scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Journal on firearms and public policy in 2003"


Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an analysis of a classic example of pointless and destructive legislation and regulation, which is an analysis from eight years of hindsight, from now eight-year of hindsight.
Abstract: Canadian governments, for over 30 years, have too often indulged in ill-considered or extreme over-regulation to address ideological or emotional issues. When added elements of political expediency and social correctness ignore or distort reality and practicality in legislation, however, the results can be damaging and counter-productive. This report, from now eight years of hindsight, is an analysis of a classic example of pointless and destructive legislation and regulation.

1 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: The debate in the mid-18th century over whether Scotland should be allowed to participate in the English militia revealed a profound ideological split among political thinkers of the time as mentioned in this paper, with militia advocates emphasizing the importance of social connections based on reciprocity and on shared values of virtue.
Abstract: Eighteenth century armies did little to encourage morality or intellect among the ranks. The ordinary soldier was expected to do nothing more than respond robotically with well-practiced motions to a few rudimentary signals. Armies withstood the effects of individual soldiers being idiots or reprobates, so long as the soldiers met the basic requirement of standing in line while being shot at. Good character among the officers might influence the men, but bravery or acuity among the men could not remedy the deficiency in officers. Such norms, while they met the practical requirements of nations, tended to contradict two themes of Enlightenment thought: movement of order within the system was strictly unidirectional, and standing armies respected no essential characteristics inherent in all levels of constituency. Because moral philosophers of the time sought to create government institutions that were representative of the character and interests of society, some intellectuals questioned the propriety of the military arrangements of the day. These philosophers did not attack the internal structure of armies, but rather recommended maintaining a citizen militia in order to diminish the army's prominence in society. They believed that militia promoted a healthy interchange of qualities between citizens and government. This sentiment in favor of militia reached its greatest expression among a group of Scottish literati in the second half of the Eighteenth century. The debate in the mid-18th century over whether Scotland should be allowed to participate in the English militia revealed a profound ideological split among political thinkers of the time. On the one hand, militia critics such as Adam Smith saw man as essentially an economic creature motivated by selfishness. Militia advocates, in contrast, emphasized the importance of social connections based on reciprocity and on shared values of virtue.

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the United Nations' recent efforts at international gun control and how those efforts conflict with the American right to keep and bear arms are discussed and discussed. But the interplay between the international law involved in global gun prohibition efforts and the domestic law of the United States is explored.
Abstract: This article explores the interplay between the international law involved in global gun prohibition efforts and the domestic law of the United States. The right to bear arms carries a unique significance in American law and culture and now faces conflict with international gun control. Left unchecked, international gun control will compromise a fundamental human right. This Article explains the United Nations' recent efforts at international gun control and how those efforts conflict with the American right to bear arms.