Nooooooo. Just shy of 50% of the US rate. I found a BBC article that has excellent data. I chose that data set as it as close to nonbiased 3rd party available.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Nooooooo. Just shy of 50% of the US rate. I found a BBC article that has excellent data. I chose that data set as it as close to nonbiased 3rd party available.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081
I don't know much of the details, but based on that sentence alone I would say I support it.
I don;t know about Corduroy"s opinion but since Trump cancelled Obama's mental health legislation in February 2017 that would have given the system the right to stop the sale of the weapon to Cruz to begin with....... do you see who;s door those deaths belong at! Just think he would not now be throwing millions at a problem that would not have existed if he was not trying to undo everything the previous administration had achieved. In my opinion those 17 deaths belong at his door. AND guess who picks of the tab....Not Trump or the Republicans.
As to your figures above ....is not 32 to 90 closer to 1/3 or 1/2??? I vote for 1/3
https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/ True according to Snopes
It's something media pretty much tossed aside.
Apparently gun regulations are more important than addressing the root of the teen mental health epidemic dilemma that creates the violence.
It's funding that was long overdue, I'm not a fan of the Cheese Doodle but after 40 years of decline this is a big step in the right direction.
PS there is an error in the words that go with the chart. Not just with the years but how does Yemen that comes in second come out on the chart at 60 come so much lower than the US at just shy of 90?
That what I've been saying all along. We have 1/3 the guns but have a gun homicide rate at near half. We are worse by a long shot.
The weapon is irrelevant. Cruz would still have been bent on revenge and found another means to spread his wrath.
Yemen doesn't have a vast illicit drug problem and dollars to donuts says Yemeni kids don't splinter into sub groups like US or Canadian kids.
This narrative doesn't give the liberals and Democrats a chance for a win to hang their hat on
Oh my still blinded fear of a government, not even your own LOL.....The Democratic solution was thoughtful and well rounded. Most of the bill was about treatment of the patient otherwise it would not have passed.
Tell me what other method could Cruz have used that could have taken 17 lives in minutes before simply walking out the door? Even with knife in both hands he would have been lucky to simply got a few slashes in. Several teachers and one particularly heroic football player deliberately put themselves between the flying bullet and students.
Steps to get rid of such weapons among people in the USA:
1- To confiscate all guns other than the defensive pistols: one for every family who need it.
2- To allow guns one to every family needing it (not to individuals) ... the pistol only.
3- To ban the machinery guns and similar weapons.
4- Give the pistol with license only; so that its owner will be responsible about it before law.
5- The rifles may be given with license only, and restricted to the security of companies, factories .. etc.
6- Registered hunters may have the weapon with license, and restricted to one kind of weapon only. So that the one having the license will be responsible about it before law.
Moreover, if you keep weapons with people, it means you prepare them for revolution against the regime, or to increase the crimes and accidents.
1- To confiscate all guns other than the defensive pistols: one for every family who need it.
2- To allow guns one to every family needing it (not to individuals) ... the pistol only.
3- To ban the machinery guns and similar weapons.
4- Give the pistol with license only; so that its owner will be responsible about it before law.
5- The rifles may be given with license only, and restricted to the security of companies, factories .. etc.
6- Registered hunters may have the weapon with license, and restricted to one kind of weapon only. So that the one having the license will be responsible about it before law.
Moreover, if you keep weapons with people, it means you prepare them for revolution against the regime, or to increase the crimes and accidents.
I never mocked the survivors, nor would I. They went through a horrible thing, and I don't blame them for their tears, or for their determination to do something.
I mocked the people that think being a victim gives you some kind of expertise on a question much wider than any school shooting, and to think that an emotional reaction is reason to ignore the supreme law of the nation. So I'll thank you to shut that particular BS down forthwith.
Our laws would have prevented more than this particular shooting. You can not prevent everything, however, and still have a free society.
Background checks and licensing in Canada would have prevented the majority of mass shootings that have happened in the USA. As always, the vast majority of the BS beyond that is simply harassment of over 2 million licensed Canadian gun owners.
Moreover, if you keep weapons with people, it means you prepare them for revolution against the regime
That is the reason for the Second Amendment that guarantees the right of the people to keep arms. In a state born of revolution, the philosophy of the American founders was that it was the duty of the people to rebel when their rights are denied. The first battle of the American Revolution was fought against British troops moving into the countryside to seize arms from the people. That is powerful stuff to an American patriot.
Your recommendations are a violation of the Constitution.
You would inspire rebellion.
A blood letting that would make school shootings look like a tea party.
Although I don't agree with some of your stance on this issue. I do commend you for acknowledging that regulation and due diligence in the United States is lacking when it comes to buying a firearm.
The second amendment was penned in 1791. While America was born out of revolution it has also evolved since that time. For instance Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment in 1865. By 1918 the 19th amendment went to congress and was passed giving woman the right to vote by 1920. It wasn't until 1965 that people of color were given the right to vote under the 13th amendment.
So given the amendments and their evolution, why is the 2nd amendment which was written long before advances in weaponry so hands off?
There are anti-gun advocates in the US, but the majority just want the laws tightened, checks and balances put in place and way of reducing gun violence centered around mass shootings. If five or ten brown fellows, who happen to face east when they pray, had carried out these shootings, people would be screaming about background checks.
Final two cents. I don't have anything against anyone owning a gun, providing they do not pose a threat to the general public. While it is impossible to thwart all gun violence, I can't figure out the stance of some claiming that their 2nd amendment right trump the rights of citizens to be protected from people who clearly should not have any type of firearm.
Last couple questions are for you specifically, Colpy. Reason? I would like to know your thought process, but also I think you can formulate a spin free honest answer.
- Why does a civilian need a semi automatic weapon?
- What purpose is there to having one? Certainly, home protection can be achieved with a hand gun and hunting can be achieved with a bolt action rifle.
- So, why does a citizen need a semi automatic weapon?
Walter rated my post #8192 negatively :lol:
Does he follow the teachings of Jesus or of Trump!?
Does he follow the teachings of Jesus or of Trump!?
The right to vote regardless of race was granted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was Federal legislation intended to deal with some of the shenanigans certain states were pulling to keep blacks from voting.
All amendments are hands off. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is an example of the right way to deal with an unwanted amendment. It was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
Actually, they'd be screaming about banning all Muslims. Interesting, ain't it? The same people who resist banning SAARs because only a tiny minority of them are used in crimes want to ban all Muslims, though only a tiny minority of them commit crimes.
Trump logic.
No such right exists. The Supreme Court has held that. The citizens, individually or collectively, have no Constitutional right to be protected by the government.
FYI, in District of Columbia v. Heller, generally regarded as the high-water mark of Supreme Court decisions affirming Second Amendment rights, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, affirmed the decision in U.S. v. Miller that held that government could prohibit possession of "unusual or dangerous" firearms.
I'd say a firearm capable of sending over 100 rounds downrange in less than 60 seconds qualifies as "dangerous." The logic of Miller and Heller seems to support the idea that the government may ban certain weapons it regards as particularly dangerous without harming the Second Amendment. This logic has also been used to ban and regulate automatic weapons.
Last edited:
Somewhere in you quoting me there appeared to be a vulcan mind melding of my post and your response. Oops looks like you fixed that.
So you're saying that the 2nd amendment cannot be modified?
Depends what side of the argument you're on and if you have to give up a toy.
So having a police force and military is really just out of the goodness of America's heart?
America has a lot of things to which you have no Constitutional right. Public schools. Roads, other than post roads. Dams. Airports. Pensions. And no, the early United States had no police. The concept of modern policing wasn't invented until 1829 when Robert Peel established the London Metropolitan Police. Before that, in the U.S. the usual was a single elected sheriff in each county, who at need would call up and deputize a number of men (the legendary "posse"). A town might also have a marshal.
The Second Amendment cannot be modified except by the amendment process, which requires a two-thirds supermajority in both Houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states (or by a Constitutional Convention, which has never happened).
It can, however, be interpreted by the courts. A relevant example would be my summary of Miller and Heller.
Here's a pretty good summary of the Constitutional amendment process: https://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
The USA was prosperous and in good condition until the Zionists have come and had control on the policy and economy of America.
And we're still a lot better off than the garbage heaps run by the Muslims.