - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

1 -- [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.]

44 posted on 07/30/2011 10:20:17 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Sadly, it's just the opposite; it is very simple: following the Constitutions would eliminate a LOT of the government's power, so they have a vested interest in 'complicating' the matters.

So, who is/are "they" ? A constitution is also a piece of paper. It is the application & practice of what is stipulated, to which I was also referring, that counts.

45 posted on 07/30/2011 10:37:12 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: odds

My back-woods perspective tells me that those other governments (including our’s) could care less if their citizens have adequate personal protection so long as the citizens are not able to threaten the government by being armed.

Your statement “there is a difference between self-defense/self-protection Vs. owning & using guns as *deterrent*, per my post #37.” defies common sense as many conservative Americans know it. Deterrent is the same as protection and an adequate “deterrent” generally prevents the need to use one’s self defense.


46 posted on 07/30/2011 11:20:03 AM PDT by dusttoyou ("Progressives" are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: odds
Thank you for responding to my query.

But, in most Western countries, the "right" to take the law into their hands by being armed is not a given. IOW, in most western countries, unlike the US, it is not pre-empted that people should have the "right" to own guns to possibly defend or protect themselves in the case of an attack. Nor, more specifically, to own & use guns as a deterrent against potential criminals.

The right to be armed was considered a part of the right of Englishmen until after the first world war. It was gradually whittled away, in part by secret policy decisions by the government, in the U.K. over the next 70 years. An excellent history of this has been produced by Professor Joyce Lee Malcom in her seminal work: To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right

Interestingly enough, it was not done as a means of decreasing crime, but because the authorities were worried about opposition to the government.

When Englishmen still possessed the right of arms, crime was considerably lower than it is today.

It seems rather strange that it is legal to defend oneself against attack, but not legal to have the means to effectively defend oneself.

The deterrence factor is taken for granted in the United States, not just against criminals, but against the government itself and foreign invaders.

You probably know that the event which precipitated hostilities in the American revolution was the government attempting to disarm some of the citizens at Lexington and Concord.

47 posted on 07/30/2011 11:32:11 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: odds
Sadly, it's just the opposite; it is very simple: following the Constitutions would eliminate a LOT of the government's power, so they have a vested interest in 'complicating' the matters.

So, who is/are "they" ? A constitution is also a piece of paper. It is the application & practice of what is stipulated, to which I was also referring, that counts.

It seems clear to me that "they" are those in the government who benefit from expanding government power at the expense of the people. In nearly all the world, there is a clear distinction between the government and the people. It is a core belief in the American system, that government derives its power from the people. The structure of the Constitution was designed to limit government power. Part of this structure is to preserve centers of power in the states and the people in order to counterbalance power in the federal government.

Since about 1900, there has been a movement called "progressivism" in the United State, which considers the Constitution to be outmoded, and which works to take away power from the people, move it to local, state and federal governments, and ultimately to make state and local governments subservient to the federal government and under its control.

People have been propagandized with the idea that the government has the best interest of the people at heart, that it is kind, benevolent, dispassionate, and evenhanded. In fact, governments are composed of individuals like the rest of the population, and those individuals commonly look out for their interests ahead of the rest of the population. In most of the world, this is abundantly clear. Zimbabwe is one of the most clear examples.

Fortunately for Canada, you have one of the best governments on the planet. Even it is not immune to people in the government using government power and resources for their own advantage.

48 posted on 07/30/2011 12:15:32 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Bet he thought a “combination gun” had to have the dial turned before you could use it!!!
49 posted on 07/30/2011 12:20:49 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (De Oppresso libre!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The right to be armed was considered a part of the right of Englishmen...

I'm aware of that history. Particularly since I actually lived & studied in the UK & have family from my father's side who are both in the UK & Republic of Ireland (not Northern Ireland).

When Englishmen still possessed the right of arms, crime was considerably lower than it is today.

I guess we have to look at changes over that period of 70 yrs you mention; though, overall, I tend to disagree. I personally lived in the UK over 2 decades ago. Crimes compared to the US or even the European continent were much lower back then in the UK. (Even at the height of IRA's violent activities in London in the 70s & 80s - but that was a distinct & separate issue.).

In the UK, at the time, there often seemed to be a distinction when, for example, travelling from Western Europe to the UK, and seeing Bobbies w/out guns walking main streets & elsewhere in London, or even immigration officers at ports & airports not even wearing a "police" uniform, let alone guns. Overall, it was Quite safe. It is a culture & social development, not gun laws or enacting laws to bear arms or not - that's my take on it.

'Course matters have changed dramatically in the last couple of decades. Mostly, I believe due to immigration from elsewhere.

50 posted on 07/30/2011 12:26:45 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson