Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Toronto man charged with 1st-degree murder after estranged wife dies in machete attack
Assailant, victim dead after knife attack in Kingston, Ont.
I wonder if either tried applying for a PAL
Assailant, victim dead after knife attack in Kingston, Ont.
I wonder if either tried applying for a PAL
"There's an exception to every rule" and this guy is an exception in all ways pertaining to decency! Nuff said!
Well, first off, he's a politician. So you can safely presume he's lying every time his lips move.
Cruz intends to do the square root of sweet bugger-all about gun violence.
Cruz, I hope you understand, is a Republican Senator from Texas.
The Republicans have the majority in the Senate, and make the rules.
There are three gun-control bills on the desk of the Senate Majority Leader. He is refusing to move any of them.
The Republicans babble about "mental illness" and "video games," but they have proposed no measures with reference to video games, and they have reduced funding for mental-health treatment.
How long do they have to do nothing until you decide that doing nothing is their plan?
You can start out by answering the question you asked me, and I answered.
There is no point discussing the Second Amendment with you. You have no clue as to the legal history of it, or the interpretations made by the Supreme Court. Hell, you don't even know what the term "limiting language" means.
I'd be happy to educate you some on it, but you've made it clear that you're not interested in getting educated on it. You think you know what you're talking about, and snark, bullshit, and dodging is the only answer you'll give to anyone engaging you.
I'll have such arguments as I feel like having on the subject with Colpy, who by the way also did not go to law school, but has done a great job in educating himself on gun rights under English, Canadian, and American law, and takes the things I have to say seriously, whether he agrees with me or not.
That's how you have a debate.
Let's review. I said there is no limiting language in the Second Amendment. Misunderstanding the meaning of the term, you chose to be insulting as well as stupid in response, asking a question about where I went to law school. I answered, and asked you the same. Since then you've been dodging and ducking.
What in this would lead me to believe than I'd get anything but ignorance, insults, and dodging from you if I further engaged you?
So, y'know, eff off. I've spent more time on you than you're worth already.
Yes, we're all pretty much up on whom you hate. And the fact that you have no solutions to offer.
I'm gonna try to rationalize this some.
Colpy (and only Colpy), first off, what is an "arm?" Generically, I mean. Obviously, blades, bludgeons, and slings qualify. So do firearms. What about explosives (e.g., grenades) and crew-served weapons? Are they "arms" within the meaning of the right, under common law, the Charter, or the Second Amenement?
NB: By "only Colpy," I am, of course, not saying only Colpy can answer, just that I'm only interested in Colpy's answer.
Colpy (and only Colpy), first off, what is an "arm?" Generically, I mean. Obviously, blades, bludgeons, and slings qualify. So do firearms. What about explosives (e.g., grenades) and crew-served weapons? Are they "arms" within the meaning of the right, under common law, the Charter, or the Second Amenement?
NB: By "only Colpy," I am, of course, not saying only Colpy can answer, just that I'm only interested in Colpy's answer.
I'm some what comfortable in our system, I think you could benefit from our old FAC now PAL system instead of the 3 day wait. Both countries have laws in place just no follow up and enforcement is the biggest problem.
I could have told you that, you ****ing idiot.
For the record, when you asked me what the limiting language was, I have been patiently waiting for you to tell the whole world what you thought it was so we could all have a laugh at your expense.
That's a tricky one. Of course, all the things you list are "arms", and you could take it even further, to F-35s and nuclear weapons. Things never dreamed of in 1790, but that is irrelevant.
I always got around this (not very well) by pretending that because the Bill of Rights is all about "individual" rights, the right only applied to weapons suited to the individual........i.e. personal weapons. Which doesn't solve the problem, but brings you considerably closer to a resolution (RPGs? full auto? hand grenades?)
Definitely a problem. If you can ban RPGs and hand grenades, why not "assault weapons" or even semi-auto .22 rifles?
In short, I have no answer for you.
That's all fair, and yeah I knew Cruz was a (Canadian) Texas senator. Or ex-Canadian I should say. Good man, I think. He is who I would have supported for President in 2016.
I agree. In Canada, we have legal definitions for weapons( which includes firearms), but we also have weapons that meet the legal definition for firearms yet they are not deemed firearms for the purposes of the firearms act. lol It's one big incestuous loop.
You bet it's tricky.
Let's see if we can use process of elimination. Step 1 - let's eliminate "machine" weapons (F-35s, warships, and crew-served weapons such as artillery and mortars).
This is gonna be a long discussion, if I can persuade you to play.
Can we start out by agreeing that the "right to keep and bear arms," in whatever legal form, applies to weapons that can be carried and deployed by a single person without machine assistance? I.e., rifles, shotguns, and sidearms are definitely in (at this step), fighter-bombers, warships, and artillery are definitely out (at this step), and we'll work on grenades (hand-held or launched), one-man rocket launchers, and other man-portable, man-deployable "medium" weapons as we move along?