Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[bluebyrd35]

First off, Canada is an independent country, and has taken the right to make laws. It has the right to make any laws the majority want through democracy It can demand licenses by law, make conditions of purchase and use of any commodity without going back to the 1700's to get permission to do so. The limitations imposed makes the laws pertaining to guns, a right granted but with conditions. Ergo a privilege.


Britain has some of the strongest gun laws in the world. They changed the law that some Canadians are trying to claim is set in stone.


The right to pursue happiness is in the constitution of some countries, but.... .there are conditions and thus it becomes a privilege ie stealing, killing or committing rape, or injuring another is not permitted to gain that happiness. So it is a right but governed by many rules.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

First off, Canada is an independent country, and has taken the right to make laws. It has the right to make any laws the majority want through democracy It can demand licenses by law, make conditions of purchase and use of any commodity without going back to the 1700's to get permission to do so. The limitations imposed makes the laws pertaining to guns, a right granted but with conditions. Ergo a privilege.

I think everyone would would agree that the right of the Canada to "make any laws the majority want" is subject to the rights of the minority. The problem lies in the fact that gun supporters feel that the right to own guns is one of those rights that should not be legislated away.

The right to pursue happiness is in the constitution of some countries

It is? I've read a number of constitutions, and I don't recollect any of them speaking of the right to pursue happiness. Which ones did you find it in?

], but.... .there are conditions and thus it becomes a privilege ie stealing, killing or committing rape, or injuring another is not permitted to gain that happiness. So it is a right but governed by many rules.

Yes, and you'll note that all the limits you name have one thing in common: they hurt other people. Gun ownership does not.

 

[Colpy]

First off, Canada is an independent country, and has taken the right to make laws. It has the right to make any laws the majority want through democracy It can demand licenses by law, make conditions of purchase and use of any commodity without going back to the 1700's to get permission to do so. The limitations imposed makes the laws pertaining to guns, a right granted but with conditions. Ergo a privilege.


Britain has some of the strongest gun laws in the world. They changed the law that some Canadians are trying to claim is set in stone.


The right to pursue happiness is in the constitution of some countries, but.... .there are conditions and thus it becomes a privilege ie stealing, killing or committing rape, or injuring another is not permitted to gain that happiness. So it is a right but governed by many rules.

Ahhhh....constitutional law is the supreme law against which all other law is tested.

 

[bluebyrd35]

I think everyone would would agree that the right of the Canada to "make any laws the majority want" is subject to the rights of the minority. The problem lies in the fact that gun supporters feel that the right to own guns is one of those rights that should not be legislated away.


Why?, the right to duel at 40 paces to solve disagreements were, as were sword fights for that same reason. Also, the keeping of slaves by aboriginals in Canada were done away with. Actually the natives in Canada hold more rights to keep slaves than do the average Canadian who came later to this country to gun rights.


It is? I've read a number of constitutions, and I don't recollect any of them speaking of the right to pursue happiness. Which ones did you find it in?


How about the American Declaration of Independence 1776??


Yes, and you'll note that all the limits you name have one thing in common: they hurt other people. Gun ownership does not


Really, how does that square with over 10,000 kids killed every year in the US by guns, presumably owned by someone?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think everyone would would agree that the right of the Canada to "make any laws the majority want" is subject to the rights of the minority. The problem lies in the fact that gun supporters feel that the right to own guns is one of those rights that should not be legislated away.


Why?, the right to duel at 40 paces to solve disagreements were, as were sword fights for that same reason. Also, the keeping of slaves by aboriginals in Canada were done away with. Actually the natives in Canada hold more rights to keep slaves than do the average Canadian who came later to this country to gun rights.

Why? Mostly because of self-defence, plus the simple logic that having a right without the means to exercise it is pretty much the same as not having the right.

It is? I've read a number of constitutions, and I don't recollect any of them speaking of the right to pursue happiness. Which ones did you find it in?


How about the American Declaration of Independence 1776??

You think the Declaration of Independence is the Constitution? That's so cute!

Yes, and you'll note that all the limits you name have one thing in common: they hurt other people. Gun ownership does not


Really, how does that square with over 10,000 kids killed every year in the US by guns, presumably owned by someone?

Gun ownership didn't kill them. Use of guns by some people killed them.

 

[Nuggler]

Why? Mostly because of self-defence, plus the simple logic that having a right without the means to exercise it is pretty much the same as not having the right.



You think the Declaration of Independence is the Constitution? That's so cute!



Gun ownership didn't kill them. Use of guns by some people killed them.

Come on Boner; don't be so gaddam nasty and condescending. Pick one or the other.8O

 

[Colpy]

Really, how does that square with over 10,000 kids killed every year in the US by guns, presumably owned by someone?

Bullshyte.

That is how it relates.

Absolute, unmitigated, unadulterated bullshyte.

I call bullshyte.

Prove it.

In fact, you don't have to prove it.....just provide a link to one single place that even claims more than 10,000 children die by gunfire in the USA every year.



Here: I saved you the trouble;

7,391 children under the age of 20 had been hospitalized
In the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), for injuries from firearms and the majority of those gunshot injuries —4,559—resulted from intentional firearm assaults. 2,149 of those injured were accidents, and 270 were suicide attempts. Of the children who were hospitalized, 453 – 6% – died from their injuries.

Nearly 10,000 American children are injured or killed by guns every year | MSNBC

First...........only 6% of those hospitalized (453) died. Elsewhere in the article, it claims 3,000 others died before they reached the hospital. 3453 is one heck of a lot less than 10,000.

Secondly, if you are 18 or 19 years old, you are most definitely not a child. And that is undoubtedly the age of a disproportionate number of the cases listed.

Thirdly, there is not categorization of the cause, accident, homicide, suicide, or self defense.

Fourth, the article is from rabidly anti-gun MSNBC

In other words, exactly as I predicted.....

Bullshyte.

 

[JamesBondo]

First off, Canada is an independent country, and has taken the right to make laws. It has the right to make any laws the majority want through democracy It can demand licenses by law, make conditions of purchase and use of any commodity without going back to the 1700's to get permission to do so. The limitations imposed makes the laws pertaining to guns, a right granted but with conditions. Ergo a privilege.


Britain has some of the strongest gun laws in the world. They changed the law that some Canadians are trying to claim is set in stone.


The right to pursue happiness is in the constitution of some countries, but.... .there are conditions and thus it becomes a privilege ie stealing, killing or committing rape, or injuring another is not permitted to gain that happiness. So it is a right but governed by many rules.

I'm sorry but that is so incorrect and misinformed, I don't know if I have the energy to correct it.

Maybe lets start out by saying the that governmenr doesn't have the right to create just any law. Even with a majority mandate from a referendum, they still don't have the right to create just any law.

Furthermore, if they did, that would be a mobs rules system. A system where the majority could reinstitute slavery, and the contitutional rights written into our system hundreds of years ago could be tossed to the wind.

 

[Colpy]

2013 homicide rate in Canada lowest since 1966 - Politics - CBC News

Remember we dumped the long gun registry in mid 2012............

 

[bluebyrd35]

Why? Mostly because of self-defence, plus the simple logic that having a right without the means to exercise it is pretty much the same as not having the right.



You think the Declaration of Independence is the Constitution? That's so cute!



Gun ownership didn't kill them. Use of guns by some people killed them.

Right just like the buying of a license, registration and insurance took away your right to drive your car. And I am sure there is a minority feels harmed by such a law...Geez what twisted logic.


The Declaration of Independence came first. The Fathers of Confederation understood it could not give people the right to pursue happiness without the possibility of such a right harming others. When the right to bear arms was drafted into the constitution, the guns used gunpowder and metal shot. Big difference to today's guns.


That crap about guns not killing people, is not something understood by the 300 plus US children shot a day, in the US, I am sure.


A little fact......gun deaths outnumber car deaths in the US these days.

I'm sorry but that is so incorrect and misinformed, I don't know if I have the energy to correct it.

Maybe lets start out by saying the that governmenr doesn't have the right to create just any law. Even with a majority mandate from a referendum, they still don't have the right to create just any law.

Furthermore, if they did, that would be a mobs rules system. A system where the majority could reinstitute slavery, and the contitutional rights written into our system hundreds of years ago could be tossed to the wind.

Look everyone knows the procedure but it is Parliament in the end that passes a bill. A bill to change, amend or pass a law is submitted to Parliament, by elected representatives discussed. The bill is submitted to readings, sometime passed, sometimes sent back for amending and sometimes rejected.


Generally speaking all this is done by Members of Parliament, elected by the we the citizens. Usually called the Government. It goes to the Senate and can be stalled there and has become one of the reasons for calls to abolish the Senate, as they are not elected but chosen by the government in favour when a seat becomes vacant.


Public outcry, if strong enough can squash a bill or encourage the government to present one. We vote for the party that as far as we can tell by the declarations they of what they stand for.

2013 homicide rate in Canada lowest since 1966 - Politics - CBC News

Remember we dumped the long gun registry in mid 2012............

Yes we did, so?


I believe I did mention that the only people who were really interested in the registry remaining were the police. Tracing guns back to the original owners, in some cases help catch a lawbreaker. For normal gun owners it was the cost that bothered them most. If a gun owner is honest and doesn't use his guns illegally, and it cost them nothing, what would the objection be then??


"President Obama has directed the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence as part of his legislative package on gun control. The CDC hasn't pursued this kind of research since 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut funding for it arguing that the studies were politicized and being used to promote gun control."


So the stats since that time are worth SHYTE as you love to say. There is NO central agency that gets all the stats on gun violence. If it once again becomes possible to have decent statistics there are going to be some very unhappy NRA members.

 

[JamesBondo]

Right just like the buying of a license, registration and insurance took away your right to drive your car. And I am sure there is a minority feels harmed by such a law...Geez what twisted logic.

Not sure where you are taking this analogy. I have a recreational vehicle, I don't have a license for it, it is not registered, and it is not insured. I take it out for the weekend on a regular basis.

Then the right to bear arms was drafted into the constitution, the guns used gunpowder and metal shot. Big difference to today's guns.

Not really, today's modern firearm still uses gunpowder and metal projectiles.

That crap about guns not killing people, is not something understood by the 300 plus US children shot a day, in the US, I am sure.

In Canada, the murder weapon of choice is a knife. I used one to butter my toast, make a sandwich, then slice. I don't recall anyone calling me a murderer or associating me to one.

A little fact......gun deaths outnumber car deaths in the US these days.

A little fact........not true in Canada. Never has been true in Canada, therefore it is not possible that Canadian gun control laws should get any credit for what we enjoy in Canada.

Look everyone knows the procedure but it is Parliament in the end that passes a bill. A bill to change, amend or pass a law is submitted to Parliament, by elected representatives discussed. The bill is submitted to readings, sometime passed, sometimes sent back for amending and sometimes rejected.

even a law the is pass is subjected to constitutional challenges, and can be shot down. Not even a bunch of anti-gun nut zealots can force a law into existence that is exempt from a constitutional challenge.

 

[Colpy]

Right just like the buying of a license, registration and insurance took away your right to drive your car. And I am sure there is a minority feels harmed by such a law...Geez what twisted logic.


The Declaration of Independence came first. The Fathers of Confederation understood it could not give people the right to pursue happiness without the possibility of such a right harming others. When the right to bear arms was drafted into the constitution, the guns used gunpowder and metal shot. Big difference to today's guns.


That crap about guns not killing people, is not something understood by the 300 plus US children shot a day, in the US, I am sure.


A little fact......gun deaths outnumber car deaths in the US these days.


Look everyone knows the procedure but it is Parliament in the end that passes a bill. A bill to change, amend or pass a law is submitted to Parliament, by elected representatives discussed. The bill is submitted to readings, sometime passed, sometimes sent back for amending and sometimes rejected.


Generally speaking all this is done by Members of Parliament, elected by the we the citizens. Usually called the Government. It goes to the Senate and can be stalled there and has become one of the reasons for calls to abolish the Senate, as they are not elected but chosen by the government in favour when a seat becomes vacant.


Public outcry, if strong enough can squash a bill or encourage the government to present one. We vote for the party that as far as we can tell by the declarations they of what they stand for.

A little fact:

Deaths by automobile accident 2012: 33,561
Deaths by firearm, 2012: 31,076 That includes homicide, accident, suicide, justified killing.


Below I put the lie to your claim of 10,000 child deaths due to guns.

Here's another one: in Canada, all legislation can be challenged in the courts, where it is tested against the body of constitutional
law going back to 1215. If it does not fall in line with that law, it is ruled outside the law, and is null and void. Laws on abortion, prostitution, arrest, etc etc etc, have all been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and no longer are part of the law.

In Canada, as in the USA, the politicians do not have the last word......the judges do.

You know, I don't really like to be rude, but when you do not have a clue what you are talking about, you should really shut up.

And you do not have a clue.

 

[JamesBondo]

I will defend her right to talk and say things that
she honestly believes to be logical or true.

Additionally, although I won't defend lying as a right, I am not concerned about it because generally someone
comes along and corrects the lie by stating the truth and backing it up with supporting evidence that is much more believable than the lie.

 

[taxslave]

I will defend her right to talk and say things that
she honestly believes to be logical or true.

Additionally, although I won't defend lying as a right, I am not concerned about it because generally someone
comes along and corrects the lie by stating the truth and backing it up with supporting evidence that is much more believable than the lie.

But like they say- a lie is as good as the truth if you can get someone to believe it.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The Declaration of Independence came first. The Fathers of Confederation understood it could not give people the right to pursue happiness without the possibility of such a right harming others. When the right to bear arms was drafted into the constitution, the guns used gunpowder and metal shot. Big difference to today's guns.

The Declaration of Independence is not law in the U.S. I'm sure you'll insist it is, which you can do until you're blue in the face, and it still won't be.

That crap about guns not killing people, is not something understood by the 300 plus US children shot a day, in the US, I am sure.

That might be relevant if I had said guns don't kill people, but I didn't, so feel free to continue responding to things I haven't said, mmm-kay?

A little fact......gun deaths outnumber car deaths in the US these days.

A little fantasy, you mean. But Colpy already dropped you on that one, so I need not kick the corpse.

 

[taxslave]

A little fantasy, you mean. But Colpy already dropped you on that one, so I need not kick the corpse.


Why not?

 

[Colpy]

 

[DaSleeper]

Which door is she going try next?


Facts vs Birdie fantasy

That crap about guns not killing people, is not something understood by the 300 plus US children shot a day, in the US, I am sure.

.

Where do you get those numbers?
Pick them out of a hat?
Lady you're completely loopy.........

 

[taxslave]

Which door is she going try next?


Facts vs Birdie fantasy


Where do you get those numbers?
Pick them out of a hat?
Lady you're completely loopy.........

Agenda driven.

 

[bluebyrd35]

A little fact:

Deaths by automobile accident 2012: 33,561
Deaths by firearm, 2012: 31,076 That includes homicide, accident, suicide, justified killing.


Below I put the lie to your claim of 10,000 child deaths due to guns.

Here's another one: in Canada, all legislation can be challenged in the courts, where it is tested against the body of constitutional
law going back to 1215. If it does not fall in line with that law, it is ruled outside the law, and is null and void. Laws on abortion, prostitution, arrest, etc etc etc, have all been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and no longer are part of the law.

In Canada, as in the USA, the politicians do not have the last word......the judges do.

You know, I don't really like to be rude, but when you do not have a clue what you are talking about, you should really shut up.

And you do not have a clue.

OMG where to start??
t
First, section 231 of the criminal code (which includes firearms and all the rest) was struck down not because of some outdated law on firearms was valid, but because the abortion law was in that section. Abortion had been completely banned in 1869. This" law was deemed (abortion) to interfere with the right to life, liberty and security of the person, not to be deprived of except in the accordance with principles of fundamental justice"


Section 231 of the criminal code (which includes firearms) was scrapped. However, in 1995, through an "Act" of Parliament & Legislature of Canada the Firearms Act sc 1995 C39 -16755 was passed.


Judges do not pass the laws of Canada. They can be asked to judge whether any particular case meets the criteria of existing laws or not. It is then sent to the Supreme Court for them to rule whether the law is valid or needs be sent back to Parliament.


Also all this fuss over how many children are killed a year.......For shame......Even one child is one too many!! I will repeat what I have said more than once and maybe this time it will sink in. Since 1996 there have been NO accurate stats in the US because the NRA lobbied to have no stats on gun violence by the CDC funded by the government. Do you not wonder why there are so many different results in the polls. They made no bones about why they wanted the stats gone......They didn't want people demanding something be done about gun control.


"As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters."

Read more: How The NRA Kills Gun Violence Research - Business Insider


By the way your rudeness says more about you than it ever could about me.


By the way, Canada's gun laws work very well and I have never said otherwise. It is the zeal with which some of the gun holders in Canada, want a return to the old days.......you know, the right to settle any minor dispute by a gunfight at noon.