Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Michigan passes bill allowing concealed weapons in schools, day care centers, stadiums, churches


  • Please log in to reply
521 replies to this topic

#61 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,709 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:52 PM

Come on Heretic, you can't be serious.


Serious that there's more than 1 side? Yes.

Serious that teachers should shoot people? Nope. Come on. You've known me long enough to know that.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#62 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,207 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:56 PM

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. More a question of when, not if.
  • 0
Posted Image

#63 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,926 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:15 PM

It's not a matter of simply being "hard", but beyond any reasonable means save perhaps the slow incremental route of creeping bans on one hand, and cynically using the school system, media and many other institutions to impose a stigma and legal liabilities on guns on the other, which they're already doing.

Trying to go all police state on gun owners and supporters of the Constituion, will end badly.

The vast majority of shootings in the U.S. are thug-on-thug or people who know each other rather than public rampages.

What yould I do?

For one thing, end the war on drugs and use some of the resources to protect schools and other public building much better.

Even in the absence of active shooters it just makes sense to restrict access to a school, because of things like perverts and drug dealers etc being able to gain access like I've seen in some schools.

Then of course there's mental health, as in its a lot easier and cheaper to treat the mentally as to treat their victims in the aftermath if they snap.


as opposed to what just happened, and happens on a disturbingly consistent basis in the US?
  • 0

#64 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:45 PM

NEWS FLASH: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE .. BULLETS DO!! ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#65 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:45 AM

There's nothing to stop a teacher right now from going on a killing spree.

As the case with the Connecticut shooter's mother, she was a registered gun owner of several powerful guns and could have gone postal on students at a whim. Yet, she didn't. There are plenty of other gun owning teachers where this analogy applies.

So why would teachers being allowed to carry in a classroom compel them to commit a crime they already can commit? Being allowed to carry would suddenly, magically make them serial killers?

This is ridiculous.


And allowing a teacher to carry a gun in school is a good idea?? Are you serious? Yeah, make it easier for the student to steal the teacher's gun and shoot em up. Instead of this stupid crazy idea of allowing others to carry guns to school for "protection", they should put metal detectors at the entrance of all schools and not allow any guns in the premise unless its a security guard or a police. I don't see anyone playing hero when a guy comes into a school with an AK-47 without fear of being killed.
  • 0

Posted Image


#66 Kamero89

Kamero89

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 12

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:57 AM

I know a few people on here are really just trolling about arming teachers, but the scary thing is, a lot of conservative Americans think that is a viable option.

The scary thing is the Wal-Mart where those guns were purchased continues to sell automatic rifles. These people can't even sell socks, yet no bill has been made about regular stores like them carrying weaponry.
  • 0

#67 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,258 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:24 AM

No there are those against it and those that are wrong. It's been proven time and again and time and again that more guns don't make enough of a positive difference.

If we're making imaginary scenarios imagine if teachers carried concealed weapons (which isn't what this is talking about) yesterdays tragedy may have been more frequent when some teacher snapped or someone came into the school knowing there was already a glorious gun.

I'm not against guns...far from it actually I like guns but these sort of comments really bother me. More guns does not mean more safety or less tragedy. More regulations, more safety and less guns would go a lot further.

If you're going to war would you want 200 morons with fully automatic rifles who couldn't tie their own shoes properly let alone tell you where the safety was or would you rather have 10 highly trained marines with a Baretta M9?


I always said that if soldiers and police officers can make mistakes what do you think will happen when a bunch of civilians without combat training starts going bang bnag.
  • 0

BAD MOVE!!!

BAD FING MOVE

HAHAHA ANOTHER INJURED MORON ON OUR TEAM

HE WILL JOIN US IN 2019

Benning will be fired next year. Hope he enjoys screwing around for a few months. I just cant believe this. Another injured BC player. We just got rid of garrison. Seems like the canucks and linden just wanted any BC born player. Doesn't matter if hes good or not. We don't need another Linden to get us to game 7 of the Stanley cup and lose. We need someone to win us a cup.

5 million a year for Vrbata? 6 million for Miller? Kesler for Bonino and 24th instead of 10th pick or one of their top prospects? Garrison for scraps?

ive already lost faith in JB. Ive never EVER had this bad of a feeling about management.

 


#68 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,258 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:27 AM

I hate it when you want to discuss or debate about gun legislation or gun control, the other side try to mislead people by saying that we want to ban guns...which is not the case.
  • 0

BAD MOVE!!!

BAD FING MOVE

HAHAHA ANOTHER INJURED MORON ON OUR TEAM

HE WILL JOIN US IN 2019

Benning will be fired next year. Hope he enjoys screwing around for a few months. I just cant believe this. Another injured BC player. We just got rid of garrison. Seems like the canucks and linden just wanted any BC born player. Doesn't matter if hes good or not. We don't need another Linden to get us to game 7 of the Stanley cup and lose. We need someone to win us a cup.

5 million a year for Vrbata? 6 million for Miller? Kesler for Bonino and 24th instead of 10th pick or one of their top prospects? Garrison for scraps?

ive already lost faith in JB. Ive never EVER had this bad of a feeling about management.

 


#69 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:01 AM

I hate it when you want to discuss or debate about gun legislation or gun control, the other side try to mislead people by saying that we want to ban guns...which is not the case.

However what gun control usually involves is the banning of some types of guns as well as other controls on safe storage.

That occurred in Heller case and as result SCOTUS used a ban on handguns proposed in DC law along with legislation for safe storage and trigger lock mechanisms in the home to find a constitutional right to possess handguns for individual unrelated to service in the militia.


In Canada handguns are restricted weapons (and many are prohibited). All firearms in a home must be secured either in a locked cabinet and /or a trigger lock mechanism and ammunition must be stored separately.

In the US that sort of gun control was rejected in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) by SCOTUS. Under the challenged law handgun possession was banned by District of Columbia. The law prohibited the registration of handguns and made it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms were required to be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

This was found to be unconstitutional and the Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defence) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.

http://www.lawnix.co.../dc-heller.html

The Heller holding which was based on a federal law was extended to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010). That case held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#70 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:24 AM

However what gun control usually involves is the banning of some types of guns as well as other controls on safe storage.

That occurred in Heller case and as result SCOTUS used a ban on handguns proposed in DC law along with legislation for safe storage and trigger lock mechanisms in the home to find a constitutional right to possess handguns for individual unrelated to service in the militia.


In Canada handguns are restricted weapons (and many are prohibited). All firearms in a home must be secured either in a locked cabinet and /or a trigger lock mechanism and ammunition must be stored separately.

In the US that sort of gun control was rejected in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) by SCOTUS. Under the challenged law handgun possession was banned by District of Columbia. The law prohibited the registration of handguns and made it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms were required to be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

This was found to be unconstitutional and the Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defence) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.

http://www.lawnix.co.../dc-heller.html

The Heller holding which was based on a federal law was extended to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010). That case held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Not just the states but local jurisdictions like the city and county of San Francisco, or city of Chicago, or city/jurisdiction of Washington DC which pass their own ordinances with similar restrictions/bans.

It's not as if talking about gun bans are hyperbole when they are, in fact, passed in some form (direct democracy or legislation).

Requiring more stringent rules on firearm permits and such, while sensible, is not a form of gun control.

The most mind boggling thing is that when these incidents happen the first thing suggested is to make it more difficult for people, who would use a gun legally, of all things, to attain and protect themselves with one. Punishing the wrong people here.
  • 0

#71 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:30 AM

And allowing a teacher to carry a gun in school is a good idea?? Are you serious? Yeah, make it easier for the student to steal the teacher's gun and shoot em up. Instead of this stupid crazy idea of allowing others to carry guns to school for "protection", they should put metal detectors at the entrance of all schools and not allow any guns in the premise unless its a security guard or a police. I don't see anyone playing hero when a guy comes into a school with an AK-47 without fear of being killed.

1. Metal detectors are extremely expensive, and invasive since they require searches.

2. There's nothing proven about metal detectors deterring a killer from going to the school to shoot people, or toss molotov's/fire bombs, or

3. There's no protection from the security guard or officer should they have a monopoly of firearms. Wonderfully short sighted.

I hope you're not American otherwise you slept through civics when the importance of the second amendment came up. Wouldn't be a surprise.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 December 2012 - 10:32 AM.

  • 0

#72 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:31 AM

as opposed to what just happened, and happens on a disturbingly consistent basis in the US?


Think of what it would be like if the trump card of domestic accountability were gone?
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#73 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,926 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:43 AM

1. Metal detectors are extremely expensive, and invasive since they require searches.

2. There's nothing proven about metal detectors deterring a killer from going to the school to shoot people, or toss molotov's/fire bombs, or

3. There's no protection from the security guard or officer should they have a monopoly of firearms. Wonderfully short sighted.

I hope you're not American otherwise you slept through civics when the importance of the second amendment came up. Wouldn't be a surprise.


why is the second amendment so important? remind me again, because I just don't see it..........seems to me like it's an excuse for a terminally insecure nation to have some false security

Edited by stawns, 16 December 2012 - 10:44 AM.

  • 1

#74 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

I always said that if soldiers and police officers can make mistakes what do you think will happen when a bunch of civilians without combat training starts going bang bnag.


Most police officers outside of SWAT and soldiers outside of combat infantry units are not well trained with firearms, to the point where it'd be hard for a civilian to not be at least as competent with even a minimal amount of proper instruction and practice.

It's like the case with hand-to-training, all else being equal, a civilian who trains even occasionally in martial arts almost can't help but be better at what he does than most cops or soldiers who typically receive not much in the way of initial and follow-up hand-to-hand training.


  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#75 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:03 AM

Not just the states but local jurisdictions like the city and county of San Francisco, or city of Chicago, or city/jurisdiction of Washington DC which pass their own ordinances with similar restrictions/bans.

It's not as if talking about gun bans are hyperbole when they are, in fact, passed in some form (direct democracy or legislation).

Requiring more stringent rules on firearm permits and such, while sensible, is not a form of gun control.

The most mind boggling thing is that when these incidents happen the first thing suggested is to make it more difficult for people, who would use a gun legally, of all things, to attain and protect themselves with one. Punishing the wrong people here.


Protect themselves from what? I don't get it? They can't protect themselves without guns?
  • 0

Posted Image


#76 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:04 AM

why is the second amendment so important? remind me again, because I just don't see it..........seems to me like it's an excuse for a terminally insecure nation to have some false security

Since you can make psychological diagnoses of an entire nation based clearly on your own biases I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out on your own.

Protect themselves from what? I don't get it? They can't protect themselves without guns?

From other people and from government.

And what exactly would you suggest using to protect yourself against people with guns or other objects that can kill a person? Fists? Tell us Mr. Norris. A gun is a very easy way to protect self and family against a person or persons.

Or is it your belief that banning guns or any form of gun control stops people from committing or attempting murder? :lol:

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 December 2012 - 11:08 AM.

  • 0

#77 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,926 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:07 AM

Since you can make psychological diagnoses of an entire nation based clearly on your own biases I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out on your own.


spoken like someone unable to formulate a convincing argument.
  • 1

#78 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:10 AM

1. Metal detectors are extremely expensive, and invasive since they require searches.

2. There's nothing proven about metal detectors deterring a killer from going to the school to shoot people, or toss molotov's/fire bombs, or


3. There's no protection from the security guard or officer should they have a monopoly of firearms. Wonderfully short sighted.

I hope you're not American otherwise you slept through civics when the importance of the second amendment came up. Wouldn't be a surprise.


Instead of rejecting ideas, maybe you should come up with some solutions. Detectors might be expensive but is it more expensive than the huge chunks of money they waste annually on military? Of course, any solutions will be expensive. Might as well just do nothing and let these things happen. If they aren't going to put laws for gun control, they should at least do something to prevent school shootings. Rather than sitting on their asses and saying this is hard or that is expensive.
  • 0

Posted Image


#79 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:10 AM

spoken like someone unable to formulate a convincing argument.

Why would I waste time trying to convince someone who has already come to a conclusion? Sounds like stupidity to me.
  • 0

#80 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:11 AM

Well...in my view the Second Amendment is very important...as a matter of fact I see the Second Amendment as the one holding the other ones in place..because I see it like this...if the government is successful in taking away that right...and in the process eliminating the citizenry's means to defend themselves, what will be able to stop them from deciding to take away other rights? Like free speech, or expression, or religion (for those that practice it) or the freedom of assembly? With the populace disarmed, they would have no way to fight off an oppressive government...
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#81 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:12 AM

Not just the states but local jurisdictions like the city and county of San Francisco, or city of Chicago, or city/jurisdiction of Washington DC which pass their own ordinances with similar restrictions/bans.

It's not as if talking about gun bans are hyperbole when they are, in fact, passed in some form (direct democracy or legislation).

Requiring more stringent rules on firearm permits and such, while sensible, is not a form of gun control.

The most mind boggling thing is that when these incidents happen the first thing suggested is to make it more difficult for people, who would use a gun legally, of all things, to attain and protect themselves with one. Punishing the wrong people here.



The US Supreme Court disagrees with you on your assertion that "Requiring more stringent rules on firearm permits and such, while sensible, is not a form of gun control." . See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Heller involved a federal enclave law (District of Columbia) and the US Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010) involved a City of Chicago ordinance.

Since cities and municipalities derive their powers from the state, McDonald expanded the Heller doctrine to the state level (which in turn encompassed the impugned City of Chicago ordinance). Among the four city regulations found to be unconstitutional were those require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents and the requirement that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee.

Subsequently the City of Chicago passed a regulation requiring firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit which was found unconstitutional in Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011 by the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.ca7.uscou...mp/O31FF3YK.pdf
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#82 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:13 AM

Instead of rejecting ideas, maybe you should come up with some solutions. Detectors might be expensive but is it more expensive than the huge chunks of money they waste annually on military? Of course, any solutions will be expensive. Might as well just do nothing and let these things happen. If they aren't going to put laws for gun control, they should at least do something to prevent school shootings. Rather than sitting on their asses and saying this is hard or that is expensive.

I already have come up with solutions. I've posted them what, 10 times now? Make training more extensive for permits and require more frequent registration. That's all you can do for the law abiding citizens.

There's more that needs to be figured out in the mental health aspect of what compels a person to commit murder. I hardly see that being discussed, instead, blaming guns as usual.

Well...in my view the Second Amendment is very important...as a matter of fact I see the Second Amendment as the one holding the other ones in place..because I see it like this...if the government is successful in taking away that right...and in the process eliminating the citizenry's means to defend themselves, what will be able to stop them from deciding to take away other rights? Like free speech, or expression, or religion (for those that practice it) or the freedom of assembly? With the populace disarmed, they would have no way to fight off an oppressive government...

Oh look, someone who understands. I must be imagining this.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 December 2012 - 11:14 AM.

  • 0

#83 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,926 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:14 AM

Well...in my view the Second Amendment is very important...as a matter of fact I see the Second Amendment as the one holding the other ones in place..because I see it like this...if the government is successful in taking away that right...and in the process eliminating the citizenry's means to defend themselves, what will be able to stop them from deciding to take away other rights? Like free speech, or expression, or religion (for those that practice it) or the freedom of assembly? With the populace disarmed, they would have no way to fight off an oppressive government...


I understand why Americans feel the way they do about the second amendment, but that doesn't mean it makes sense, especially in the face of the experience of every other first world country.........What is it that Americans are so afraid of? You have 10 000+ gun deaths every year.......every year, we had, what, 83?

Edited by stawns, 16 December 2012 - 11:16 AM.

  • 1

#84 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:15 AM

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you on your assertion that "Requiring more stringent rules on firearm permits and such, while sensible, is not a form of gun control." . See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Heller involved a federal enclave law (District of Columbia) and the US Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010) involved a City of Chicago ordinance.

Since cities and municipalities derive their powers from the state, McDonald expanded the Heller doctrine to the state level (which in turn encompassed the impugned City of Chicago ordinance). Among the four city regulations found to be unconstitutional were those require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents and the requirement that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee.

Subsequently the City of Chicago passed a regulation requiring firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit which was found unconstitutional in Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011 by the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.ca7.uscou...mp/O31FF3YK.pdf

That was my personal view, they are free to disagree with it all they like.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 December 2012 - 11:15 AM.

  • 0

#85 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

Since you can make psychological diagnoses of an entire nation based clearly on your own biases I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out on your own.


From other people and from government.

And what exactly would you suggest using to protect yourself against people with guns or other objects that can kill a person? Fists? Tell us Mr. Norris. A gun is a very easy way to protect self and family against a person or persons.

Or is it your belief that banning guns or any form of gun control stops people from committing or attempting murder? :lol:


So are all Americans armed to the teeth? Do all American household contain guns? It seems families in other countries can protect themselves fine without guns but it is only in US that they need guns to protect themselves. And we wonder why these shootings keep happening? To protect themselves...lol!

Canada and other countries seem to be doing fine with strict gun control and having lower gun violence than US. You seem to make fun of all the suggestions and not come up with any solutions. What is your solution? Nothing? If you don't have any solutions than you shouldn't be surprised or heart broken when these shootings occur. In your mind, it is impossible to do anything and every solution is either hard to implement or expensive.
  • 1

Posted Image


#86 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

I understand why Americans feel the way they do about the second amendment, but that doesn't mean it makes sense, especially in the face of the experience of every other first world country.........What is it that Americans are so afraid of?


Dude what most Americans are afraid of...is the government, quite frankly...I'm not, mind you...but there are a lot who are...If you don't have a way to defend yourself, you no longer have the choice of whether or not to obey.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#87 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:18 AM

Why would I waste time trying to convince someone who has already come to a conclusion? Sounds like stupidity to me.


From the mouth of a Master!!
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#88 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

I understand why Americans feel the way they do about the second amendment, but that doesn't mean it makes sense, especially in the face of the experience of every other first world country.........What is it that Americans are so afraid of? You have 10 000+ gun deaths every year.......every year, we had, what, 83?


Americans are always afraid, that is why they need guns to protect themselves. Even years after the 9/11 attacks, there are still some Americans that don't want to ride on planes. I blame their media for putting fear into their citizens. They always live in fear and that is why they need their precious guns. Thank god I live in Canada.
  • 0

Posted Image


#89 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,926 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

Dude what most Americans are afraid of...is the government, quite frankly...I'm not, mind you...but there are a lot who are...If you don't have a way to defend yourself, you no longer have the choice of whether or not to obey.


that is so far beyond ridiculous it's sad. This guy didn't shoot up a government office, he shot up a room full of children. The guy in Colorado didn't shoot up a the governors office, he shot up a movie theatre. Americans are not afraid of their government, they're afraid of each other.
  • 3

#90 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,482 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:23 AM

Why would I waste time trying to convince someone who has already come to a conclusion? Sounds like stupidity to me.

It's called a discussion. If you weren't wanting to have one doesn't it seem stupid to even be here?
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.