And the citizens of Japan, South Africa, India, Brazil? Russia?
It's hyperbole like that --from either side of the argument-- that make fence sitters like me gravitate away from whatever the tinfoil hat wearing, freedom bleating leaders have to say. Treat us like idiots, be overtly and covertly hostile towards us, skip any form of intelligent conversation and go right for arguments ad hominem, you're damn tooting we'll going to disregard whatever you have to say, even if it meshes with our own perspectives.
I don't believe in following behind the Americans like a lovestruck puppy. Certainly, elements of our society are reflective of theirs, and certainly we owe some of our liberties to them, but to say that because of their constitutional ammendments our future is a foregone conclusion is idiotic. There are those who would use an abolition of the 2nd ammendment here in Canada to further villify weapons. However, I think enough Canadians have their heads far enough out of their asses to form adult opinions of firearms and firearm control -- that is, I think enough Canadians know we're Canadian, not American. They can change their laws all they want, we don't have to follow. America does not hold nearly enough sway in the world to change any other nation's laws. The Sonny Bono act proved that -- and IP laws are worth a whole lot more money, and draw a whole lot more attention, than gun control laws.
A rewrite of the 2nd ammendment could create a global supply and distribution problem. I don't know enough about economics to comment on how this would affect American or global economies or the microeconomy of the firearms world. I doubt this would cause much grief for individual foreign collector as the patents, licenses, and other IP would likely be picked up elsewhere quickly. Given the professional demand for firearms in the US, I doubt the bottom would fall out of their economy too fast.
I don't believe for an instant America is considering changing even the font face of the 2nd ammendment. Firearms are a deeply ingrained part of their culture. Even if popular support demanded it, reconsidering the 2nd ammendment would create a beaucratic nightmare at various levels -- how would the American government deal with its sudden conflict with its various private military contractors? If anything, these organizations highlight the relevance of the second ammendment in the face of modern conflict.
I do not think Canada has the same cultural ties to firearms as Americans. I'm not denying we have a large population of owners, collectors, and enjoyers of firearms here. If anything, I think our collectors, as collectors worldwide, are doing an enormous good to the preservation of world history and our government's requirement to deactivate certain weapons is tragic. Mot important to my perspective is that there are several communities who require firearms for sustenance. I was raised in one such community -- in my house, we did not have a firearm for defence, we required it for the less noble task of eating meat during the winter. These community hunts were a very important part of our tiny little society and not just for food. A weapons prohibition would not cause starvation (although the cost of most shipped-in goods is itself prohibitive), but it would strangle an important part of those communities. A tradition thousands of years old, slightly modified only through technology, would cease to exist here.
This is what I take umbrage at: the constant looking south for validation. I really don't care if the Americans want to outlaw everything. I don't feel the need to play cultural little brother to America. We're our own nation with our own practices, our own laws, and our own ideals. Time to belly up and assert our cultural identity by not following (or fearing we'll inevitably follow) everything America does.
