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

#181 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,349 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:37 PM

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?


I think you need to look up the definition of the word selfish.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#182 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:37 PM

I find it hard to agree with any gun enthusiasts arguments, because they all seem to come from a place of selfishness.

They care more about their own ability to own guns than they do about the safety of the general public. That has seemed pretty apparent from listening to most of them.


  • 0
Posted Image

#183 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

If you cared about the well being of the general public, you'd toss out all that progressive ideology that's made society increasingly disfunctional since the '60s.
  • 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

#184 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,914 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:49 PM

So half of the country is against tax increases and for mass social spending cuts, but wants to fund at least 1 armed guard for every public school in the country?

Posted Image
  • 0

#185 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:39 PM

So the NRA position comes down to mental health, media, entertainment, Potty training, your childhood, your neighbours, your dog, your friends, not easy access to guns that is cause for the mass killings.

Perhaps someone should refer the NRA to Occam's Razor... but first tell them it is not a weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
  • 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.

#186 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:55 AM

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?


Killing people is now a tradition and lifestyle in America? Hmmm...interesting.

Fact of the matter is that having a gun should not be a right but a privilege just like driving. You shouldn't be able to own a gun without having gone through a training program, psychiatric evaluation and tests to determine if you are fit to own a gun. Its a freaking joke that they sell guns in Walmart like its a pack of gum.
  • 0

Posted Image


#187 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 04:42 AM

Best comment I've read.

Exactly. Give us one good reason that you need to own a gun. If it is for sustenance and you eat what you kill or for protection against bears, etc. while you're in the wild, ok. But, if your gun should ever be used for anything other than that - gone. Zero tolerance, even if it's a matter of the gun falling into someone else's hands...that's part of your responsibility in owning that gun.

Reading posts like this I'm pleased there has been emphasis on freedoms in the court.

Because according to this forum, despite not owning a gun, I'm a selfish criminal apologist gun-nut teabagger.. merely recognizing what common sense dictates, the inanity of blaming an object for it's ill uses and then making the heinous error of applying that to the many gun owners who don't break the law with them to effectively strip them of their rights of defence with a gun.

There are good and bad things about every country but one thing I'm glad still somewhat remains in the US is freedom with personal responsibility rather than handing over long standing rights to government due to a whim like subjectively not finding them necessary. Removal of such long standing rights would logically cause such necessary use of these weapons against a tyrannical government as was the case early in American history, one which Suzanna Hupp bravely reminded Congress (looked like one of the specific people she was talking to was a smirking Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM

Excellent excerpt:

I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these, pieces of machinery, having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose, people, that is not the point of the second amendment!

The second amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about our right, all of our right to be able to protect our selves from all of you guys up there.


I feel just as safe with a bunch of mostly good people owning guns as I do being around people in Ontario who own guns but given restrictions upon them would have no effective or practical use for self defence.

And colour me even more selfish and mind-controlled by an inanimate object, but I don't ignore another country's sovereignty and pretend eliminating a right at the drop of a hat following each despicable criminal act is either practical nor best for them. Plenty of Americans feel the same way, that banning guns is just dandy, but the great thing about what few freedoms exist anymore is those who are opposed to guns, or the second amendment, can just voluntarily choose not to arm themselves, and pray to their deity if a situation comes up where using one would save their life against a criminal who doesn't follow laws, especially gun control or gun bans, that perhaps the cops come fast enough, or they turn into Batman and save the day.

Edited by zaibatsu, 24 December 2012 - 04:47 AM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#188 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,445 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:16 AM

So if guns aren't the problem, according to the gun nuts they aren't even a PART of the problem, then what is? Are Americans by nature more homicidal than people in other countries? Does the USA have a monopoly on mental illness? Or is it simply the FACT that in the USA, the homicidal and mentally ill can easily get their hands on a gun when they snap, and not just any gun, ones that are specifically designed for killing people in large numbers. It isn't just the mass rampages, consider how many times a simple argument ends in someone being shot because a gun is within easy reach, how many kids die accidentally because there are no storage laws and people leave a loaded gun on the coffee table or in the closet and junior decides to show it to his friend. Gun control is not about "taking guns away", that is NRA paranoia, it is more a bout safe storage laws, closing sales loopholes criminals exploit, reducing carnage by taking ridiculous military style weapons off the street, and basically reducing the "gun culture" that is the root of the problem.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the British are not coming, the Apaches are not on the warpath, very few people need to kill a deer for dinner. The 2nd amendment is not under attack by gun control laws, the NRA simply uses that argument to fuel paranoia and increase there own funding from the gun makers who benefit from this paranoid wild west attitude.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#189 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:40 AM

So if guns aren't the problem, according to the gun nuts they aren't even a PART of the problem, then what is? Are Americans by nature more homicidal than people in other countries? Does the USA have a monopoly on mental illness? Or is it simply the FACT that in the USA, the homicidal and mentally ill can easily get their hands on a gun when they snap, and not just any gun, ones that are specifically designed for killing people in large numbers. It isn't just the mass rampages, consider how many times a simple argument ends in someone being shot because a gun is within easy reach, how many kids die accidentally because there are no storage laws and people leave a loaded gun on the coffee table or in the closet and junior decides to show it to his friend. Gun control is not about "taking guns away", that is NRA paranoia, it is more a bout safe storage laws, closing sales loopholes criminals exploit, reducing carnage by taking ridiculous military style weapons off the street, and basically reducing the "gun culture" that is the root of the problem.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the British are not coming, the Apaches are not on the warpath, very few people need to kill a deer for dinner. The 2nd amendment is not under attack by gun control laws, the NRA simply uses that argument to fuel paranoia and increase there own funding from the gun makers who benefit from this paranoid wild west attitude.

Government cannot legislate "culture", and in the US, that type of use of government to be social nannies is not acceptable like it might be in countries like England or Australia.

People who own guns aren't sitting by their door or window paranoid of everyone and taking aim at them ready for wild west shootout as you so terribly caricature.

The US and their courts logically views gun control as an enabler for criminals who for one reason or another like to commit crimes, whether it be robbery, rape, murder, and so on, and with whatever weapon they can get their hands on.

Rather than address the motivations behind crime some are wishing to go on a tirade against non-sentient objects. Quite a waste of time, but certainly not an unexpected waste.

Edited by zaibatsu, 24 December 2012 - 05:40 AM.

  • 2

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#190 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,445 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:24 AM

I guess we now have to arm the Fire Dept as well, maybe provide them with armoured vehicles?

http://news.ca.msn.c...ar-rochester-ny
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#191 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,445 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:28 AM

Government cannot legislate "culture", and in the US, that type of use of government to be social nannies is not acceptable like it might be in countries like England or Australia.

People who own guns aren't sitting by their door or window paranoid of everyone and taking aim at them ready for wild west shootout as you so terribly caricature.

The US and their courts logically views gun control as an enabler for criminals who for one reason or another like to commit crimes, whether it be robbery, rape, murder, and so on, and with whatever weapon they can get their hands on.

Rather than address the motivations behind crime some are wishing to go on a tirade against non-sentient objects. Quite a waste of time, but certainly not an unexpected waste.

I see so it is better to make it EASIER for criminals to get their hands on weapons by putting more of them out there, or are US criminals just a lot more ambitious than other countries?

BTW you might want to try answering some of the questions and addressing the points brought up rather than trying to insult or belittle me, your NRA prepared reply's are just making you look quite silly.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 24 December 2012 - 09:36 AM.

  • 2
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#192 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 06

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:37 AM

I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these, pieces of machinery, having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose, people, that is not the point of the second amendment!

The second amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about our right, all of our right to be able to protect our selves from all of you guys up there.


No one wants to talk about this. Good post but too bad these forums have a habit of just not addressing the posts that add something to the discussion.
  • 0

#193 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:54 AM

I see so it is better to make it EASIER for criminals to get their hands on weapons by putting more of them out there, or are US criminals just a lot more ambitious than other countries?

BTW you might want to try answering some of the questions and addressing the points brought up rather than trying to insult or belittle me, your NRA prepared reply's are just making you look quite silly.

The government isn't putting more guns out there into citizens' hands. People wilfully buy them, whether it be from a store or from the black market, the latter of which is extremely prominent in border states (bordering Mexico). Logical concessions can be made to require more training and backgrounds to purchase firearms however adding barrier after barrier of legal purchases hasn't, and certainly won't stop murderers from acquiring them and using them.

I've already addressed the "other countries" nonsense. The US is a unique country in that more people there see killing others as okay, albeit steadily less over time as murder rates there have been consistently decreasing over the last two decades without such heavy gun restrictions or gun bans necessary. There needs to be more done to get to the root of the problem, which is the mental health behind the motivation to kill other people and what (constitutional) ways one can find signs of someone who might commit such an act.

Of course, this is just logic talking, to which you will readily straw man into "NRA replies".

No one wants to talk about this. Good post but too bad these forums have a habit of just not addressing the posts that add something to the discussion.

It wouldn't convenience anyone here that's why they want to ignore it, they have little idea into the concept that was brought into the US constitution with the second amendment which is why they so trivialise it. This is a logical woman who had the means of defending herself but because she followed the law (at that time, as she got a carry law passed when she later ran for office) she couldn't carry on her person and thus having a gun was moot. But she also knew that part of keeping a government in check is ensuring the populace has a means to defend itself against government.. just the same way colonists formed their own militia to fight against an oppressive king, citizens were given two distinct rights with the second amendment -- to bear arms and to establish a militia (it was promoted throughout the Federalist papers that citizens form their own small militias) against the government.

Edited by zaibatsu, 24 December 2012 - 10:11 AM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#194 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

Best comment I've read.

Exactly. Give us one good reason that you need to own a gun. If it is for sustenance and you eat what you kill or for protection against bears, etc. while you're in the wild, ok. But, if your gun should ever be used for anything other than that - gone. Zero tolerance, even if it's a matter of the gun falling into someone else's hands...that's part of your responsibility in owning that gun.


give me one good reason that anyone needs to own a car. With all the public transportation that is available there is no need for anyone to drive their own car. If you don't like public transportation, then you also have the ability to ride a bike. But if you figure out a real need for a car and it falls into someone else's hands and that car is used in a way other than the absolute need - gone. Zero tolerance, that's part of your responsibility in owning a car.

See how that works? Just because YOU don't feel the need, doesn't mean everyone else should feel the same way. I don't own a gun, nor will I ever. But that doesn't mean I think everyone else shouldn't own a gun if they feel they need it.
  • 2

#195 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:38 PM

Even Israel Is Fact-Checking the NRA Now

ADAM CLARK ESTES

DEC 23, 2012

http://www.theatlant...-nra-now/60292/

On Sunday morning, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, told the world that armed guards stopped school shootings in Israel. Israel begs to differ. "Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing," LaPierre said sitting calmly on Meet the Press. "They said, 'We're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school, and they have not had a problem since then."

Well Mr. Pierre, that would be awesome if it were true. But according to Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it's not. More specifically, the two situations are "fundamentally different," and Israel's actually tightened its gun control laws in recent years. "We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism," Palmor told the New York Daily News. "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years."

Well this is awkward. It's kind of like the first time two days ago that LaPierre told the nation that we needed to put an armed guard in every American school to prevent more school shootings. This, despite the fact that there was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999, but 13 people died from gunshot wounds anyways. Within minutes, journalists pointed out myriad examples of other shootings where armed guards or bystanders failed to stop massacres as well as plenty of data about how ineffective the strategy would be.

LaPierre's creative understanding of the truth isn't necessarily the issue here, though. LaPierre has failed to check his facts on quite a few other issues lately, and that's fine because plenty of good reporters did it for him after the fact. He's not doing anybody any favors by trying to rope other countries into this problem, though. In Palmor's words, "It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion."
  • 0

#196 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

LaPierre wasn't considering the fiscal implications of placing guards/officers, tactical training, a Dunkin Donuts on school grounds, etc.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#197 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

"Selfish" is wanting to take away the rights and property of others, plus hundreds of years worth of tradition and lifestyle, for what?

I disagree. IMO, "selfish" is wanting desperately to hold on to something that no-one really needs, even though it is resulting in the death of innocent children.
  • 4
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!

#198 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:30 PM

Reading posts like this I'm pleased there has been emphasis on freedoms in the court.

Because according to this forum, despite not owning a gun, I'm a selfish criminal apologist gun-nut teabagger.. merely recognizing what common sense dictates, the inanity of blaming an object for it's ill uses and then making the heinous error of applying that to the many gun owners who don't break the law with them to effectively strip them of their rights of defence with a gun.

There are good and bad things about every country but one thing I'm glad still somewhat remains in the US is freedom with personal responsibility rather than handing over long standing rights to government due to a whim like subjectively not finding them necessary. Removal of such long standing rights would logically cause such necessary use of these weapons against a tyrannical government as was the case early in American history, one which Suzanna Hupp bravely reminded Congress (looked like one of the specific people she was talking to was a smirking Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer):


Hey, the people that think they'll need weapons against "government tyranny" can always go the Timmy McVeigh route. Quite effective in killing "tyrannical" government employees and their kids, wouldn't you say?


I feel just as safe with a bunch of mostly good people owning guns as I do being around people in Ontario who own guns but given restrictions upon them would have no effective or practical use for self defence.

And colour me even more selfish and mind-controlled by an inanimate object, but I don't ignore another country's sovereignty and pretend eliminating a right at the drop of a hat following each despicable criminal act is either practical nor best for them. Plenty of Americans feel the same way, that banning guns is just dandy, but the great thing about what few freedoms exist anymore is those who are opposed to guns, or the second amendment, can just voluntarily choose not to arm themselves, and pray to their deity if a situation comes up where using one would save their life against a criminal who doesn't follow laws, especially gun control or gun bans, that perhaps the cops come fast enough, or they turn into Batman and save the day.


Let's take the case of the mother who's son was the killer. What good did it do to have all those guns she had? Did it protect her from her own son when he shot and killed her? Nope, but she sure trained him well enough and gave him access to the guns needed to do a mass killing, didn't she?

You do know that the NRA isn't really there to "protect the 2nd Amendment", right? Their real purpose is to be a Washington lobby group for the gun manufactures to sell more guns, keeping up the paranoia that the black man in the White House is there to take your high-powered murder weapons away.

Edited by woofwoofmoomoo, 24 December 2012 - 03:50 PM.

  • 0

#199 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:34 PM

give me one good reason that anyone needs to own a car. With all the public transportation that is available there is no need for anyone to drive their own car. If you don't like public transportation, then you also have the ability to ride a bike. But if you figure out a real need for a car and it falls into someone else's hands and that car is used in a way other than the absolute need - gone. Zero tolerance, that's part of your responsibility in owning a car.

See how that works? Just because YOU don't feel the need, doesn't mean everyone else should feel the same way. I don't own a gun, nor will I ever. But that doesn't mean I think everyone else shouldn't own a gun if they feel they need it.


Ever been to a rural area without a car? Kinda hard to find buses or subways there. Also, I don't recall any US Amendment for the "right to bear cars".
  • 0

#200 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:46 PM

The government isn't putting more guns out there into citizens' hands. People wilfully buy them, whether it be from a store or from the black market, the latter of which is extremely prominent in border states (bordering Mexico). Logical concessions can be made to require more training and backgrounds to purchase firearms however adding barrier after barrier of legal purchases hasn't, and certainly won't stop murderers from acquiring them and using them.


So you're for an outright ban on selling guns because the "barriers" aren't working? That seems weird from someone trying so hard to make the NRA's argument.

I've already addressed the "other countries" nonsense. The US is a unique country in that more people there see killing others as okay, albeit steadily less over time as murder rates there have been consistently decreasing over the last two decades without such heavy gun restrictions or gun bans necessary. There needs to be more done to get to the root of the problem, which is the mental health behind the motivation to kill other people and what (constitutional) ways one can find signs of someone who might commit such an act.


But you just mentioned the "barriers" to buying guns aren't working, so now you're advocating more scrutiny to ferret out the "motivations" of people who commit such acts?

Of course, this is just logic talking, to which you will readily straw man into "NRA replies".


Your convoluted logic


It wouldn't convenience anyone here that's why they want to ignore it, they have little idea into the concept that was brought into the US constitution with the second amendment which is why they so trivialise it. This is a logical woman who had the means of defending herself but because she followed the law (at that time, as she got a carry law passed when she later ran for office) she couldn't carry on her person and thus having a gun was moot. But she also knew that part of keeping a government in check is ensuring the populace has a means to defend itself against government.. just the same way colonists formed their own militia to fight against an oppressive king, citizens were given two distinct rights with the second amendment -- to bear arms and to establish a militia (it was promoted throughout the Federalist papers that citizens form their own small militias) against the government.


So where's her militia?
  • 0

#201 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,650 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:51 PM

This whole defending yourself from the government rationale is frankly bizarre. There are a lot of things I don't trust about government, but me having a gun isn't going to do sweet fark all about it.
  • 1

#202 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 04:17 PM

If one really wants to get into mass murder, then explosives or poison yield a much better return for the effort .. take out a whole cities water system without too much effort ..

American mass murderer's lack imagination ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#203 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:50 PM

Because according to this forum, despite not owning a gun, I'm a selfish criminal apologist gun-nut teabagger.. merely recognizing what common sense dictates, the inanity of blaming an object for it's ill uses and then making the heinous error of applying that to the many gun owners who don't break the law with them to effectively strip them of their rights of defence with a gun.


You deserve criticism when you perpetuate myths such as "A knife is just as dangerous as gun"

Thats so irresponsible.
  • 0

#204 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:35 PM

Ever been to a rural area without a car? Kinda hard to find buses or subways there. Also, I don't recall any US Amendment for the "right to bear cars".


original post was pointing out how there isn't really a "need" for a gun. They didn't mention anything about the constitution. But we'll play that game.. nope there is no amendment. So let's ban all the cars.. NOW! Again, no need... all they do is waste money, kill people who misuse them (or others near people who misuse them) and make people become more lazy.

yes I have lived in a rural area for 2 years. But we'll go with your argument... ok, so a person needs a car in rural areas to get from town to town. But wait, if you didn't have cars to go from town to town then you'd need a local bus company to take you from town to town... oops, no need for a car again. Or maybe the rail is more invested in and a train runs outside of town to take you to the next town. Think of the jobs that would be created if cars were banned to serve these rural areas! Bus depots to be built, manned and serviced. Train depots to be built, manned and serviced. More rail lines to be laid out across the country from town to town.

you clearly missed my point as well... just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't mean everyone should follow
  • 1

#205 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

original post was pointing out how there isn't really a "need" for a gun. They didn't mention anything about the constitution. But we'll play that game.. nope there is no amendment. So let's ban all the cars.. NOW! Again, no need... all they do is waste money, kill people who misuse them (or others near people who misuse them) and make people become more lazy.

yes I have lived in a rural area for 2 years. But we'll go with your argument... ok, so a person needs a car in rural areas to get from town to town. But wait, if you didn't have cars to go from town to town then you'd need a local bus company to take you from town to town... oops, no need for a car again. Or maybe the rail is more invested in and a train runs outside of town to take you to the next town. Think of the jobs that would be created if cars were banned to serve these rural areas! Bus depots to be built, manned and serviced. Train depots to be built, manned and serviced. More rail lines to be laid out across the country from town to town.

you clearly missed my point as well... just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't mean everyone should follow


And ambulance attendants will use a horse and buggy? .. cops on horseback? .. six-shooters and Sharps 50 caliber rifles? .. streets littered with horse-buns? .. I can smell it all now ..

P.S. .. I dinna think the oil lobby will let you get away with it, but you could try)
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#206 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:19 PM

And ambulance attendants will use a horse and buggy? .. cops on horseback? .. six-shooters and Sharps 50 caliber rifles? .. streets littered with horse-buns? .. I can smell it all now ..

P.S. .. I dinna think the oil lobby will let you get away with it, but you could try)


oh no.. hospitals keep their "cars" as well as police (since cops are also allowed to be armed to many of these people who say civilians shouldn't have a need for a gun.) After all, they NEED their guns... er... cars to protect us all from those vicious law breakers who just drive around on a nice day
  • 0

#207 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 25 December 2012 - 12:38 AM

Even Israel Is Fact-Checking the NRA Now

ADAM CLARK ESTES

DEC 23, 2012

http://www.theatlant...-nra-now/60292/

On Sunday morning, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, told the world that armed guards stopped school shootings in Israel. Israel begs to differ. "Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing," LaPierre said sitting calmly on Meet the Press. "They said, 'We're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school, and they have not had a problem since then."

Well Mr. Pierre, that would be awesome if it were true. But according to Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it's not. More specifically, the two situations are "fundamentally different," and Israel's actually tightened its gun control laws in recent years. "We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism," Palmor told the New York Daily News. "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years."

Well this is awkward. It's kind of like the first time two days ago that LaPierre told the nation that we needed to put an armed guard in every American school to prevent more school shootings. This, despite the fact that there was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999, but 13 people died from gunshot wounds anyways. Within minutes, journalists pointed out myriad examples of other shootings where armed guards or bystanders failed to stop massacres as well as plenty of data about how ineffective the strategy would be.

LaPierre's creative understanding of the truth isn't necessarily the issue here, though. LaPierre has failed to check his facts on quite a few other issues lately, and that's fine because plenty of good reporters did it for him after the fact. He's not doing anybody any favors by trying to rope other countries into this problem, though. In Palmor's words, "It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion."


Wayne LaPierre and the NRA seem they have little knowledge of the gun control situation in Israel - highly regulated and a much lower private gun ownership rate. And if there is a society that should feel threatened, Israel has a real historical basis.

Israel:
The rate of private gun ownership in Israel is 7.3 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Israel ranked at No. 79

Gun Owner Licensing
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Israel are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, self-defence, hunting and sport
Minimum Age for Firearm Possession
The minimum age for gun ownership in Israel is 27 years and 21 years if served in the military
Gun Owner Background Checks
An applicant for a firearm licence in Israel must pass background checks which consider health, mental and criminal records
Gun Owner Licensing Period
In Israel gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every 3 years
Licensing Records
In Israel, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition
A licensed firearm owner in Israel is permitted to possess a limited quantity of ammunition

Firearm Marking
In Israel, a unique identifying mark on each firearm is required by law38 39
Firearm Tracing
In Israel, state authorities carry out recognised arms tracing and tracking procedures

In Israel, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2008: 0.83
2007: 0.11
2006: 0.71
2005: 0.84
2004: 0.98
2003: 0.85
2002: 1.39
2001: 1.6
2000: 1.18
1999: 0.65
1997: 0.26
1996: 0.4
1993: 0.72
http://www.gunpolicy...s/region/israel


United States:
The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2009: 2.98
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.37
2002: 3.25
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.9
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.07
http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-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.

#208 Bossy

Bossy

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 09

Posted 25 December 2012 - 05:19 AM

Why even respond to someone comparing guns to cars? The guy obviously has something wrong in his head to make that comparison.
  • 1

#209 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:26 PM

Why even respond to someone comparing guns to cars? The guy obviously has something wrong in his head to make that comparison.

How about we compare guns to cars...


A man angered by a court ruling in the murder of his daughter rammed a car loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers into a group of middle schoolers, injuring 13 in the country's latest attack on students.


The man ran down 23 students at Fengning No. 1 Middle School in northern China's Hebei province on Monday, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday, citing local police.


Xinhua said the man, identified as 48-year-old Yin Tiejun, later lit a bottle of diesel in an attempt to set his car on fire.


Police put out the fire and found the gas tank and firecrackers in the trunk of the car, but Xinhua said Mr. Yin told police in an interrogation later that the materials were not meant for an attack.


Mr. Yin has been detained on charges of endangering public safety, Xinhua said.


Xinhua described Mr. Yin as having been upset for years that a court did not sentence to death all four assailants involved in the murder of his daughter three years ago. The report did not give further details of the murder but said the children hurt in Monday's car crash were not tied to the case.


Xinhua said the man did not act under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


Students were hospitalized with injuries that included skull fractures and crushed feet, Xinhua said.


The local Fengning county government confirmed the incident in a written statement and said Mr. Yin was driving a Geely sedan.


Citing eyewitnesses, the Beijing-based state-run Jinghua Times said the accident occurred when students were leaving school for noon break and that the car accelerated and knocked down students, many of whom were on bikes.


On Dec. 14, a Chinese man took a kitchen knife and went on a stabbing spree that left 23 students wounded in an elementary school in Henan province.


China has seen more than a half-dozen school attacks in less than three years, though the death tolls have been mostly in single digits, largely because knives have been the most-used weapon. China largely prohibits private ownership of guns.


Several of the attacks have been sparked by grudges, which some experts say shows that the violence stems from simmering and widespread frustration over the growing wealth gap, corruption and too few legal channels for people who have grievances.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-man-rams-car-into-group-of-students-injuring-13/article6705606/
  • 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.

#210 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

So the head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre (and what sort of 'Murican name is that anyway??? Does he like French fries instead of Freedom Fries?) says 'If it's crazy to call for armed security in school...call me crazy'

Yup you are batcrap crazy Monsieur LaPierre.
  • 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.




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.