Gun Control in US and Canada
- Thread starter tincan
- Start date
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Probably, but winter isn't over yet............
lorneparker1
Banned
Seafever
Well-Known Member
Close the topic......you mean sweep it under the rug and forget about it and it will quietly fade away into obscurity and
we can all go back into our Qualude-esque mindset and live happily ever after.
Which is probably what we will all do.
10 pages....60 pages...100 hundred pages......whatever.......it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings (or picks up a machine gun).
I notice that all those that decry these pages as 'ridiculous" and "redundant" are still here posting away like mad dogs.
The dilemma that has occured is akin to the "drunk driver" syndrome.
A drunk behind a wheel kills somebody.....do we ban alcohol or cars or bars or drinking altogether?
Of course not.
Eventually with enough input we would arrive at a reasonable solution for the good of society in general.
And that's what it's all about in a democracy......the greater good for the greater number of people.
Democracy today seems to be which lobby group and power faction has the most clout moreso than what is good for the well being of the populace.
Some of the populace does not like "wellbeing" forced down their throats without a say in it.
But in a free democracy, the majority vote tends to rule.
If the overall vote by the populace is for zero controls...so be it.
Prohibition...which did the general populace absolutely no good whatsoever was a perfect example of a lobby group getting their way. (Women's Christian Temperance League).
Outright bans on something because of a few offenders is not the best solution.
The "I'm right and you are a moron" mentality prevales in everything today.
we can all go back into our Qualude-esque mindset and live happily ever after.
Which is probably what we will all do.
10 pages....60 pages...100 hundred pages......whatever.......it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings (or picks up a machine gun).
I notice that all those that decry these pages as 'ridiculous" and "redundant" are still here posting away like mad dogs.
The dilemma that has occured is akin to the "drunk driver" syndrome.
A drunk behind a wheel kills somebody.....do we ban alcohol or cars or bars or drinking altogether?
Of course not.
Eventually with enough input we would arrive at a reasonable solution for the good of society in general.
And that's what it's all about in a democracy......the greater good for the greater number of people.
Democracy today seems to be which lobby group and power faction has the most clout moreso than what is good for the well being of the populace.
Some of the populace does not like "wellbeing" forced down their throats without a say in it.
But in a free democracy, the majority vote tends to rule.
If the overall vote by the populace is for zero controls...so be it.
Prohibition...which did the general populace absolutely no good whatsoever was a perfect example of a lobby group getting their way. (Women's Christian Temperance League).
Outright bans on something because of a few offenders is not the best solution.
The "I'm right and you are a moron" mentality prevales in everything today.
there have been mulitple incidents involving large capacity clips, not just Newtown. the kid at the Clackamas Mall in OR had his AR jam otherwise that would have been a similar blood bath. the Colorado theater shooting, likewise, would have been far worse save the obviously lack of firearm experience of he shooter. Newton kid had been practicing courtesy of his mom. stopping to reload gives time for someone to turn the tide. the constant bang bang bang in a closed environment is sure to put people in a panic mode and not in a position to take defensive action. sure, any firearm in such a situation is going to create a panic environment, the AR just brings it to a head much more quickly IMHO. those of you defending large capacity magazines are making the assumption of a comptent gun handler making a clip change quickly. i don' think that description applies to the majority of these shootings.
if you can't stand the discussion, skip the thread, easy enough.
if it has not already happened, the world should shortly know action the president is willing to take in spite of the NRA gun lobby.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Obama is moving forward. He has called for restrictions on assault weapons and high capacity magazines: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ssault-weapons-magazines-as-part-gun-control/
And the White House listed 23 "Executive Actions" Obama intends to take as part of the anti-gun violence plan:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2IABMyvQU
As the wagons are already circling in opposition. Wyoming just signed into Law a Bill that will give up to two years in prison to any Federal Agent that tries to enforce any newly imposed federal gun laws. Arizona and Texas are expected to follow suit today.
Oregon & Texas issued a Warning to Obama against enforcing new gun regulations: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/
Minnesota Sheriff's Department also notes they will not enforce the new laws: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/255814/
And... Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order: http://www.alipac.us/f12/gop-congre...ama-uses-executive-action-gun-control-270396/
Given this type of resistance, is there ANY Chance of EVER instilling the type of common sense gun controls we have up here in Canada?
Going to be a long, uphill battle methinks...
Nog
And the White House listed 23 "Executive Actions" Obama intends to take as part of the anti-gun violence plan:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2IABMyvQU
As the wagons are already circling in opposition. Wyoming just signed into Law a Bill that will give up to two years in prison to any Federal Agent that tries to enforce any newly imposed federal gun laws. Arizona and Texas are expected to follow suit today.
Oregon & Texas issued a Warning to Obama against enforcing new gun regulations: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/
Minnesota Sheriff's Department also notes they will not enforce the new laws: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/255814/
And... Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order: http://www.alipac.us/f12/gop-congre...ama-uses-executive-action-gun-control-270396/
Given this type of resistance, is there ANY Chance of EVER instilling the type of common sense gun controls we have up here in Canada?
Going to be a long, uphill battle methinks...
Nog
scott craven
Well-Known Member
I have very little involvement in this thread, but in defense of gun control
why is it that Canada has so little problems as compared to the U.S. ?
Obviously stricter gun control, particularly on automatic weapons.
There is little doubt in my mind that the prevalence and availability of guns
in the U.S. has lead to these horrific situations.
Change is necessary, make it harder for the kooks to obtain weapons.
why is it that Canada has so little problems as compared to the U.S. ?
Obviously stricter gun control, particularly on automatic weapons.
There is little doubt in my mind that the prevalence and availability of guns
in the U.S. has lead to these horrific situations.
Change is necessary, make it harder for the kooks to obtain weapons.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
Just wondering if Alex Jones is a paid sub-operative of the NRA.
He runs the "InfoWars"website. He is a believer that the Sandy Hook shootings were all faked by the government so that Obama could bring in tougher gun legislation.
There is a movement out there called the "truthers" who all claim the massacre was faked by the government.
In other words the government was behind the shootings.
This seems to be a common theme of all pro-gun and NRA members/fans.........that the government is out to get you so you'd better stock up on guns and ammo for "Obamageddon".
Believing in conspiracies is one thing.......and there may be truths to some of them.
But to imply the Sandy Hook shootings were faked is an example of the desperate measures pro-gunners will take to achieve their goal.
Their answer to the tragedy?.......no problem folks, there was no tragedy at all...it was all faked.
What a slap in the face to those that lost loved ones.
The 'truthers' say the little girl sitting on Obama's knee in a picture two days later is supposed to be one of the children that was shot dead earlier. Turns out the child was the dead girls' sister.
He runs the "InfoWars"website. He is a believer that the Sandy Hook shootings were all faked by the government so that Obama could bring in tougher gun legislation.
There is a movement out there called the "truthers" who all claim the massacre was faked by the government.
In other words the government was behind the shootings.
This seems to be a common theme of all pro-gun and NRA members/fans.........that the government is out to get you so you'd better stock up on guns and ammo for "Obamageddon".
Believing in conspiracies is one thing.......and there may be truths to some of them.
But to imply the Sandy Hook shootings were faked is an example of the desperate measures pro-gunners will take to achieve their goal.
Their answer to the tragedy?.......no problem folks, there was no tragedy at all...it was all faked.
What a slap in the face to those that lost loved ones.
The 'truthers' say the little girl sitting on Obama's knee in a picture two days later is supposed to be one of the children that was shot dead earlier. Turns out the child was the dead girls' sister.
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
X2 Biggest problem is the culture. It was a country built from a revolution and developed with civil war.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
What are they going to say next?....that the kid that dressed up as The Joker and walked into the movie theater and
fired away at random was a "paid actor" and the whole thing was "staged"?
Rights:- in the USA it is a constitutional "right" to bear arms. Perhaps those of you with a knowledge of different countries constitutions could help me out. How many other countries have a "written in ink" clause that gives you the right to bear arms signed off by the forefathers?
I don't know if it was ever inked up here in Canada. And if it is , it's kind of weird that I would have a "right" to own a weapon...but....having a driver's license is a "privelege".
The " Terrorist Threat Level" indicator is a dubious icon at best.
Is there ever going to be a day after 911 where the indicator drops to "Low"?
I doubt it. The iron has been struck and the fix is in.
No mention of the indicator up here in Canuckland......although several events have happened in connection with terrorists plans up here that should raise a red flag on occasion.
fired away at random was a "paid actor" and the whole thing was "staged"?
Rights:- in the USA it is a constitutional "right" to bear arms. Perhaps those of you with a knowledge of different countries constitutions could help me out. How many other countries have a "written in ink" clause that gives you the right to bear arms signed off by the forefathers?
I don't know if it was ever inked up here in Canada. And if it is , it's kind of weird that I would have a "right" to own a weapon...but....having a driver's license is a "privelege".
The " Terrorist Threat Level" indicator is a dubious icon at best.
Is there ever going to be a day after 911 where the indicator drops to "Low"?
I doubt it. The iron has been struck and the fix is in.
No mention of the indicator up here in Canuckland......although several events have happened in connection with terrorists plans up here that should raise a red flag on occasion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Yeah I started to read a few of the conspiracy sites. Some Veterans site is all over it. I found that weird. Totally bizarre. The media didn't help things through out the whole situation with all the bad reporting they did with the wrong information etc.
I am not an expert on past gun laws in Canada but I do know they were pretty lax at one time.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
The people that believe in these kinds of conspiracy theories are themselves mentally ill and paranoid to the max. Very scary that these are the most rabid pro-gun proponents.
Funny how so often these are the same people that believe that the 'lord is going to send armageddon" and there will be a "rapture" to save the "believers".
Belief in these "prophets" without a shred of evidence is the most dangerous force at work in the world today. Indeed a glance at history will tell you this has always been the case. It is just now the nut bars can access far more dangerous weapons than the sword, and bows and arrows of the past, and propagate their mad ideas to their "followers" much more quickly than formerly.
you should read the entire text of the second ammendment. '...a well regulated militia ... has the right to bear arms...' the first few words are conventiently glossed over.
interestingly enough, the majority of citizens, according to recent and mulitple polls, support: universal background checks; bans on 'assault' weapons; and a ban on high capacity magzines.
unfortunately, the NRA has missed a golden opportunity here when they failed to take note of the thoughts of the majority of citizens. the supremes have already rulled that citizens have a right to keep their firearms and that local, state and federal authorities can impose restrictions. RESTRICTIONS not confiscations. NY has just passed a sweeping new gun bill with bi-partisan support. i suspect the wave is just forming. the states who think they can ignore federal manadates are just posturing. once funding starts being cut for non-compliance, a different tune will be sung.
sort of like those same red state governors speaking out about too much federal control while they fail to sign on to the health bill thereby guaranteeing that federal control of their states will be forthcomig. all a bunch of rightwingnut posturing that defies logic.
interestingly enough, the majority of citizens, according to recent and mulitple polls, support: universal background checks; bans on 'assault' weapons; and a ban on high capacity magzines.
unfortunately, the NRA has missed a golden opportunity here when they failed to take note of the thoughts of the majority of citizens. the supremes have already rulled that citizens have a right to keep their firearms and that local, state and federal authorities can impose restrictions. RESTRICTIONS not confiscations. NY has just passed a sweeping new gun bill with bi-partisan support. i suspect the wave is just forming. the states who think they can ignore federal manadates are just posturing. once funding starts being cut for non-compliance, a different tune will be sung.
sort of like those same red state governors speaking out about too much federal control while they fail to sign on to the health bill thereby guaranteeing that federal control of their states will be forthcomig. all a bunch of rightwingnut posturing that defies logic.
tincan
Well-Known Member
A couple quick comments on the US Constitution / Bill of Rights.
First, the 2nd amendment was passed in the late 1700's as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I've mentioned it before in this thread that this, like the many other amendments, was just that... an AMENDMENT. When the constitution was written the founding fathers feared a British invasion, had muskets to fight with, almost all owned slaves, etc, etc. It was a much different time than it is now so for the NRA and other whack jobs to cling to this 2nd amendment and assume that it 100% confirms their right to some of the semi-auto assault weapons with large magazines that now exist is a long stretch indeed.
Prior to this amendment the Constitution was written and the most popular phrase from it is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Again, this signed off by men who owned slaves sorta flies in the face of the "all men are created equal" part. Hence, the reason for further amendments and the eventual abolition of slavery by North and.... and.... and...eventually by the South.
When different parts/interpretations of the Constitution contradict each other that is when amendments and new laws come into being. It can well be argued that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a difficult to accomplish in a country where everyone(hypothetically) is armed with semi-auto assault weapons, especially for those who choose not to arm themselves. I believe that when certain right (such as the 2nd amendment) are taken to extremes over a couple of centuries we are bound to run into these sort or contradictions and IMO that is what is happening in the US now. Should be interesting to see how things play out.
First, the 2nd amendment was passed in the late 1700's as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I've mentioned it before in this thread that this, like the many other amendments, was just that... an AMENDMENT. When the constitution was written the founding fathers feared a British invasion, had muskets to fight with, almost all owned slaves, etc, etc. It was a much different time than it is now so for the NRA and other whack jobs to cling to this 2nd amendment and assume that it 100% confirms their right to some of the semi-auto assault weapons with large magazines that now exist is a long stretch indeed.
Prior to this amendment the Constitution was written and the most popular phrase from it is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Again, this signed off by men who owned slaves sorta flies in the face of the "all men are created equal" part. Hence, the reason for further amendments and the eventual abolition of slavery by North and.... and.... and...eventually by the South.
When different parts/interpretations of the Constitution contradict each other that is when amendments and new laws come into being. It can well be argued that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a difficult to accomplish in a country where everyone(hypothetically) is armed with semi-auto assault weapons, especially for those who choose not to arm themselves. I believe that when certain right (such as the 2nd amendment) are taken to extremes over a couple of centuries we are bound to run into these sort or contradictions and IMO that is what is happening in the US now. Should be interesting to see how things play out.
tincan
Well-Known Member
Looks like you beat me to it when you noted the full text of the 2nd amendment.... I was mid-type well said.
well said.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
Well I just looked up some info on Canadian Constitutional "Right To Bear Arms"
Although it does not specifically say you can at any point, pro-gun lawyers have been jumping all over it for quite a awhile, dissecting details of other passages in the CC to make it appear that it says you can.
Case in point.......the CC says you can defend yourself with as much force as is necessary to reasonably repel the threat. Reasonable meaning that you can't use "overkill" to repel the force.
Lawyers take this to mean that because you might need a gun in certain situations that therefore it is a right to own a gun if it is a right to defend yourself effectively in a given situation.
Apparently they've been bandying this "right" about in Britain for a long long time. There are "pro-gunners" in Britain
who've been dissecting the British Constitution in favor of ownership for centuries.
one example:- http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0080.html
Although it does not specifically say you can at any point, pro-gun lawyers have been jumping all over it for quite a awhile, dissecting details of other passages in the CC to make it appear that it says you can.
Case in point.......the CC says you can defend yourself with as much force as is necessary to reasonably repel the threat. Reasonable meaning that you can't use "overkill" to repel the force.
Lawyers take this to mean that because you might need a gun in certain situations that therefore it is a right to own a gun if it is a right to defend yourself effectively in a given situation.
Apparently they've been bandying this "right" about in Britain for a long long time. There are "pro-gunners" in Britain
who've been dissecting the British Constitution in favor of ownership for centuries.
one example:- http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0080.html
