Question for supporters of the second amendment.

[Enoch07]

It is clearly evident that in our current society we are in more danger from our fellow citizens than from the government!

That is wishful thinking.

 

[Kenny]

Which one is propaganda? Are both propaganda (pro and against)?

Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I already did. Not repeating myself.

No you didn't

I am not worried about the police or military. They will be our (the citizens) side.

then you don't need an armed citizenry

I already have you are willfully ignoring it.

Nope. Your argument rests on two mutually contradictory positions. Until you resolve the conflict, you haven't explained anything.

Hardly, you have not presented a single bit of evidence to support that opinion.

LOL. That's your spin? You need evidence that other countries have free speech?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That is wishful thinking.

When's the last time the government shot up a school?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes they are less free.

1 less right = less free

But the Second Amendment is marketed as a right that defends other rights. If that's the case, why are habeas corpus rights more strongly protected in your country than mine? Why is gerrymandering a thing in your country but not mine? Why is it easier for a citizen to vote in our elections than yours?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When's the last time the government shot up a school?

1970:

Kent State shootings - Wikipedia

So they have their 1.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But the Second Amendment is marketed as a right that defends other rights. If that's the case, why are habeas corpus rights more strongly protected in your country than mine? Why is gerrymandering a thing in your country but not mine? Why is it easier for a citizen to vote in our elections than yours?

Excellent questions. I look forward to seeing if the respondent can answer with anything better than "... but the Constitution SEZ!" or "...but we need our guns to prevent tyranny!"

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

1970:

Kent State shootings - Wikipedia

So they have their 1.

Kent State shootings < number of civilians shooting up schools since, therefore fellow citizens would seem to be more dangerous, right?

 

[taykair]

I think the "oppose the tyrant" theory of gun ownership once had meaning - back when it was actually possible for citizens to band together and oppose the government in that way. I'm not at all certain that such could be done today.

However, it is not the national tyrant that the weak need protection from. It is, rather, the local tyrant - the home invader, the rapist, and so on, from whom the weak need protection. If someone feels that not having a firearm would make them vulnerable to attack, then I see no problem with that person possessing such, since it would "level the playing field", so to speak. Even though law enforcement is charged with this duty of protecting the weak, they are not always in the right place and at the right time to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kent State shootings < number of civilians shooting up schools since, therefore fellow citizens would seem to be more dangerous, right?

Oh, definitely.

Whenever we go on a trip in the US, my father-in-law reminds me: "don't flip anyone off while you're driving. They're armed and you're not." While I don't flip people off very often, I feel measurably less free to speak or express myself in the US than I do in Canada.

It's wild to me when I travel the US and see convenience store employees working in a literal bulletproof cage because of how available guns are in your country... and then I hear people say that guns make them free. It's absurd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the "oppose the tyrant" theory of gun ownership once had meaning - back when it was actually possible for citizens to band together and oppose the government in that way. I'm not at all certain that such could be done today.

However, it is not the national tyrant that the weak need protection from. It is, rather, the local tyrant - the home invader, the rapist, and so on, from whom the weak need protection. If someone feels that not having a firearm would make them vulnerable to attack, then I see no problem with that person possessing such, since it would "level the playing field", so to speak. Even though law enforcement is charged with this duty of protecting the weak, they are not always in the right place and at the right time to do so.

More often than not, the "tyrant" is a person who lives in the home. The presence of a firearm is a strong risk factor - possibly the biggest, IIRC - that a domestic abuse victim will be killed by their abuser.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh, definitely.

Whenever we go on a trip in the US, my father-in-law reminds me: "don't flip anyone off while you're driving. They're armed and you're not." While I don't flip people off very often, I feel measurably less free to speak or express myself in the US than I do in Canada.

It's wild to me when I travel the US and see convenience store employees working in a literal bulletproof cage because of how available guns are in your country... and then I hear people say that guns make them free. It's absurd.

Not my country, but I hear ya.

 

[Nous]

The question has occurred to me.

Canadians Could Face Hate Crimes Over Using The Wrong Gender Pronouns

Using the wrong gender pronoun is now a crime in Canada?

Oh, my freaking God, how is it possible that anyone could say something so insane about this law that does nothing more than include "gender identity" and "gender expression" among those grounds for which it is illegal to discriminate in areas such as employment and provision of goods and services, or incite hatred such as by promoting hate propaganda? As the DOJ website explains:

Q. How would this Bill change the law?

A. This Bill would make three changes to the law.

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code in two ways: it would prohibit hate propaganda against groups that are identifiable based on gender identity or gender expression. This amendment concerns extremist literature or information that aims to incite hatred against a particular group and that is far outside what Canadian society will tolerate.

The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code to clarify that sentencing for a criminal offence may be greater if the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on gender identity or gender expression.

Q. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?

A. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Q. Why are these amendments necessary?

A. Currently the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code do not provide explicit protection for transgender and gender-diverse persons. While a number of these types of cases have been successfully argued in the past under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government believes that it is time for Parliament to affirm the rights of transgender and other gender-diverse persons in clear language. The law should be clear and explicit: transgender and other gender-diverse persons have a right to live free from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime.

Q. Would this Bill create special rights for transgender persons?

A. No. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code already protect everyone from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime based on several grounds, including race, religion, sex, age, and disability. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” would be added to the existing list of grounds to ensure that there is explicit protection.
​

The law does not say or imply anything about using "the wrong gender pronouns". Try reading the law instead of transphobic propaganda.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think the "oppose the tyrant" theory of gun ownership once had meaning - back when it was actually possible for citizens to band together and oppose the government in that way. I'm not at all certain that such could be done today.

However, it is not the national tyrant that the weak need protection from. It is, rather, the local tyrant - the home invader, the rapist, and so on, from whom the weak need protection. If someone feels that not having a firearm would make them vulnerable to attack, then I see no problem with that person possessing such, since it would "level the playing field", so to speak. Even though law enforcement is charged with this duty of protecting the weak, they are not always in the right place and at the right time to do so.

Stranger rapes and home invasions with the intent to do harm, are very rare. I's pretty doubtful that the number of people saved from such harm by private gun ownership outweighs the number of people harmed by firearm accidents, suicides, and spur of the moment killings, although acknowledge getting definitive stats in either direction is very difficult.

 

[taykair]

More often than not, the "tyrant" is a person who lives in the home. The presence of a firearm is a strong risk factor - possibly the biggest, IIRC - that a domestic abuse victim will be killed by their abuser.

I know what you're saying, but...

"For iron by itself can draw a man to use it." (Sometimes translated as: "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence.") - Homer. The Odyssey.

Even way back then, there were those who believed that it was the weapon - and not the person - which was responsible for violence. I just don't see it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh, my freaking God, how is it possible that anyone could say something so insane about this law that does nothing more than include "gender identity" and "gender expression" among those grounds for which it is illegal to discriminate in areas such as employment and provision of goods and services, or incite hatred such as by promoting hate propaganda? As the DOJ website explains:

Q. How would this Bill change the law?

A. This Bill would make three changes to the law.

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code in two ways: it would prohibit hate propaganda against groups that are identifiable based on gender identity or gender expression. This amendment concerns extremist literature or information that aims to incite hatred against a particular group and that is far outside what Canadian society will tolerate.

The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code to clarify that sentencing for a criminal offence may be greater if the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on gender identity or gender expression.

Q. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?

A. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Q. Why are these amendments necessary?

A. Currently the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code do not provide explicit protection for transgender and gender-diverse persons. While a number of these types of cases have been successfully argued in the past under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government believes that it is time for Parliament to affirm the rights of transgender and other gender-diverse persons in clear language. The law should be clear and explicit: transgender and other gender-diverse persons have a right to live free from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime.

Q. Would this Bill create special rights for transgender persons?

A. No. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code already protect everyone from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime based on several grounds, including race, religion, sex, age, and disability. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” would be added to the existing list of grounds to ensure that there is explicit protection.
​

The law does not say or imply anything about using "the wrong gender pronouns". Try reading the law instead of transphobic propaganda.

But it's so much more fun to flip out over the most ridiculously extreme misuse of a new law imaginable and making out like that's the whole point of the thing rather than trying to understand it in context.

 

[Nous]

Support for the 2nd Amendment is just that; the support of American's rights to keep and bear arms, as permitted by Constitutional law. Believing that they're an "important human right" goes beyond that legal precedence

According to the confused rationale of Heller, the Second Amendment was an attempt to codify a person's right of self-defense in the home, more specifically the right to use a handgun for purposes of self-defense in the home, which the Court claimed is an "ancient" right. Is the alleged right of self-defense in the home by use a handgun not a "human right"?

 

[Nous]

But it's so much more fun to flip out over the most ridiculously extreme misuse of a new law imaginable and making out like that's the whole point of the thing rather than trying to understand it in context.

It's beyond my understanding. What the Daily Caller article says about the law and "expression" is a blatant falsehood, beyond ordinary, low-IQ stupidity.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's beyond my understanding. What the Daily Caller article says about the law and "expression" is a blatant falsehood, beyond ordinary, low-IQ stupidity.

There's a lot of people who enjoy a good sense of righteous indignation, and there's a number of media providers who cater to them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

According to the confused rationale of Heller, the Second Amendment was an attempt to codify a person's right of self-defense in the home, more specifically the right to use a handgun for purposes of self-defense in the home, which the Court claimed is an "ancient" right. Is the alleged right of self-defense in the home by use a handgun not a "human right"?

The right to self defence is a human right. The right to any particular weapon for that alleged purpose, is not.