Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Going overboard with the 2nd amendment


TowelPower12

Recommended Posts

well that is 5 years ago, but I had heard it several times

I very well could be wrong, but the truth is far from americans all having guns and shooting everything.

Most people are responsible about it here, the exceptions are the ones who make the headlines (as evidenced by the genius in the story)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is guns PER PERSON... Canada has what, 30 to 35 million people.... The US has that in just New York.

It makes sense our gun per person is more. Cus we have less people!

Also take into consideration they have no gun laws!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP and his dramatics..

It's dumb to say that this is going "overboard with the second amendment" (i.e. legal exercise of the US second amendment) when this guy was arrested and charged with second degree murder, plus threatening people who weren't even on his property with killing them too. None of this is covered by the second amendment down there, hence why he's going to face a long time in jail.

It's a clear sign the gun wasn't the problem here but the moron wielding it. What am I saying though, time to take cues from the media and their sensationalism by parroting their brainless overreactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the moron is the main cause for blame, having the ability to bear concealed weapons definitely exacerbated the situation.

And while technically it is legal to carry a weapon in some parts of Canada, it is more or less impossible to obtain a permit for it (ATC, Authotization to Carry), so in essence, carrying concealed weapons in Canada is virtually illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to me more than enough who are determined to live up to that image. Americans do seem to be more gun obsessed as well as paranoid that any laws regarding gun control will result in all guns being taken away. I just don't see how people can think throwing more guns into the mix can make things safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously there is a mentality in the US that makes them think they should allowed to do this. And shooting the guy again for effect? How many people are going to die in that country before something changes? There are 2nd and 3rd world countries I'd rather live in before the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not seen much opposition even down south in the states relating to assault weapon bans but living in SF for many years before moving back gun control is a euphemism for ban on guns entirely which is both asinine and unconstitutional. Given I value all my rights, not just the ones I personally use, a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm. The reason an intelligent (legally abiding too I might add) person would be against such stringent gun control/gun bans are because it hinders every law abiding persons ability to exercise their right of bearing arms and self defence. Law abiding people haven't done anything wrong to have their rights abridged, non law abiding people don't care about laws in the first place so gun control at best means nothing to them.. at worst empowers them to commit more heinous crimes knowing the other person is likely following the law and is unarmed. The notion that gun control in the states prevents gun crime has long been unfounded and is living in fantasy land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not seen much opposition even down south in the states relating to assault weapon bans but living in SF for many years before moving back gun control is a euphemism for ban on guns entirely which is both asinine and unconstitutional. Given I value all my rights, not just the ones I personally use, a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm. The reason an intelligent (legally abiding too I might add) person would be against such stringent gun control/gun bans are because it hinders every law abiding persons ability to exercise their right of bearing arms and self defence. Law abiding people haven't done anything wrong to have their rights abridged, non law abiding people don't care about laws in the first place so gun control at best means nothing to them.. at worst empowers them to commit more heinous crimes knowing the other person is likely following the law and is unarmed. The notion that gun control in the states prevents gun crime has long been unfounded and is living in fantasy land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the constitution was written giving the right to bear arms, what kind of arms were available? Muskets which were taller than you so concealment was a problem, at best 4 shots in a minute with only a 50/50 chance of hitting anything over 20 yards away, or if you were well off a set of single shot dueling pistols, no 4000 round a minute assault rifles designed to take out an infantry platoon, no uzis that could fit in a lunch box, no automatic handguns that hold 20 shots in the clip. The weaponry and the world have changed since it was written, and BTW, the British are NOT coming back, that is one of the prime reasons for that amendment, the notion that MORE guns makes things safer is ludicrous. By your reasoning, the US with 10 times Canada's population should have less than 10X the death rate from firearms, but instead it is 100X MORE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2nd Amendment was about the citizen being on technically equal terms to any military or social threat, it doesn't specify muskets or hunting rifles, or semiauto pistols, it's about arms that give the regular person clout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...