Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

NRA calls for an armed police officer at every US school


  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#91 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,414 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:45 PM

Clue: Looking to the gun as either a problem or a solution alone isn't the answer as it ignores both the criminal who uses it to commit a crime, and the person who legally owns one without committing any crime, the latter of which are by an insurmountable lot, the majority.


You shouldn't be giving out clues. You have none to spare.
  • 3
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#92 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:45 PM

The NRA is holding America hostage? No shortage of dramatics that's very standard for the media to get viewers/subscribers. The NRA isn't at fault for politicians fellating them. The NRA can't pass legislation.. should re-consider who we scrutinise there.

Lastly, "lockdown" in American terms is a loss of freedoms.. the second amendment is a freedom too, one that obviously this writer believes can be handed over to government. In light of the US government going after the first and fourth amendments following 9/11, it sure makes all the sense in the world following a tragedy to hand over more rights, cuz that would be the opposite of "lockdown". :lol:

Mind boggling.


I don't know why you believe you can't just amend the constitution. It's been done before. And no longer being able to own military grade weapons is 'giving up a right'... that's crazy.
  • 0

#93 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:50 PM

Whay are you quotuing a RUSH song ? lol


That actually kind of looks like the Time Travel Code that Bender used in the Futurama movie "Bender's Big Score"...lol
  • 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.


#94 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

Whay are you quotuing a RUSH song ? lol

They've got a bit of attention of late for their RnRHOF induction.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 03:53 PM.

  • 1

#95 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:54 PM

You shouldn't be giving out clues. You have none to spare.

There's plenty more where that came from. No shortage of spares here. :)
  • 0

#96 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,414 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:57 PM

There's plenty more where that came from. No shortage of spares here. :)


Allow me.

It was Colonel Mustard in the conservatory with, what else? The revolver.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#97 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:58 PM

The NRA effectively lobbies Democrats as well, just not as prominently as Republicans. Either way, the NRA has Congress in it's back pocket, and any significant gun control legislation (with exception to perhaps an assault rifle ban yet again) passed by the Senate Democrats won't make it through conference unless John Boehner and Republican House Reps commit political suicide. There's a good discussion to be made about how effective lobbying is, and how the collusion between private interests and public policy has been eroding safeguards against the type of rule by the few/elite seen here. It's just better for another topic.

As to the point of budget, that's exactly why I said nothing should be done at the moment, because the US is indeed in a fiscal crisis (I don't use the word "fiscal cliff" because it's pejorative politi-speak for raising taxes and lowering spending, you know, good fiscal policy for a change, hence why it's seen as so bad), from the federal level down to the states and their more local governments. As I know first hand, education tends to be amongst the first cuts made to a budget, and as mentioned earlier, whether it be adding guns, training guards/officers, it's an expense upon education that would take away from the classroom and I don't think things are so bad where it necessitates this.

Well, those are kind of all my points.
  • Gun control won't pass so long as Republicans have significant control at some point in the process
  • How effective is lobbying as a result?
  • Why expect the government to fund the salary for at least one person per school in America when the Republicans who support the NRA aren't supporting increased taxes for the rich or decreased military spending among other things (hence the fiscal cliff, which I agree is more marketing than a factual phrase)
I made the point in another thread about how doing something like is akin to stopping obesity and increasing diabetes in the citizens of New York by restricting the size of drinks sold in restaurants, movies, etc. - it's the wrong reaction when other, much more effective options are available that are in a number of cases more cost effective as well.

Edited by elvis15, 21 December 2012 - 03:58 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#98 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,312 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:00 PM

Some people have referred to a wild west shootout if armed guards are allowed in schools. If this the case, why are they not deadly shootouts in US banks every year. Or shootouts at airports. They have armed guards there.

Edited by DonLever, 21 December 2012 - 04:01 PM.

  • 0

#99 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

Some people have referred to a wild west shootout if armed guards are allowed in schools. If this the case, why are they not deadly shootouts in US banks every year. Or shootouts at airports. They have armed guards there.

Well, to think about it logically, bank robbers don't go to banks to shoot people, they go to rob them. If a bank robber does his job right, he makes off with the money without ever having to pull the trigger. If the guard does his, he prevents the robber from getting the money or getting away, hopefully without shots fired as well. Not a shot needs to be fired for either side to be successful at their 'job' in either case.

By contrast, putting armed guards in schools is not meant to prevent people robbing them, but rather prevent people from killing the teachers, students, etc. In any of these events, no person goes into the school to not fire upon people, and the result is often either the shooter killing themselves or being shot by police. A school shooting situation isn't likely to end up with the guard disarmed and no shots fired from then on, but rather the guard would be shot and then the shooter going on as if there wasn't a guard to begin with. The guard would also be much less likely to just put down his/her weapon in hopes of a non-violent end knowing the shooter's plan is to kill people, particularly children.

Continuing that, the amount of people who would have to be hired (likely with low pay compared to and armed bank guard since there's no money for education, let alone guards) probably wouldn't suggest a high quality of person prepared to cover a building with multiple entrances, plenty of spots in which to hide and a huge square footage. The possibility of the quality of shots fired likely decreases, and the possibility of unnecessary shootings increases due to quality of training, type of situations, people that are being protected, etc.

Consider it more of a situation like a convenience store robbery. A number of stores have weapons behind the counter, and even if they don't shootings still happen as the robbery becomes confused and the robber or worker becomes stressed.

Edited by elvis15, 21 December 2012 - 04:25 PM.

  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#100 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

I'm not an American Constitution buff, but isn't the whole right to bear arms in reference to maintaining a militia to fight off the British?

No, not as the US Constitution has developed over the years.

That was clarified by SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008) in which the militia clause was held to be prefatory and not connected to the individual right to bear arms.

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.


  • 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.

#101 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:29 PM

@CNNPolitics
LaPierre, NRA: "I call on Congress today to act immediately... to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation."

Wouldn't this be a giant step towards the "Police State" the NRA is so paranoid about to begin with?

Armed guards at schools, hospitals, shopping malls, every street corner, doesn't exactly scream "Land of the free" does it.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 21 December 2012 - 04:31 PM.

  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#102 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

Wouldn't this be a giant step towards the "Police State" the NRA is so paranoid about to begin with?

Armed guards at schools, hospitals, shopping malls, every street corner, doesn't exactly scream "Land of the free" does it.

The notion of a police state is that which uses law enforcement to takes away rights, especially social ones.

What rights are taken away by adding a guard to schools? I'm pretty sure students can still freely protest and express their rights even with a guard there. I see no imposition upon rights.. fairly sure the guard would be more interested in dangerous things going on.

Although, should guards be added "everywhere" as the caricature widely used in this thread would imply, the US would be "land of the bankrupt" as that's not something it can afford anyways.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 04:35 PM.

  • 0

#103 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:37 PM

The notion of a police state is that which uses law enforcement to takes away rights, especially social ones.

What rights are taken away by adding a guard to schools? I'm pretty sure students can still freely protest and express their rights even with a guard there. I see no imposition upon rights.. fairly sure the guard would be more interested in dangerous things going on.

Although, should guards be added "everywhere" as the caricature widely used in this thread would imply, the US would be "land of the bankrupt" as that's not something it can afford anyways.


So then who decides what gets protected with guns?
  • 0

#104 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:43 PM

The NRA wouldn't because they consist of law abiding citizens, and surely they logically shouldn't be punished for criminal actions nor short sighted liberal wet dreams that they can tax something out of existence.


The NRA are a bunch of freaks whose agenda it is to make more guns available because they are funded by gun manufacturers. In this case their motives are shamefully transparent.

Thats why you have this CEO blaming a ten year old video game no ones ever heard of or played before, and everything else under the sun, but never the gun itself. It would be bad for business.

On the other hand, having armed guards at school is good for business. The NRA benefits from this kind of thing.
  • 0

#105 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:51 PM

So then who decides what gets protected with guns?

I'm baffled by the context you ask this question with, but I'll answer it in two ways:

1) The Constitution (i.e. law) and other applicable more local laws decides.

2) The guard is there for people's safety, as in protecting their rights. Him wielding a gun at a school is clearly to protect lives.

The NRA are a bunch of freaks whose agenda it is to make more guns available because they are funded by gun manufacturers. In this case their motives are shamefully transparent.

Thats why you have this CEO blaming a ten year old video game no ones ever heard of or played before, and everything else under the sun, but never the gun itself. It would be bad for business.

On the other hand, having armed guards at school is good for business. The NRA benefits from this kind of thing.

An armed guard wouldn't work for the NRA, and chances are this guard would go through a lot more scrutiny in training and backgrounds than the NRA would want. I don't see how armed guards at a school are a victory for the NRA. Given their citation on their Twitter of Israeli teachers equipping guns, it seems they would (like me) prefer teachers be armed. The guard thing obviously was a compromise for them ( :lol:) because the concept of additional law enforcement over personal accountability is more against their line of thinking.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 04:55 PM.

  • 0

#106 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

I'm baffled by the context you ask this question with, but I'll answer it in two ways:

1) The Constitution (i.e. law) and other applicable more local laws decides.

2) The guard is there for people's safety, as in protecting their rights. Him wielding a gun at a school is clearly to protect lives.


An armed guard wouldn't work for the NRA, and chances are this guard would go through a lot more scrutiny in training and backgrounds than the NRA would want. I don't see how armed guards at a school are a victory for the NRA. Given their citation on their Twitter of Israeli teachers equipping guns, it seems they would (like me) prefer teachers be armed. The guard thing obviously was a compromise for them ( :lol:) because the concept of additional law enforcement over personal accountability is more against their line of thinking.


Law decides? What does that mean?

You say there isn't enough money to guard everything, everywhere. So how do we choose who gets guarded? And doesn't that leave the unguarded free to rape and pillage?
  • 0

#107 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:57 PM

Here's a crazy idea....what about instead of putting an armed officer at the schools...they simply install metal detectors...don't you think that may deter quite a bit of this school-related violence?
  • 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.


#108 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:58 PM

Law decides? What does that mean?

You say there isn't enough money to guard everything, everywhere. So how do we choose who gets guarded? And doesn't that leave the unguarded free to rape and pillage?

Oh. I clearly misunderstood the question entirely, then.

frack if I know what gets guarded. Schools are a pretty important place though.

I just realise that no jurisdiction in the US, whether it be federal, state, county, city, etc. can afford it.

Here's a crazy idea....what about instead of putting an armed officer at the schools...they simply install metal detectors...don't you think that may deter quite a bit of this school-related violence?

That's been tried too.. it's better at deterring kid thugs with knives than a gun wielding maniac.

It also comes with two costs:

- It costs money to put them in every school. Add onto that, you need someone to monitor them when a student sets it off.

- It's an invasion of privacy, moreover, in contrast to the fourth amendment surrounding searches.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 05:00 PM.

  • 0

#109 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:00 PM

Oh. I clearly misunderstood the question entirely, then.

frack if I know what gets guarded. Schools are a pretty important place though.

I just realise that no jurisdiction in the US, whether it be federal, state, county, city, etc. can afford it.


That's been tried too.. it's better at deterring kid thugs with knives than a gun wielding maniac.

It also comes with two costs:

- It costs money to put them in every school.

- It's an invasion of privacy, moreover, the fourth amendment.


Z I just have to ask though man and wonder how much more money it would cost installing the detectors than paying a live officer to stand guard at the school...
  • 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.


#110 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:07 PM

Z I just have to ask though man and wonder how much more money it would cost installing the detectors than paying a live officer to stand guard at the school...

It would certainly take less money to train and fund a few faculty to use a metal detector than an armed guard/officer, train them on how to do proper searches, and the immediate cost of hardware and repairs to the detector would be offset versus the guard after a period of time, but the real concern for me is the searches due to privacy invasion and the lack of knowledge faculty have of reasonable suspicion.

Addressing protective measures is a tough one mainly due to the cost but also because some actually carry a cost against people's freedoms. In the US, individual freedoms are seen as inalienable -- unless a terrorists attacks. :lol:

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 05:08 PM.

  • 0

#111 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:14 PM

I'm actually starting to question just a bit whether the right to keep and bear arms isn't so much an individual right as the right of the nation, as it is written in the Constitution...because it reads "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'm starting to agree with those who assert rightfully in my opinion that what this amendment was added for to begin with...namely to keep England out of our business, at least at that time...no longer applies and so it really needs to be re-examined...
  • 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.


#112 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

It would certainly take less money to train and fund a few faculty to use a metal detector than an armed guard/officer, train them on how to do proper searches, and the immediate cost of hardware and repairs to the detector would be offset versus the guard after a period of time, but the real concern for me is the searches due to privacy invasion and the lack of knowledge faculty have of reasonable suspicion.

Addressing protective measures is a tough one mainly due to the cost but also because some actually carry a cost against people's freedoms. In the US, individual freedoms are seen as inalienable -- unless a terrorists attacks. :lol:


You can't just look at the financial pros and cons. Metal detectors might cost more, but you won't have any accidental shootings. What's that worth? Or just because someone is trained to use a firearm, doesn't mean they can't screw that up. We've all seen that video of that CIA/FBI/whatever he was guy shooting himself during a training video.
  • 0

#113 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:17 PM

I'm actually starting to question just a bit whether the right to keep and bear arms isn't so much an individual right as the right of the nation, as it is written in the Constitution...because it reads "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'm starting to agree with those who assert rightfully in my opinion that what this amendment was added for to begin with...namely to keep England out of our business, at least at that time...no longer applies and so it really needs to be re-examined...


I say who cares. Amend the constitution. It's been done before.
  • 0

#114 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:17 PM

The notion of a police state is that which uses law enforcement to takes away rights, especially social ones.

What rights are taken away by adding a guard to schools? I'm pretty sure students can still freely protest and express their rights even with a guard there. I see no imposition upon rights.. fairly sure the guard would be more interested in dangerous things going on.

Although, should guards be added "everywhere" as the caricature widely used in this thread would imply, the US would be "land of the bankrupt" as that's not something it can afford anyways.



Like at Kent State University?

http://en.wikipedia....State_shootings
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#115 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:22 PM

I say who cares. Amend the constitution. It's been done before.


This is true...the Constitution has been amended before...But I do not ever recall a case of any amendment being removed...except the original 13th Amendment that is.
  • 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.


#116 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:24 PM

Like at Kent State University?

http://en.wikipedia....State_shootings

The incidence of police killing someone illegally also happens.

In this case, it was a military officer.

Looks like you might have personally justified no police either.

This is true...the Constitution has been amended before...But I do not ever recall a case of any amendment being removed...except the original 13th Amendment that is.

Undoing prohibition..

The amount of states that might actually vote yay to toss the second amendment.. less than 10 very likely. Of the 50 states, they need what, 38'ish states to amend the constitution.. along with a supermajority of both Congressional chambers.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 05:27 PM.

  • 0

#117 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:29 PM

The incidence of police killing someone illegally also happens.

In this case, it was a military officer.

Looks like you might have personally justified no police either.


Undoing prohibition..

The amount of states that might actually vote yay to toss the second amendment.. less than 10 very likely. Of the 50 states, they need what, 38'ish states to amend the constitution..

Yeah, not gonna happen.

Posted Image

Edited by Norman Clegg, 21 December 2012 - 05:32 PM.

  • 1
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#118 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:30 PM

The incidence of police killing someone illegally also happens.

In this case, it was a military officer.

Looks like you might have personally justified no police either.


Undoing prohibition..

The amount of states that might actually vote yay to toss the second amendment.. less than 10 very likely. Of the 50 states, they need what, 38'ish states to amend the constitution.. along with a supermajority of both Congressional chambers.

Yeah, not gonna happen.


LMAO how could I forget Prohibition...lol screw it....
  • 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.


#119 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

[attachment=8728:383827_422181174484495_653572566_n.jpg]

I dunno about you but I'm having a discussion. I'll let Charlie Sheen do all the "winning".

LMAO how could I forget Prohibition...lol screw it....

Heh, put simply, it's unorthodox for an amendment to take away a right.. and while I can't see the high courts ever striking down the second amendment (if that's even possible), if Obama can replace Kennedy, Scalia, or Thomas (Roberts and Alito aren't going anywhere any time soon), any one of those three, I see it likely that major gun restrictions including specific weapon type bans will be allowed undoing the Heller case.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 05:35 PM.

  • 0

#120 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

Gun violence in the US has nothing to do with gun control laws. To this day Americans haven't been able to get to the root of their problem because of geniuses thinking the gun is the problem and not the mentality behind people who commit these crimes. Gun control has been tried in the states and failed miserably. An assault weapon ban was in place and wasn't renewed as it was shown not to have affected gun death+murder rates whatsoever.


You've laid out your normal rhetoric here, zaibatsu, but please explain the above.

You say it isn't the guns and gun culture that is responsible for Yanks killing Yanks yet you have failed to explain what is.

I think after reading your denial of everybody else's opinion I think it's only fair you actually tell us WTF is wrong with America.

GO.

Edited by theminister, 21 December 2012 - 05:39 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS





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.