Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[derspiess]

Malthus doesn't strike me as the violent type.  I would be honored to take his place.

He'd unleash his army of insects at Grallon.

[derspiess]

The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.

[Jacob]

Not at all, I've grown to like Viper - even though he is a coward when it comes to independence - like too many French-Canadians.

Which brings me to my next point:

Anyone who isn't a complete faithless hypocrite will see the parallels between these 2 cases and acknowledge that one can inform the other - for better or worse.  There are many similarities as well as many differences - but being told that what happened in Quebec is completely irrelevant - and nothing more than 'wankery' really illustrates what I was writing yesterday.

But one cannot expect anything better from Canadians of course.



G.

For fucks sake you pompous solipsistic windbag... it was wankery because it was primarily the same four or five people beating the same dead horse they've beaten for the last decade+ over and over again with no reference whatsoever - whatever parallels you may see - to the Scottish situation. It was wankery because you completely drowned out anything to do with the actual situation in Scotland.

Quebec is super important. That's why you get your very own, separate, thread to discuss this very important subject in relation to Scottish independence.

[Berkut]

[Berkut]

Although I am sure jacob has similar views towards myself, but still...

[Valmy]

The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.

This is the kind of pedantic nonsense I will not put up with.  Whatever sort of fucking rifles they were carrying.

[Tonitrus]

Is having a gun a right in your country?  Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle?  Did it just "kind of happens"
...

Surely you cannot be so ignorant of US history as to fail to understand the importance of the concept of the militia to its founders.  I could enlighten you, but if you don't get it by now (or have forgotten it so easily), any enlightenment would be ignored or forgotten, so I shan't bother.

try to read the thread Grumbler.  See what I was answering to, so that you can understand the conversation.  It's not that hard, but it's harder than simply posting contrary opinions for the sake of posting contrary opinions.

To take on your original question...

Having a gun is indeed seen as a right.  It came to be a right, at least in the constitutional sense, with origins in the debate that surrounded the drafting of the Constitution.  The founders didn't care for the idea of the U.S. having a standing army (though General Washington had one, though often supplemented with militia), and preferred the idea of having state militias (trained and officered locally) that could be called up when necessary.  And from that idea, it was pretty much necessary that each person who could be called up for the militia have their own gun...and most probably did anyway.  Of course, back then, it was a pretty simple rifle, which in most cases I am sure, acted more as a tool for survival (hunting, etc.) than as a weapon for war.  Good background for the constitutional debates on the militia idea can be found in the Federalist Papers, (most notably #29 and #46, and a little in a few others).  This all led to the 2nd Amendment of course.

Now, as our country evolved and grew to accept the idea of a standing military, that idea of individuals keeping their own guns never went away, and as in most things, science and technology advanced the lethality of firearms by leaps and bounds.  So in today's world, that first clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is too most laymen here, mostly ignored and meaningless.  But the follow up "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is often held to a very strict meaning.

Does even simple regulation of firearms constitute "infringement"?  Or would common-sense regulations, provided they don't prohibit guns entirely make sense?  If you keep that militia idea...wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the guns people own should be appropriate as if they were to be called into military service?  And where do we draw that line, if we think about how in the days of the Revolution, we didn't even conceive of tanks, bombers, and nuclear missiles?  (Though I suppose one could say, most members of the militia didn't have their own cannons  ).

That's what we mostly argue about these days.

[Tonitrus]

The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.

This is the kind of pedantic nonsense I will not put up with.  Whatever sort of fucking rifles they were carrying.

Compared to a flintlock musket, your average 1776-ian would probably think a semi-auto AR-15 is pretty darned "automatic".

[Razgovory]

The idea of a militia being important to national defense was pretty iffy even when they wrote it.  A lot of the founders liked the idea because it was cheap, and it seemed less a threat to civilian government then a standing army.

[Tonitrus]

Hmm, if you read #29, the by Alexander Hamilton (probably the most pro-central power guy of the founders) you can kinda read between the lines that he probably had some doubts, but was accepting of it with conditions.

The big factor was that most of the states saw themselves as far more independent than they see themselves today...and that is what would help cause that ACW blowup.

The ACW pretty much severely diluted that idea of mostly independent states, and arguable, made the idea of the standing army more acceptable.  It was a turning point in national ideology and practice in a multitude of ways...arguably, the ACW was as equally important to our modern national idea as the creation of the country itself.

Kind of like how Shelby Foote said, the ACW turned us from the United States "are" into the United States "is".

[viper37]

To take on your original question...

Having a gun is indeed seen as a right.  It came to be a right, at least in the constitutional sense, with origins in the debate that surrounded the drafting of the Constitution.  The founders didn't care for the idea of the U.S. having a standing army (though General Washington had one, though often supplemented with militia), and preferred the idea of having state militias (trained and officered locally) that could be called up when necessary.  And from that idea, it was pretty much necessary that each person who could be called up for the militia have their own gun...and most probably did anyway.  Of course, back then, it was a pretty simple rifle, which in most cases I am sure, acted more as a tool for survival (hunting, etc.) than as a weapon for war.  Good background for the constitutional debates on the militia idea can be found in the Federalist Papers, (most notably #29 and #46, and a little in a few others).  This all led to the 2nd Amendment of course.

Now, as our country evolved and grew to accept the idea of a standing military, that idea of individuals keeping their own guns never went away, and as in most things, science and technology advanced the lethality of firearms by leaps and bounds.  So in today's world, that first clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is too most laymen here, mostly ignored and meaningless.  But the follow up "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is often held to a very strict meaning.

Does even simple regulation of firearms constitute "infringement"?  Or would common-sense regulations, provided they don't prohibit guns entirely make sense?  If you keep that militia idea...wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the guns people own should be appropriate as if they were to be called into military service?  And where do we draw that line, if we think about how in the days of the Revolution, we didn't even conceive of tanks, bombers, and nuclear missiles?  (Though I suppose one could say, most members of the militia didn't have their own cannons  ).

That's what we mostly argue about these days.

Thanks, but I knew that.    My question was rethorical to Berkut who seems to think I invent "rights" on the spot and decide of their abritrary applications to justify my position.

I know how it came to be at first and it made very good sense.  I know how it came to be what it is today with various interpretations from the tribunals (though I do not know the specific judgements by wich court, only one or two by the USSC, vaguely).

My point was to illustrate that language rights are something that were more or less guaranteed in the first Constitution of 1867 (unlike the USA, Canada used to rely much more on "tradition" than specifically written articles of law in a Constitution founding the country - heck, we weren't technically a country until 1931), and reaffirmed as collective rights in the 1982 Constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

There is a whole history, how it came to be, what it meant then, what it means now.  Just like the "gun rights" you americans have.

And I'm pretty sure if I asked every Americans on this board, what it means for them, having the right to a firearm (disregarding the legalities), I'd a have a few different opinions.
Just as it is with language laws, rights to have an education in your language, when it is French or English, one of the two official languages of the country, as per the original Constitution (and it's 1982 follow up).

Quebec agreed to form a union of provinces with the other three, provided it would be a decentralized federation with 2 official languages.  Unfortunately, some things went wrong along the way...  But that's another debate, for another time.

So, short version: I did not invent the right to get government services in French no more than he invented the right to posess a gun.

[viper37]

Do try to keep your argument coherent, vIper.  "How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"" isn't an answer to anything.  It is bullshit rhetoric, which could only be indulged in by someone ignorant 9or willfully ignorant) of US history.  It's not that hard to be logical in arguments, but it's harder than simply posting bullshit rhetoric for the sake of posting bullshit rhetoric.

Did you even read what I was answering to? No, of course not.

[Berkut]

I think my basic position on Scotland vs Quebec is this:

I think Scotland would be making a mistake to become independent because I think the average Scot would be worse off and the average English person would be worse off. However, I don't think there is any liberal issue involved, so I largely don't care that much. The liberal in me is ambivalent. I think Scotland as a separate nation will be poorer, but just as free (and maybe even slightly more free) as they are now. Same with England.

But the more I am enlightened about the reasons for why some people want Quebec to be free, the more I think that it is a terrible idea, regardless of the practical and economic effects, since I think the end result will be a nation that is considerably less free than the nation they seceded from. The very point of the secession is to allow the people who want a separate nation to more effectively discriminate against others - the thing they do not like about the current setup is that their province lacks the power to effectively restrict others freedom in the fashion they desire.

So while the broad strokes are similar (two ethnically distinct groups wishing to go their seperate ways from the whole), the details about *why* they want to do so, and what they would intend to do if they were to suceed are vastly different. Scotland would not be practically any different from England, as far as the rights of Scots are concerned. Quebec would be VERY different from Canada as far as the rights of people living in Quebec are concerned. And while the majority may be ok with that, the tyranny of the majority is something to be be avoided, not embraced, even if it is wrapped in the fig leaf of "protecting our culture".

[grumbler]

Do try to keep your argument coherent, vIper.  "How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"" isn't an answer to anything.  It is bullshit rhetoric, which could only be indulged in by someone ignorant 9or willfully ignorant) of US history.  It's not that hard to be logical in arguments, but it's harder than simply posting bullshit rhetoric for the sake of posting bullshit rhetoric.

Did you even read what I was answering to? No, of course not.

I didn't?  I am glad you are here to tell me what I read and didn't read.  Egotism much?

[viper37]

But the more I am enlightened about the reasons for why some people want Quebec to be free, the more I think that it is a terrible idea, regardless of the practical and economic effects, since I think the end result will be a nation that is considerably less free than the nation they seceded from.

You still see fairies.

The very point of the secession is to allow the people who want a separate nation to more effectively discriminate against others - the thing they do not like about the current setup is that their province lacks the power to effectively restrict others freedom in the fashion they desire.

Fairies, again.

Quebec would be VERY different from Canada as far as the rights of people living in Quebec are concerned.

Take two similar documents, voted closely by.
The first one: Quebec charter of rights and freedoms (1975)
The second one: Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (1982).

Both documents are available in english, so dig them.

If you need a summary comparison

The Quebec charter was voted 5 years before the first referendum.

So, again, how is it that you come to the conclusion that nation using this bill as a basis for a future Constitution would be worst than Canada, when this fundamental document goes beyond and precedes the Canadian attempt at protecting minority rights?

And while the majority may be ok with that, the tyranny of the majority is something to be be avoided, not embraced, even if it is wrapped in the fig leaf of "protecting our culture".

So, tyranny by the english majority = ok.  Tyranny by the french majority = bad.
Restricting access to public education in english for immigrants = tyranny.
Chosing your own immigration = tyranny.
Having one Minister of the environment = tyranny.
Having one tax form = tyranny.
Promoting bilinguism = tyranny.
Preventing discrimination against french speakers = tyranny.
Zoning laws = tyranny.

Wow.  You have a broad definition of tyranny my friend!  Every single governmental entity must seam like a dictatorship to you!