OK, thanx for talking me down. I was sitting there watching Monster Jam(Speed Channel, 3PM) Couldn't even concentrate. My mind was racing. Thx again.:thumbup:
Shooting in Connecticut
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
- Status
side effects? heartburn, constipation and erectile difficulties, you probably won't notice anything different.
suicidal thoughts, look it up
You forgot Delusions of grandeur (disambiguation), psychotic episodes and sexual attraction to animals.
HAHA! Someone got called out
That's for sure. Good one.
lol, you sure are a rebel
ItIsWhatItIs
Banned
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/01...ll-be-here-again-if-you-try-take-away-us-guns
This guy has stated another spin on why guns are here to stay. When the US constitution was constructed, the right to bears arms was also meant to protect against tyranny coming from the government. The government/obama does not have the authority to take away guns from Americans as it is enshrined in the constitution. If these groups want to infringe on this enshrined right they will have to go about changing the constitution through the right mechanisms. No government action or law will stand up against a court challenge. The thread simpletons ought to learn what is involved in enacting laws and what is involve in changing a countries constitution. Constitutions are almost impossible to changed democraticallly, in the US near impossible by force given the amount of guns in the hands of the public.
This guy has stated another spin on why guns are here to stay. When the US constitution was constructed, the right to bears arms was also meant to protect against tyranny coming from the government. The government/obama does not have the authority to take away guns from Americans as it is enshrined in the constitution. If these groups want to infringe on this enshrined right they will have to go about changing the constitution through the right mechanisms. No government action or law will stand up against a court challenge. The thread simpletons ought to learn what is involved in enacting laws and what is involve in changing a countries constitution. Constitutions are almost impossible to changed democraticallly, in the US near impossible by force given the amount of guns in the hands of the public.
I guess you (conveniently) forgot about that fruit-loop named David Miller that (nearly) ran Toronto (into the ground).
The definition of assault weapon will be in the wording of the law.
If anybody things any kind of gun control will end spree shootings, they are delusional. The fact that the latest spree shooting reignited the debate on gun control doesn't mean that spree shootings should be the only concern of the law.
i love this guy, not homo
I love you too man. No necro.
OpenGambit
Banned
Well the post I responded to talked about how Canadians shouldn't think they are the US and thats why any gun control debate should be contextually different... So yeah I thought the topic was gun control measures in Canada?
I think my point is fair - which is that debate should be about realistic proposals and outcomes, not things that is plainly not going to happen.
OpenGambit
Banned
ok. I really don't see what that has to do with my point, which is that medic's "concern" about his hunting kit being useless is a entirely irrational fear, a total gun ban is not contemplated by Canada, and is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
If you wish to join him in his crusade against something that isn't going to happen, go ahead, maybe its something you guys can do inbetween building doomsday bunkers.
Its paranoia that adds nothing to rational debate about what gun laws should or shouldn't be, and simply put, a straw man.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
He never confiscated or banned my guns.
rmemedic
Well-known member
I'm not always the best at properly and clearly getting my points across.
gun control is needed, no doubt about it.
the Canadian system is pretty close to ideal in my eyes.
Americans need to, in general, get a hold on their gun control.
My "straw man" worry, is that people who have a complete hard on against guns and are on the extreme end of gun control might see this as a chance to run with it and start pushing for stricter rules, which aren't needed up here. Obviously people that are bothering to debate about this with logical thinking aren't those types. The people in the middle who may not necessarily have issues with guns but don't see a need for them could easily be convinced to jump on the band wagon of "ban the guns". That puts us owners in a bad spot, and any talk of stricter controls makes us nervous simply because we don't want to risk losing what we have. And since we get pounded with American media so much (we likely hear more about their politics than we do our own) it is really close to home for us.
So get it out of your head that I want free reign of weapons, that I ever intend to use my personal weapons on a human being and that the reason I own them is for self defense... It simply is not the case.
OpenGambit
Banned
I understood your position, I didn't think you want weapon free for all. I am just questioning your focus on a weapons ban that isn't contemplated, in my view, that doesn't do anything that helps anyone, it just appears to me like people rushing to buy guns when Obama got elected (both times). Its an irrational fear that you are going to lose your guns or your rights, both of which have proven to be completely untrue as of this point in time.
- Status
