Appology accepted.
I’m always fond of: “Gun’s don’t kill people, people kill people. And people armed with gun’s kill a helluva lot more people, a helluva lot faster, than people armed with, say, a large rock.” Although it’s harder to fit on a bumper sticker.
Why is the bumper sticker erroneous? Well, first of all, erm, how to say this, NAZIS USE GUNS. You think you can take over a good chunk of a continent without guns? Nah.
Secondly, gun control is not supported only by Nazis. I support gun control and I’m a Marxist, which is radically different from being a Nazi.
Thirdly, while members of the Religious Right are for gun control, I wouldn’t consider them Nazis. They may be ultra-conservative but they certainly don’t read Mein Kampf or worship the swastika.
The bumper sticker is erroneous. Nazis support guns if anything. Many neo-Nazi groups favor armed revolution and the armed destruction of Jews and Blacks. Those that do support gun control are not Nazis.
It is a stupid over-generalization and should be ridiculed.
And, to the surprise of many here, free speech is not limited to the US. Canadia has free speech too. 
So we can all ridicule the stupid bumper sticker and he who is willing to be ridiculed can post the bumper sticker. Nobody said he can’t put the sticker up, just that he shouldn’t because it’s a blaring example of illogic (is that a word?) and ignorance.
It seems to be common among certain gun proponents to associate the Nazis with gun control.
This passage is widely repeated by some of the less-informed opponents of gun control, as a Google search for “gun control” Hitler will show. Here’s a debunking of it: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
Another example: a group called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. alleges that “…the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.” They go on to say, “The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof – see below – that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA '68 was signed into law.”
Also, I’ve heard callers on radio talk shows say that the first thing Hitler did when he took over was to pass gun control laws. (Actually, the first thing he did when he took over was to crush organized labor.)
I’m sure this myth is where the bumper sticker is coming from. I think instead of vandalizing the guy’s truck, it would be more effective to try to educate people a little better. If he’s heard that story as many times as I have, and never listened to the other side of it, it’s not surprising that he believes it.
I know well that many of the opponents of gun control are as honest and well-educated as you can get, but like I said above, if you have a teenage mentality and want to win an argument, just call people who disagree with you Nazis.
And just while we’re at it…
Doesn’t the 1st amendment apply to the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?
A moments contemplation will make it quite clear that I am NOT the American Government, and therefore free to censor whoever the hell I want. 
So now I should opine on Canada’s gun laws? Was that what your OP was about?
Alice, if you had just said “How’s it going there, EH?” in your OP we would have KNOWN you weren’t the American gubbamint.
Wow - that was some wacky quoting there guy…
I don’t care if you opine on Canada’s gun laws. You can opine on whatever you like. Go to town fella.
And BTW - you never responded to my opinion - that his bumber sticker is a stupid peice of crap - you said that he was allowd to put it up.
I never said he wasn’t - I said that by doing so, he made himself look like a jackass.
Erm…what about the laws Up Over (not as pleasant-sounding as Down Under, but it’s logically correct)?
“Anybody can miss Canada, all tucked away down there.” – Homer Simpson
Yup, that additional information does change things a little. However, in Minnesota it’s hunting season (I believe it still is in the northern portion of the state anyway) and he may have been getting ready to go hunting). I don’t know what the seasons are in Canada, or even which part of Canada you are from.
I will reiterate that I share your opinion about the bumper sticker though.
One of these days someone is going to be able to post complaining that what someone said made them look like a ginormous moron, without the usual gang of morons accusing them of attempted censorship. I hope.
Nope. Up here we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Which means that you might be able to say what you want, unless you’re in Quebec, in which case it better be in French, unless you’re in the Government in which case it can be in English, unless you’re in New Brunswick, in which case it better be in both, unless…
Well, anyhow - you have the right to express yourself, but there’s a nifty little misnomer at the beginning that says:
Which gives the Government a bit of leeway, I think. [sub](Other, more knowledgeable Canadian dopers can correct me here.)[/sub]
But only if they do it in English AND French…
alice
That little snippet is probably there to prevent the whole crowded theater yelling “Fire” thing, but it does give the government a lot of leeway. If for whatever reason the government found vowels to be unjustified in a free and democratic society they could prevent you from using them.
F crs, thy wld nvr d tht bt thrtclly thy cld f thy flt lk bng fscst bstrds! N prctc hwvr, t’s nt strng ngh t cnsr th Nz stckr. Wll, nlss y’r n Qbc, n whch cs thy cld frce y t trnslt th stckr nt Frnch.
Exactly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by alice_in_wonderland *
**Wow - that was some wacky quoting there guy…
Yeah, my hardware doesn’t cut and paste, but it cost me $60 new, including the remote keyboard.
I don’t care if you opine on Canada’s gun laws. You can opine on whatever you like. Go to town fella.
Don’t know, don’t care. Not my country. Given those circumstances, I’ll use my vast body of knowledge to say nothing. 
And BTW - you never responded to my opinion - that his bumber sticker is a stupid peice of crap - you said that he was allowd to put it up.
I thought the OP was about disliking {a} bumpersticker, not {THE} bumpersticker. Don’t care to get in to the gun debate.
p.s. I am not doing the “you spelled wrong, so you’re opinion means dirt!”, but in your OP and the above message you refer to it as a “bumber” sticker. Typo, Canadianism or hearing loss? (Again, just curious, not flaming.)
p.p.s - Ins’t it “Godwins Law” that says, “The minute anyone in a thread is referred to as a Nazi, rational thought is no longer likely.”
And so to bed.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by whistlepig *
**
Aww shucks - and I was hoping for the “Canadians got American Culture” quote you were inquiring about in General Questions.
<sigh> Next time perhaps. 
If you want to start a thread about this, please go ahead.
In any case, I think it is foolish of you to bring the Charter into this, because you were right to say this twerp is talking like a moron in the first place without questioning his right to do so. (At any rate, I doubt that the bumper sticker could be legally found to be hate speech under the Charter definition.)
Wiebo Ludwig: “You see, and my war really is my life style. I’m not running with the herd. And my tradition is a long one. I’m a protestant. People who protested, the Catholic hierarchy, the abuses of the church in the middle ages, and I still believe very much in the freedom of conscience and the freedom to choose the kind of life you can live with in your conscience regardless of whether it meets everybody’s approval or not.”
Ludwig: “You know, life’s tough. People aren’t easy to get through to so you have to humour them once in a while.”
Ludwig: “I believe in force. I’m not a pacifist. I believe in resisting unreasonable people with force when there’s no other way to go about it. It’s just like when a child is unreasonable and you can’t talk to him anymore.”
And so the unreasonable child was shot. A sixteen year old girl, Karman Willis, on their front lawn.
Ludwig: “It’s not on my conscience. Why should it be on my conscience?”
And now the gub’mint, that rat-nazi liberal-pinko-commie gub’mint, won’t give the gun back to Weibo’s clan until someone claims it.
The courts in the USA have broadly interpreted freedom of speech to include pretty much all forms of expression, so an individual’s freedom of expression is as protected in the USA as it is in Canada. For quite a while corporations in the USA did not have the same level of protection, but that has been rectified, so now freedom of expression for corporations is as protected in the USA as it is in Canada.
It pretty much comes down to our Charter being much more recent than the USA Constitution, so their courts have had to jink around a bit to keep up to speed in expanding freedom of speech into freedom of expression, whereas our courts have been presented with freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution from the git go. We are both pretty much at the same place now.
Culturally, however, there appears to me to be a greater tendency in the USA to hold up literal and absolutist readings of the Constitution (e.g. an absolute right to guns, or an absolute right to expression), whereas in Canada such fundamentalism tends not to sell as easily (with the exception of some parts of Alberta - - hang in there Alice).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**
Um, did you just hijack my thread to tell me to stop hijacking my thread?
I didn’t bring the charter into it - someone asked about the Canadian version of the 1st amendment, and I provided it.
I didn’t imply that Bozo-with-a-bumper-sticker’s right to put up that obnoxious bumper sticker was not protected, I merely pointed out that in Canada, it’s not quite so cut and dry as in the US.
That’s it.
And regarding the other - I didn’t say “Which means that you might be able to say what you want, unless you’re in Quebec, in which case it better be in French”
What I said was “Which means that you might be able to say what you want, unless you’re in Quebec, in which case it better be in French, unless you’re in the Government in which case it can be in English, unless you’re in New Brunswick, in which case it better be in both, unless…”
which seems a pretty clear indication of my confusion about Canadian language laws.
I then finished my comment with “(Other, more knowledgeable Canadian dopers can correct me here.)”, further compounding my admission of a lack of specific knowledge about Canadian language laws.
Please don’t extract a single phrase from an entire statement and start attributing meaning, or implied meaning to it that isn’t there.
I don’t get Bill 101, I don’t get Second Cups being fire bombed, and mostly the entire issue confuses me. It confused me when I lived in Quebec, and now that I’m in Alberta and rather far removed from the fray, it confuses me even more.
If you would like to start an “Enlightenment of members of the prairie provinces about Quebec language laws” thread, I would read it gladly, but I’m certainly not going to start some sort of debate or discussion with you. I would clearly lose, having no direct experience with these things for more than 15 years.