Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I've said this before. Here's my perfect gun control law. . .
You want to buy a gun, the clerk at the gun shop has to put the gun on the counter and say "Put your right hand on the gun and your left hand on your dick." Anybody who gets it wrong either don't know right from left, or don't know his gun from his dick. Neither should be allowed to own a gun.
You want to buy a gun, the clerk at the gun shop has to put the gun on the counter and say "Put your right hand on the gun and your left hand on your dick." Anybody who gets it wrong either don't know right from left, or don't know his gun from his dick. Neither should be allowed to own a gun.
it is the people who live there that want them banned.
I don't live there and I don't think what I think about it should matter in the least.
If they want to enact laws let them them do it the same way any other laws are enacted.
Is it surprising that a gun nut also thinks jokes about mental health are funny?
No.
That is not surprising at all
As I have said before: if the people who live in Montreal want gun laws let them have gun laws.
That is how society is supposed to function.
Only when you want it to function that way. If the people who live in Montreal want laws that forbid blacks or FNs from living in Montreal, would you be as supportive of local opinion?
I would be as supportive of them going through the proper channels just like any other law.
How do you think we have arrived at the legal code we have?
It wasn't sent down from heaven it was the people who live in the society developing laws they want and need.
Sloppily.
I actually know a fair bit about legal history, Hoid.
But it's comforting to know you would support Jim Crow.
Would I?
Wasn't Jim Crow changed through public opinion?
Regardless of how sloppy it is there would seem to me to be credible public support in certain cities for changing gun law.
Not sure why that point is being argued by anyone
Um. . . no. It was changed by Supreme Court ruling.
Jim Crow was imposed by public opinion in the first place.
Because subordinate jurisdictions do not, in point of fact, have the power to do anything they please.
UM..Jim Crow was brought down because the people who vote for the lawmakers thought it was wrong. That public will simply found expression through the elected officials who nominated the judges and the judges themselves who come from the people.
The people who live in Montreal and Toronto are Canadian citizens.
Um. . . wrong. People don't vote for Supreme Court justices.
And while "people" may have voted for the Congress which passed the Civil Rights Acts, the locals in the South didn't. And you're standing for the right of the locals to do as they please.
The people who lived in Alabama and Mississippi were American citizens. But they weren't allowed to keep Jim Crow.
Should individual people be able to do that all on their own? Basically there are already enough laws on the books. (I'm in favour of passing new laws with the stipulation two old ones are tossed for every new one enacted)
A way better one than you, if you think the power of subordinate jurisdictions to make laws is unlimited.
Reminiscent of the bottle picking desert rat with the personality disorder.
We are supposed to bow to their low self esteem.
Ah ziff anyways.
We are supposed to bow to their low self esteem.
Ah ziff anyways.
Last edited: