Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

US gun owners show off their Christmas 'toys'


  • Please log in to reply
361 replies to this topic

#241 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:53 PM

So you can just go out and buy an assault rifle for someone else??

GBA
  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#242 JC2

JC2

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 463 posts
  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

The problem with guns is they are too available to the general public which means idiots can easily get there hands on weapons they are not qualified to handle. If it were up to me in order to purchase a firearm of any kind there would be a mandatory psychological test to make sure the person isn't a nut case, a full criminal history and mental illness backround check, mandatory training of proper gun handling and maintaining, a full physical test to make sure the person can handle the weapons force and a detailed letter stamped and approved as to why the person feels they need the weapon in the first place. If the person passes all this then they can carry a weapon. It might seem harsh and while not fool proof it would eliminate most of the people who simply want a gun as a toy rather than a means for protection.

Edited by JC2, 08 January 2013 - 05:24 PM.

  • 1

JC2

#243 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:32 AM

The smiley didn't make it obvious enough? :lol:

In your particular case... nope.
  • 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.

#244 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 05 January 2013 - 08:53 AM

In your particular case... nope.

Oh well, looks like that's your problem then.
  • 0

#245 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

Oh well, looks like that's your problem then.

What problem?
  • 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.

#246 Harbinger

Harbinger

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 05

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:08 PM

I can't wait till chef boyardee comes out with an assault rifle pasta.
  • 0

Posted Image


#247 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting

By CHRIS CAROLA and MICHAEL HILL

|

Associated Press

2 hrs 23 mins ag

o





SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. (AP) — Several gun shows, all about an hour's drive from Newtown, Conn., have been canceled.

A show in White Plains, N.Y. — brought back a few years ago after being called off for a decade because of the Columbine shooting — is off because officials decided it didn't seem appropriate now, either. In Danbury, Conn. — about 10 miles west of Newtown — the venue backed out. Same with three other shows in New York's Hudson Valley, according to the organizer.

Gun advocates aren't backing down from their insistence on the right to keep and bear arms. But heightened sensitivities and raw nerves since the Newtown shooting have led to toned-down displays at gun shows and prompted some officials and sponsors to cancel the well-attended exhibitions altogether.

Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show inSaratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.

"The majority of people wanted these guns out of the city," said Chris Mathiesen, Saratoga Springs' public safety commissioner. "They don't want them sold in our city, and I agree. Newtown, Conn., is not that far away."

The mayor of Barre, Vt., wants a ban on military-style assault weapons being sold at an annual gun show in February. Mayor Thom Lauzon says he supports responsible gun ownership but is making the request "as a father." The police chief in Waterbury, Conn., just a few miles from Newtown, has halted permits for gun shows, saying he was concerned about firearms changing hands that might one day be used in a mass shooting.

In White Plains, in New York's suburban Westchester County, Executive Rob Astorino had brought back the show in 2010 after a ban of more than a decade following the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, but he said the show would be inappropriate now. The shows in the Hudson Valley and Danbury were listed as canceled on the website for Big Al's Gun Shows. A man who answered the site's contact number said it was the venues that canceled the shows, not the promoter.

In Houston, transportation officials temporarily stopped using electronic freeway signs to give directions to gun shows amid complaints following such a show the day after the Dec. 14 school shooting. State-level transportation officials overruled the decision. The signs are routinely used to direct traffic or tell visitors where to exit freeways for rodeos, sporting events and gun shows.

On Wednesday, the City Council in Saratoga Springs urged organizers of a downtown gun show Jan. 12-13 not to display military-style weapons and the high-capacity magazines "of the type used in the Newtown tragedy." About a dozen people gave impassioned pleas at the meeting.

Show organizer David Petronis of New Eastcoast Arms Collectors Associates agreed to the limit.

"I don't think it's fair that we're taking the brunt of the problem," Petronis said, "but I can understand the reaction of people in doing so."

Petronis said his group is a "nice, clean family-oriented ... arms fair" that brings in thousands of visitors and a lot of money for the city. He stressed that buyers at his show undergo background checks, as per New York state law.

The gunman in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December used an AR-15 to kill 20 first-graders and six educators in the school. The gun belonged to the shooter's mother, but it's not clear where it was bought. The shooting has led to calls for stricter regulation of assault weapons, though the National Rifle Association has steadfastly opposed such measures.

Gun dealers around the country are reporting a spike in sales of semiautomatic rifles amid renewed talk of a federal ban on assault weapons. The possibility of tighter gun control has also pumped up attendance at gun shows in several states.

Marv Kraus, who helped organize a weekend gun show in Evansville, Wis., said business has been especially strong lately.

Kraus said there was never any reason to consider postponing or canceling the Wisconsin event, which was scheduled for Friday through Sunday. One of the few vendors there with semiautomatic weapons, Scott Kuhl of Janesville, Wis., bristled at any suggestion that he temporarily stop selling semiautomatic weapons because of the Connecticut shooting.

"When a plane crashes, should they shut down the airline for six months?" Kuhl said. "This is my business; this is my livelihood."

Jared Hook, 40, who came to the show looking for a .223-caliber gun for coyote hunting, said he was glad vendors did not back away after Newtown.

"If anything, there's a lot more interest in guns now because of the shooting," Hook said. "People want them for protection, and it's good that they still have access to them."

Joel Koehler, a Pennsylvania gun dealer, said a few dealers have dropped out of a show this weekend in the Pocono Mountains, but only "because they have nothing to sell. They are out of inventory."

"The gun sales have been crazy. They are going through the roof," he said.

Koehler said he has felt no pressure to cancel his shows in Pennsylvania.

"The shows are going on," he said. "Nobody's said to us that we can't have them."

President Barack Obama has urged Congress to vote rapidly on measures that he says a majority of Americans support: a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons; a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines; and required criminal background checks for all gun buyers by removing loopholes that cover some sales, such as at gun shows in states that don't currently require checks.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett on Friday said he would consider a radio-show caller's suggestion that gun shows be banned on publicly owned property, such as the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex in Harrisburg. But he also noted that the complex is open to all businesses.

While government officials take a harder look at gun shows, organizers remain adamant that they run safe, legal businesses. There is no central government database on how guns used in crimes are obtained.

The Brady Campaign, which advocates for stricter state and federal gun laws, has long pushed to close the so-called "gun show loophole" by forcing every state to require background checks of buyers at the shows. They note that three of the weapons used in the Columbine attack were bought by someone who went to agun show that didn't require a background check. Seventeen states require an extensive background check, according to the campaign.

And in the wake of Newtown is an emboldened group of advocates, like Susan Steer of Saratoga Springs, a 46-year-old married mother of three who started a petition seeking to cancel the local gun show. Steer said she'll continue to push for banning gun shows at the taxpayer-supported venue.

"For many of us," she said, "the shooting in Sandy Hook was the tipping point for taking some action."

___

Hill reported from Albany, N.Y. Contributing to this report were Dinesh Ramde in Evansville, Wis.; Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa.; Peter Jackson in Harrisburg, Pa.; and Lisa Rathke in Montpelier, Vt.

Edited by dudeone, 05 January 2013 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#248 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 06 January 2013 - 12:14 AM

Anyone here taking a page out of Ray "Retard" Comfort's book and blaming this on Atheism, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchers (Who has been dead for over a year now)? :lol:

The hardcore bible thumpers are absolutely ridiculous.
  • 0
Posted Image

#249 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

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

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

Vermont teacher gets mental evaluation after ranting on YouTube, surrendering rifle

The Daily Caller – 13 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.co...-130629709.html

A popular math and science teacher in Bennington, Vt. was temporarily hospitalized last week for a mental health evaluationafter he posted several bizarre videos on YouTube.

Steven Davis, a teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, took to YouTube after he had become disgruntled with school officials and the teachers union, the New York Daily News reports.

“This is all planned and very well thought out,” Davis said in one of the YouTube videos, according to WNYT. “I’ve studied military tactics and this is the way to go. It’s all going to hit so hard, so fast and shut that school system down ’til they get things straight.”

Exactly what “this” relates to in the video is unclear. Davis reportedly offered no concrete plans.

“Some of his postings on YouTube and Facebook were very concerning when he talked about studying military style training. He talked about reading CIA manuals and has a real dislike for some of the staff at the high school,” Bennington Police Chief Paul Doucette told WNYT, apparently after personally interviewing Davis at the hospital.

“That was alarming to us and we were concerned about the safety of those people,” Doucette added.
Police arrested Davis after neighbors allegedly spotted Davis toting a rifle from his home to his car,reports local NBC affiliate WNYT.

Doucette noted that the weapon is the same kind of firearm Adam Lanza used to massacre 26 people at an elementary school in the Newtown, Conn. last month, according to WNYT.

Davis told authorities he has owned the gun since 2009 and has never fired it, WNYT reports. However, police later found several hundred rounds of ammunition and loaded clips inside his home.

Davis’ wife reportedly had no inkling that her husband owned the weapon. She has since taken their two young children to stay with a relative and has sought a restraining order against him.

Davis has now been discharged from Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, according to the Daily News.
Mount Anthony Union High School has since placed Davis on administrative leave.

Davis’s videos appear to have been removed from YouTube for a violation of the website’s terms of service.

Edited by dudeone, 07 January 2013 - 07:39 PM.

  • 0

#250 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:41 PM

Vermont teacher gets mental evaluation after ranting on YouTube, surrendering rifle

The Daily Caller – 13 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.co...-130629709.html

A popular math and science teacher in Bennington, Vt. was temporarily hospitalized last week for a mental health evaluationafter he posted several bizarre videos on YouTube.

Steven Davis, a teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, took to YouTube after he had become disgruntled with school officials and the teachers union, the New York Daily News reports.

“This is all planned and very well thought out,” Davis said in one of the YouTube videos, according to WNYT. “I’ve studied military tactics and this is the way to go. It’s all going to hit so hard, so fast and shut that school system down ’til they get things straight.”

Exactly what “this” relates to in the video is unclear. Davis reportedly offered no concrete plans.

“Some of his postings on YouTube and Facebook were very concerning when he talked about studying military style training. He talked about reading CIA manuals and has a real dislike for some of the staff at the high school,” Bennington Police Chief Paul Doucette told WNYT, apparently after personally interviewing Davis at the hospital.

“That was alarming to us and we were concerned about the safety of those people,” Doucette added.
Police arrested Davis after neighbors allegedly spotted Davis toting a rifle from his home to his car,reports local NBC affiliate WNYT.

Doucette noted that the weapon is the same kind of firearm Adam Lanza used to massacre 26 people at an elementary school in the Newtown, Conn. last month, according to WNYT.

Davis told authorities he has owned the gun since 2009 and has never fired it, WNYT reports. However, police later found several hundred rounds of ammunition and loaded clips inside his home.

Davis’ wife reportedly had no inkling that her husband owned the weapon. She has since taken their two young children to stay with a relative and has sought a restraining order against him.

Davis has now been discharged from Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, according to the Daily News.
Mount Anthony Union High School has since placed Davis on administrative leave.

Davis’s videos appear to have been removed from YouTube for a violation of the website’s terms of service.


I am sure he can get a job guarding the private school of the local NRA folks ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#251 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,958 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:07 PM

Vermont teacher gets mental evaluation after ranting on YouTube, surrendering rifle

The Daily Caller – 13 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.co...-130629709.html


Woah, thanks for the article. So many explicit words I want to use, but can't. So glad I'm not American.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#252 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 08 January 2013 - 09:07 AM

http://www.gadailyne...aul-slater.html

I can't cut and paste the article because I'm on my phone, but note this woman never shot herself or had her gun taken away from her or any of the other things that certain folks insist will happen. It also suggests why semiautomatic handguns are so often considered for self defense.
  • 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

#253 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,105 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 08 January 2013 - 09:58 AM

http://www.gadailyne...aul-slater.html

I can't cut and paste the article because I'm on my phone, but note this woman never shot herself or had her gun taken away from her or any of the other things that certain folks insist will happen. It also suggests why semiautomatic handguns are so often considered for self defense.


And for every article like this, there's one of a 'tragic' accidental shooting somewhere else.

The more a read about he vitriolic illogical response from people, the less I believe anything will be done. The states live in a state of fear, a culture of violence, with a misguided notion that freedom comes at the barrel of a gun--and short of something much larger than a few dead 5 year olds, nothing will change.
  • 1

#254 Violator

Violator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,140 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 07

Posted 08 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

Those are all nice target shooting guns no real use for them after that to bad and a good thing you cant get them in Canada.
  • 0

#255 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 08 January 2013 - 10:20 AM

http://www.gadailyne...aul-slater.html

I can't cut and paste the article because I'm on my phone, but note this woman never shot herself or had her gun taken away from her or any of the other things that certain folks insist will happen. It also suggests why semiautomatic handguns are so often considered for self defense.

The exception that proves the rule.

It is many times more likely that the person shot and killed or injured or committing suicide will be the gun owner or his/her family, friends or house guests.

Oh yeah and from the article:

The woman grabbed a revolver
  • 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.

#256 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:08 AM

The exception that proves the rule.

It is many times more likely that the person shot and killed or injured or committing suicide will be the gun owner or his/her family, friends or house guests.

Oh yeah and from the article:

The woman grabbed a revolver


It's not the exception, you just don't hear about this side of the story much from the major mainstream media outlets.

Oh and I mentioned "semiautomatic handgun" because the revolver in the story could have well proven inadequate if circumstances had been slightly different.
  • 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

#257 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:17 AM

It's not the exception, you just don't hear about this side of the story much from the major mainstream media outlets.

Oh and I mentioned "semiautomatic handgun" because the revolver in the story could have well proven inadequate if circumstances had been slightly different.

Of course it is the exception. There have been countless studies on this issue.

Ignoring facts and statistics seem the only way to support this bizarre fascination with guns.
  • 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.

#258 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:24 AM

Of course it is the exception. There have been countless studies on this issue.

Ignoring facts and statistics seem the only way to support this bizarre fascination with guns.

While it's clear you religiously believe the only "facts" support your claim (due to only looking at those you agree with, Spaghetti Monster bless Google), at the end of the day, regardless of how much you self aggrandise your beliefs into something greater than opinion, a bizarre fascination with guns is justified by the US Constitution. Obviously someone with a bit more sense than you made the rules.

Edited by zaibatsu, 08 January 2013 - 11:26 AM.

  • 0

#259 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,914 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:42 AM

While it's clear you religiously believe the only "facts" support your claim (due to only looking at those you agree with, Spaghetti Monster bless Google), at the end of the day, regardless of how much you self aggrandise your beliefs into something greater than opinion, a bizarre fascination with guns is justified by the US Constitution. Obviously someone with a bit more sense than you made the rules.



More sense? That's laughable.

You Americans lead the first world in gun murders by a country mile. In what twisted fantasyland is that considered good sense?
  • 2
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!

#260 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,105 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:45 AM

More sense? That's laughable.

You Americans lead the first world in gun murders by a country mile. In what twisted fantasyland is that considered good sense?


It's just that there aren't enough guns silly. If everyone had a gun, then everyone would be afraid of being shot by everyone so no one would shoot anyone. How does that not make sense to you??
  • 0

#261 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:46 AM

You Americans lead the first world in gun murders by a country mile. In what twisted fantasyland is that considered good sense?


Yeah, I'd like to see (Hear? Read?) the spin doctoring necessary to answer that question. But haven't we been here before with this question? And it has yet to be answered 9 pages later? Several different threads later? Yet still the same person pushing their agenda. While all the while ducking, weaving and dodging having to actually answer the question(s) put to them.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 08 January 2013 - 11:49 AM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#262 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:51 AM

Of course it is the exception. There have been countless studies on this issue.

Ignoring facts and statistics seem the only way to support this bizarre fascination with guns.


The same selective studies that insist that the woman in the story, or the 12 year old girl in Georgia, were supposed to have their gun taken away, or shoot themselves or a family member etc.

I"m sure even now someone is twisting statistics in order to suite their agenda with the story I posted; either the intruder lives and this example never makes it into the "number of badguys killed in self defense is less than number of gun owners killed by their own guns" stats,

Or, he dies and his death is added to the tally of U.S. gun homicides.

Additionally, there will be those who point to stories like these and say" he commited only property crimes and was shot for it!!!!"


  • 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

#263 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:54 AM

Yeah, I'd like to see (Hear? Read?) the spin doctoring necessary to answer that question. But haven't we been here before with this question? And it has yet to be answered 9 pages later? Several different threads later? Yet still the same person pushing their agenda. While all the while ducking, weaving and dodging having to actually answer the question(s) put to them.


He should change his name to Bilbo Beggins. You know, for all the question begging.
  • 1

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#264 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:57 AM

He should change his name to Bilbo Beggins. You know, for all the question begging.

0/10

You should change your name to Stand-up Casualty.


The same selective studies that insist that the woman in the story, or the 12 year old girl in Georgia, were supposed to have their gun taken away, or shoot themselves or a family member etc.

I"m sure even now someone is twisting statistics in order to suite their agenda with the story I posted; either the intruder lives and this example never makes it into the "number of badguys killed in self defense is less than number of gun owners killed by their own guns" stats,

Or, he dies and his death is added to the tally of U.S. gun homicides.

Additionally, there will be those who point to stories like these and say" he commited only property crimes and was shot for it!!!!"

They would have a point if it happened here in Canada.


More sense? That's laughable.

You Americans lead the first world in gun murders by a country mile. In what twisted fantasyland is that considered good sense?

Good sense in that law abiding citizens can use guns responsibly, murderers cannot. Courts also have the sense to not make law abiding citizens guilty for a criminal's acts like you personally, naively wish. Sense isn't limited to the founding fathers for establishing the second amendment, it extends to judges for reasonably preserving it. You, much like Wetcoaster, have an aggrandisement issue believing you know more than all of these people and know what's best for them.

Edited by zaibatsu, 08 January 2013 - 11:58 AM.

  • 0

#265 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

While it's clear you religiously believe the only "facts" support your claim (due to only looking at those you agree with, Spaghetti Monster bless Google), at the end of the day, regardless of how much you self aggrandise your beliefs into something greater than opinion, a bizarre fascination with guns is justified by the US Constitution. Obviously someone with a bit more sense than you made the rules.

What rules? This is an opinion from SCOTUS and is 4 years old.

It was not until the Heller case in 2008 (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370) that a slim majority of SCOTUS (5-4) changed past interpretation of the Second Amendment to find an individual right to bear arms separate from the militia requirement.

The dissent found the majority reasoning baffling (as do I) based upon the wording of the Second Amendment and past decisions of SCOTUS:


The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.


Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.


The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.


Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).


http://www.law.corne.../07-290.ZD.html

Since every valid peer-reviewed published study I have seen comes to the conclusions that I set out, the problem seems to be with your perception, not mine.
  • 1
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.

#266 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:08 PM

More sense? That's laughable.

You Americans lead the first world in gun murders by a country mile. In what twisted fantasyland is that considered good sense?


Take out the murders not commited by individuals who don't have gang names written in Olde English lettering all over them, and the U.S. numbers look a lot better.

The gang/thug situation is most of really what separates the U.S. from other first world countries.
  • 2
"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

#267 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:10 PM

0/10

You should change your name to Stand-up Casualty.



They would have a point if it happened here in Canada.



Good sense in that law abiding citizens can use guns responsibly, murderers cannot. Courts also have the sense to not make law abiding citizens guilty for a criminal's acts like you personally, naively wish. Sense isn't limited to the founding fathers for establishing the second amendment, it extends to judges for reasonably preserving it. You, much like Wetcoaster, have an aggrandisement issue believing you know more than all of these people and know what's best for them.


Awe, you didn't think it was funny? I thought it was funny. At least you didn't dispute the post I was replying to. That says something, don't it, Beggins?
  • 1

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#268 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:14 PM

What rules? This is an opinion from SCOTUS and is 4 years old.

It was not until the Heller case in 2008 (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370) that a slim majority of SCOTUS (5-4) changed past interpretation of the Second Amendment to find an individual right to bear arms separate from the militia requirement.

The dissent found the majority reasoning baffling (as do I) based upon the wording of the Second Amendment and past decisions of SCOTUS:


The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.


Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.


The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.


Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).


http://www.law.corne.../07-290.ZD.html

Since every valid peer-reviewed published study I have seen comes to the conclusions that I set out, the problem seems to be with your perception, not mine.



SCOTUS' opinions took far more peer-reviewed studies into account that you cited, and that's the difference between them and you.. you are only posting studies and literature that you personally agree with, and you've certainly made your rather biased opinion well known. I've posted others, and there's far more than even I can cite that show what insignificant difference gun control makes in the US. To pass constitutional muster the onus is on gun control to extensively show cause for why it's necessary.

Also, as far as judges are concerned, we've been over what little it would take for them to reverse that ruling, but again, someone with an excessively higher opinion of self wishes to tell me how rare this is all while being outraged at how quickly opinion changed with Heller.

Awe, you didn't think it was funny? I thought it was funny. At least you didn't dispute the post I was replying to. That says something, don't it, Beggins?

There was nothing of substance to dispute, and I don't waste much time with your type of substance lacking ad hominem.

Edited by zaibatsu, 08 January 2013 - 12:16 PM.

  • 0

#269 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:17 PM

Take out the murders not commited by individuals who don't have gang names written in Olde English lettering all over them, and the U.S. numbers look a lot better.

The gang/thug situation is most of really what separates the U.S. from other first world countries.


Not quite. Gang homicides number roughly 2,000 per year (http://www.nationalg...f-Gang-Problems bottom of page). That's all homicides. That would be... oh about a quarter maybe (if all were firearm homicides, that is)? How do you explain the other 6,000?

Edited by Lockout Casualty, 08 January 2013 - 12:32 PM.

  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#270 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

Awe, you didn't think it was funny? I thought it was funny. At least you didn't dispute the post I was replying to. That says something, don't it, Beggins?


See, some users have put me on ignore and can only see my posts when they get quoted by someone else.....unfortunately, there seems to be a huge case of pot calling going on regarding substance and some users are notorious for just ignoring the questions they don't want to answer or don't have any legitimate answers for. Classic cowardice...deflect, deflect, DEFLECT....... when it comes to learned debate and discussion..........

It is most amusing in this thread to watch someone skillfully manhandling someone else who seems to believe that THEIR opinion should trump all..........regardless of the facts cited and staring them irrefutably in the face. Unfortunately for them, a very well-educated, hands on, learned man is willing to step up and attempt to educate despite the (no doubt) extreme frustration in attempting to do so. It's quite entertaining, actually....... almost like being in a courtroom.

As I have said, several times........as someone who has grown up with shotguns and rifles at home.......someone who has their Dad's prized collection of firearms in their own home, now.....there is no need I can see for ownership of automatic weapons in homes in the US.....or Canada. It may be different in a country where guerilla warfare is being waged house to house, street to street..........but that is not the life we live here in Canada, nor is it the life my brother and his family live in the US.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 08 January 2013 - 12:35 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....






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.