Gun Control is Completely Useless.


Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#6751
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

What do you mean by that last comment? Care to be more specific?

I mean that we have never had a tradition of arming ourselves against each other in this country, nor do we have the right to bear arms against the Crown under any circumstances, whatsoever.

The American Revolution created two countries, not one, and the values that we preserve are often counter the revolutionary ones that our US neighbours hold so dear, like the right to shoot each other (just try that here, even in self-defence).

You can always leave if that makes you uncomfortable, Jimmy.

"This way to see the Egress" as PT Barnam used to say.
 
JamesBondo
#6752
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I mean that we have never had a tradition of arming ourselves against each other in this country, nor do we have the right to bear arms against the Crown under any circumstances, whatsoever.

The American Revolution created two countries, not one, and the values that we preserve are often counter the revolutionary ones that our US neighbours hold so dear, like the right to shoot each other (just try that here, even in self-defence).

You can always leave if that makes you uncomfortable, Jimmy.

"This way to see the Egress" as PT Barnam used to say.

Speak for yourself, whitey. The canadian gov recognized izes hunting rifles as a traditional tool right for the aboriginal people in canada. How this happened without it being a traditional white man tool sounds a bit winnie the poohish fiction al to me, but if that is your final answer, I choose to laugh at you rather than argue the point.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#6753
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Speak for yourself, whitey. The canadian gov recognized izes hunting rifles as a traditional tool right for the aboriginal people in canada. How this happened without it being a traditional white man tool sounds a bit winnie the poohish fiction al to me, but if that is your final answer, I choose to laugh at you rather than argue the point.

Well, you can do whatever on the Rez, I suppose.

Winnie-the-Pooish, Whiteeness means that we have been able to build an advanced civilization aproximately four to five thousand years ahead of the hunder-gatherers who still insist that need their weapons by their sides, all of the time. Sure hope ya'll catch up, some day. We've already given you the wheel, metal alloys and written language.
 
JamesBondo
#6754
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Well, you can do whatever on the Rez, I suppose.

Winnie-the-Pooish, Whiteeness means that we have been able to build an advanced civilization aproximately four to five thousand years ahead of the hunder-gatherers who still insist that need their weapons by their sides, all of the time. Sure hope ya'll catch up, some day. We've already given you the wheel, metal alloys and written language.

so sad that you are pissing away your gun rights while upholding others. That is definitely not a good long term strategy for you.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#6755
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

so sad that you are pissing away your gun rights while upholding others. That is definitely not a good long term strategy for you.

Why? Were's the threat? Confused adolescents like you?
 
Machjo
#6756
Any closer to a concensus, guys?
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#6757
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Any closer to a concensus, guys?

I'm saying that civilzation will survive and he's saying that it won't. I'm not particularly afraid of dying so I'd rather be dead anyway than to live in some post-apocalyptic nightmare dreamed up by the sick maniacs that make up the NRA.

Old Chinese curse: "May you live in Trumping times"
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#6758
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I mean that we have never had a tradition of arming ourselves against each other in this country, nor do we have the right to bear arms against the Crown under any circumstances, whatsoever.

The American Revolution created two countries, not one, and the values that we preserve are often counter the revolutionary ones that our US neighbours hold so dear, like the right to shoot each other (just try that here, even in self-defence).

You can always leave if that makes you uncomfortable, Jimmy.

"This way to see the Egress" as PT Barnam used to say.



Interesting attempt at obfuscation to suit your means. We have always had the tradition of arming ourselves since landing on these shores, but not to take up arms against the Crown. How about a little history; 9th century A.D. King Alfred required all able bodied men to be armed and turn out to defend the realm, this was seen as a duty but also as an assumed right.


The individual right to bear arms was legislated against by King James II, but he was overthrown and the 1689 Bill of rights restated the Common Law right of Protestants to bear arms, a right not denied to Catholics. The second amendment of the United States was put in place to ensure these rights to US citizens since they were now or to be a sovereign country.


Canadians have always had the right to bear arms under English Common Law, until 1995 when the Liberal government took that right away by way of needing a license, (revocable) thus making it a privilege. Our constitution recognizes all laws that were in place, including English Common Law, at the time of its drafting.


Yes, we did have the right to bear arms, that is no longer the case, anyone who says we never did enjoy that right is terribly ignorant of history.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#6759
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

Interesting attempt at obfuscation to suit your means. We have always had the tradition of arming ourselves since landing on these shores, but not to take up arms against the Crown. How about a little history; 9th century A.D. King Alfred required all able bodied men to be armed and turn out to defend the realm, this was seen as a duty but also as an assumed right.


The individual right to bear arms was legislated against by King James II, but he was overthrown and the 1689 Bill of rights restated the Common Law right of Protestants to bear arms, a right not denied to Catholics. The second amendment of the United States was put in place to ensure these rights to US citizens since they were now or to be a sovereign country.


Canadians have always had the right to bear arms under English Common Law, until 1995 when the Liberal government took that right away by way of needing a license, (revocable) thus making it a privilege. Our constitution recognizes all laws that were in place, including English Common Law, at the time of its drafting.


Yes, we did have the right to bear arms, that is no longer the case, anyone who says we never did enjoy that right is terribly ignorant of history.

As a matter of fsct, there is something very much like a Yew long bow downstairs.

Obviously, you're one of those kooks who needs to heep a Glock under his pillow to make the world a better place.

This thread's for you.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#6760
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

As a matter of fsct, there is something very much like a Yew long bow downstairs.

Obviously, you're one of those kooks who needs to heep a Glock under his pillow to make the world a better place.

This thread's for you.


I guess LEO's are kooks too, (some are, no argument there), but they carry Glocks on their hips. I don't own one but would not deny the right of citizens to do so. Remember too, one of Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of consensual policing, "the police paid to do that which is already incumbent on the public". Kooks indeed.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#6761
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Obviously, you're one of those kooks who needs to heep a Glock under his pillow to make the world a better place.

Of course. That's my definition of "safe sex."
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#6762
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

I guess LEO's are kooks too, (some are, no argument there), but they carry Glocks on their hips


Good to see you are back, Bob. We can use an infusion of sanity here.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#6763
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

I guess LEO's are kooks too, (some are, no argument there), but they carry Glocks on their hips. I don't own one but would not deny the right of citizens to do so. Remember too, one of Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of consensual policing, "the police paid to do that which is already incumbent on the public". Kooks indeed.

Peel was a llama's anus.

Glocks are cool.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#6764
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Peel was a llama's anus.

Glocks are cool.

He was not well liked for sure, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. BTW, I prefer the 1911.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Good to see you are back, Bob. We can use an infusion of sanity here.


I just came back again to give up some sanity
 
JamesBondo
#6765
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

....

Canadians have always had the right to bear arms under English Common Law, until 1995 when the Liberal government took that right away by way of needing a license, (revocable) thus making it a privilege. Our constitution recognizes all laws that were in place, including English Common Law, at the time of its drafting.

there is a SCC ruling that a new law does not immediately extinguish a traditional right. This ruling has not been applied or reviewed with respect to the right to bear arms.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#6766
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

there is a SCC ruling that a new law does not immediately extinguish a traditional right. This ruling has not been applied or reviewed with respect to the right to bear arms.


That's what Bruce Montague was trying to achieve, a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, but first he had to be charged with the crime of being in possession of firearms without a license. The SCC did not grant leave to appeal his conviction in the lower courts, I would assume because if they upheld his conviction it would be obvious how unprincipled the SCC really is, or if they found the law unconstitutional, which I believe it is, it would go against their personal beliefs.


Mr. Montague showed us videos of his arrest, the grounds for which and the methods of police were completely unwarranted and his case should have ended right there, but he continued on his quest. The Ontario Government made an example of him, and to the rest of us who would dare challenge the divine right of government and our overlords. At least they didn't succeed in taking his home, but they took everything else.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#6767
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

I guess LEO's are kooks too, (some are, no argument there), but they carry Glocks on their hips. I don't own one but would not deny the right of citizens to do so. Remember too, one of Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of consensual policing, "the police paid to do that which is already incumbent on the public". Kooks indeed.

Yes.

Kooks,indeed.
 
spaminator
#6768
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

When did sc become part of canadian politics?

Thanks for the piece of non canadian politics.spammer

I was just trying to consolidate posts.
 
JamesBondo
#6769
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

I was just trying to consolidate posts.

No worries, I was just trying to point out that when you are spamming a canadian politics thread with something that should be in an american politics thread, you ought to provide some sort of assertion on why you feel there is relevance.

I am not saying you have to - who am I to set the rules. I'm just making what I feel is a reasonable assertion about how a canadian politics thread ought to be run.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#6770
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

I guess LEO's are kooks too, (some are, no argument there), but they carry Glocks on their hips. I don't own one but would not deny the right of citizens to do so. Remember too, one of Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of consensual policing, "the police paid to do that which is already incumbent on the public". Kooks indeed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Yes.

Kooks,indeed.

Ahhh, so typically "progressive". Ignorance and arrogance in equal parts.............
 
Walter
#6771
Good old Missouri.
Missouri Becomes 11th Constitutional Carry State - Christine Rousselle
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#6772
There is a time and place for a weapon
but maybe they are used when something more adult is called for
If all you have is a hammer
every problem looks like a nail
 
tay
+1
#6773
Bystanders disarm man who pulled out shotgun on Oshawa street


A civilian disarmed a man who was threatening people with a sawed-off shotgun Tuesday night in Oshawa.

One man has been charged in the incident, which occurred in the area of Drew Street and Etna Avenue at about 9:30 p.m. Sept. 13.

Durham police said a suspect, who was walking along Drew Street with another man, shouted at people to stop staring at him before pulling the gun on a bystander.

That person grabbed hold of the gun and, with the assistance of four other witnesses, disarmed the suspect and held him until officers arrived, police said.

Ishmail Baker, 20, of Wilson Road North in Oshawa faces a dozen charges including pointing a firearm, uttering threats, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

Police are still trying to identify the second male, who left the scene before the physical confrontation.


Bystanders disarm man who pulled sawed-off shotgun on Oshawa street
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#6774


Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#6775
The nice thing about The town where everyone's household is required to own a gun , is apparently the added benefit that just the knowledge that everyone is armed, keeps things down to a dull roar...

the "YOU better think twice" defence
peaceful and effective... and elegant
 
eh1eh
#6776
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post



Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased

It says we are living in a less violent world contray to what right wing zealots like Steve Harper told us. But..

Source: Global Burden of Disease Study. Access the data visualization here: GBD Compare | IHME Viz Hub In a 2013 article for The Atlantic online that compared gun deaths in U.S. cities to some of the deadliest places in the world, the authors created a map, below, that shows Atlanta has the same gun murder rate as South Africa, Detroit as El Salvador, Phoenix equal to Mexicoís gun homicide rate:

The Atlantic
Another screen grab, below, compares gun homicide rates in the U.S. with countries that frequently make headlines for conflict-related violence (Afghanistan, Iraq, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Pakistan).
The U.S. has higher rates of homicides from guns than Pakistan. At 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people, the U.S. rates arenít much lower than gun homicide rates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5.2 deaths per 100,000 people). Annually, the U.S. has about two fewer gun homicide deaths per 100,000 people than Iraq, which has 6.5 deaths per 100,000.
Firearm homicide rates in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United States and Pakistan, 2010
Compared to certain countries known for their high crime rates, such as Jamaica, Russia, South Africa and Kenya, the U.S. had the second-highest rate of gun homicide deaths after Jamaica (view data online).
Although the U.S. stands out for its high rates of homicide firearm deaths, its rates look small compared to certain Latin American countries. The following screen grab indicates that El Salvador, Colombia and Honduras had the highest rates of firearm homicides in the world in 2010.
Firearm homicide rates in Latin America and the United States, 2010

Another issue that gets less attention is how many people die from firearms accidentally. Again, the U.S. has much higher rates of unintentional death from firearms compared to other countries.
Unintentional firearm death rates in the U.S. and peer countries, 2013
Source: Global Burden of Disease Study. Access the data visualization here: GBD Compare | IHME Viz Hub



Much More


Kind of says it all.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#6777
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Ahhh, so typically "progressive". Ignorance and arrogance in equal parts.............


Well put.
 
JamesBondo
#6778
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1eh View Post

It says we are living in a less violent world contray to what right wing zealots like Steve Harper told us. [I]But..

for clarity sake, can you please explain to us what Steven Harper told you?

Quote:

Another issue that gets less attention is how many people die from firearms accidentally. Again, the U.S. has much higher rates of unintentional death from firearms compared to other countries.

Although, Canada has always enjoyed a low rate of accidental deaths, the past 35 years worth of laws haven't provided any evidence that our gun laws are capable of driving a decrease in accidental deaths. Surely you aren't proposing that the USA should adopt an unproven Canadian model of gun control and safety...
 
eh1eh
#6779
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

for clarity sake, can you please explain to us what Steven Harper told you?



Although, Canada has always enjoyed a low rate of accidental deaths, the past 35 years worth of laws haven't provided any evidence that our gun laws are capable of driving a decrease in accidental deaths. Surely you aren't proposing that the USA should adopt an unproven Canadian model of gun control and safety...

Harpo, tough on crime, even though crime is down. lol.

I am not proposing anything. You are not very perceptive. You are just cherry picking and making stuff up. Par for the course with gunners and internet trolls.
 
Machjo
#6780
Page 226 and you're still going at it!

Kumbaya, my Lord! Kumbaya!