Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

President Obama Unveils New Gun Control Measures


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#91 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,961 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:58 PM

I have no problem with those rules.

Very modest, and a moderate approach.

Too bad the NRA won't feel the same way.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#92 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,961 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:06 PM




  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#93 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:24 PM

Cmon, really. I expect better. They are looking to put restrictions on semi-automatic guns. Not fully automatic guns which are allready really really hard to get and are heavily regulated.

You can't say they don't have a place either because they do. To protect against tyrannical governments. Can you please show some evidence that the USA isn't becoming more and more of a police state?


How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets.

This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government?

Edited by Pouria, 16 January 2013 - 11:28 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#94 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,590 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:33 PM

How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets.

This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government?


Because the US military never suffered any casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan?
No matter how technologically advanced you are militarily, you still need boots on the ground to patrol the streets and to enforce your rules.

If just 10% of the US have guns and just 10% of that number decides to "fight back", that's still about 3 million insurgents/freedom fighters/etc your armed forces will have to deal with.
  • 0

#95 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:36 PM

Newsflash: pretty much every current or historical tyranny needed time to get up and running, the Bolsheviks, National Socialist Germany, North Korea, all started out being much less nasty than they'd later become, but even at their early going the signs were clearly there.

It takes time to implement mechanisms of control and deal with those seen as threats and liabilities. If anyone thinks the likes of the Patriot Act and NDAA is worrisome, imagine what lies further down that road?


So everything before this gun thing wasn't really affecting you. Its just when they took away your gun toy that you came to this realization? Really? Not the NDAA or any other bills that passed but these restrictions on guns after a brutal tragedy crossed the line for you?
  • 1

Posted Image


#96 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:44 PM

Because the US military never suffered any casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan?
No matter how technologically advanced you are militarily, you still need boots on the ground to patrol the streets and to enforce your rules.

If just 10% of the US have guns and just 10% of that number decides to "fight back", that's still about 3 million insurgents/freedom fighters/etc your armed forces will have to deal with.


You are comparing a couple of countries with terrorist cells and weapons much more deadlier than the average joe's bushmaster which was bought from Wallmart? You can't compare the average citizen to a trained militia or terrorist groups like Al-qaida or Hezbollahs.
If 10% of US citizens decide to fight back that means a majority would be against them.
  • 0

Posted Image


#97 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,439 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:50 PM

How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets.

This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government?


The rebels in Syria started with small arms like assault rifles and now they are close to toppling the dictator Assad. The government of Syria has tanks, artillery, and fighter jets. So it is possible for an armed force to overthrow a government with superior military power.

Plus wars are still on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its called guerilla or assymetrical warfare and can lead to overthrow of governments.

Two classic case are Cuba and Vietnam. In Cuba, Fidel Castrol lead a ragtag band of fighters that overthrew the Batista governent which was heavily armed and funded by the US,

The other case is Vietnam where the Viet Cong defeated BOTH France and the United States. The Viet Cong were heavily outgunned by the Americans but still won the war.

Its nonsense that well organized civilians cannot defeat a greater force.

Edited by DonLever, 16 January 2013 - 11:55 PM.

  • 1

#98 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:50 PM

You are comparing a couple of countries with terrorist cells and weapons much more deadlier than the average joe's bushmaster which was bought from Wallmart? You can't compare the average citizen to a trained militia or terrorist groups like Al-qaida or Hezbollahs.
If 10% of US citizens decide to fight back that means a majority would be against them.


If 10% fight back it doesn't mean that the other 90% doesn't support them. They're just not fighting back. You are the only one saying that a tyrannical government would use drones on their own people Thats insane. Thats the first way to get everyone to rally against you.

Anyone that is afraid of terrorist attacks has an illogical phobia. There are many things much more deadly than terrorist attacks that people don't worry about.
  • 1

#99 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:53 PM

The rebels in Syria started with small arms like assault rifles and now they are close to toppling the dictator Assad. The government of Syria has tanks, artillery, and fighter jets. So it wa possible for armed to overthrow a government with superior military power.

Plus wars are still on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its called guerilla or assymetrical warfare and can lead to overthrow of governments.

Two classic case are Cuba and Vietnam. In Cuba, Fidel Castrol lead a ragtag band of fighters that overthrew the Batista governemtn which was heavily armed and funded by the US,

The other case is Vietnam wher the Viet Cong defeated BOTH France and the United States. The Viet Cong were heavily outgunned by the Americans but still won the war.

Its nonsense that well organized civilians cannot defeat a greater force.


Nice examples.
  • 0

#100 MANGO

MANGO

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

one thing studies haven't shown is........people that don't own/have guns, are less likely to kill you/themselves with a gun........ the studies all seem to be geared around people who have guns, and whether they will kill you/themselves with a gun.

shooting yourself with a gun isn't a problem, it's a natural process that people used to refer to as.......natural selection.
  • 1
Posted Image



formerly......puck n icehole

#101 cj_coolcat

cj_coolcat

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,168 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

So I've mostly tried to stay out of the gun control debate because I personally think it's kind of arrogant and presumptuous for Canadians to comment on an American problem and I can certainly understand Americans getting their back up when foreigners with no stake in the issue suggest repealing their constitutional rights. But having reviewed Obama's recommendations on gun control, I've got to ask, is there anything in there that violates the second amendment? I ask because that seems to be the main sticking point. If you get to maintain your right to bear arms but there's just a little more common sense in regards to things like requiring background checks doesn't everyone win?

I suppose the assaults weapon ban might be a sticking point but I'm hearing two arguments about this. One is that this ban will do nothing to prevent mass shootings since guns covered under the ban are not much different than many guns which would not be covered under the ban. But then the other argument is that these types of guns are required to combat a tyrannical government. So which is it? Are these so-called "assault weapons" no-big deal (in which case it shouldn't be a big deal if they're banned) or are they powerful enough that you feel banning them would a hindrance to future revolutionary purposes (in which case you need to acknowledge their role in how deadly recent mass shootings have been.) Honest question here.

As an aside, I'm not sure why it seems so impossible to have an honest discourse about this issue. I mean surely, deep down, both sides see the need for compromise here? So why does every debate about this devolve into people making cracks about gun-happy "Mericans" and suggesting wild unrealistic solutions like banning all guns and repealing the second amendment vs. others virtually promising revolution if anyone dare "take their guns away." As an outsider, these recommendations all seem to be very moderate and sensitive to both sides of the debate. It seems like you get a little more gun control without anyone's rights being infringed upon. So I'm just wondering why it still seems to provoke such extreme responses from both sides? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
  • 0
QUOTE (kanadahockey @ Aug 20 2009, 08:48 AM) ah yes, comparing Natives to stray dogs wasn't critical of the Natives, it was actually critical of the Whites. How very White Man's Burden of you. Pip, pip and all that - let's retire to the library for cucumber sandwiches.

#102 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:46 AM

So I've mostly tried to stay out of the gun control debate because I personally think it's kind of arrogant and presumptuous for Canadians to comment on an American problem and I can certainly understand Americans getting their back up when foreigners with no stake in the issue suggest repealing their constitutional rights. But having reviewed Obama's recommendations on gun control, I've got to ask, is there anything in there that violates the second amendment? I ask because that seems to be the main sticking point. If you get to maintain your right to bear arms but there's just a little more common sense in regards to things like requiring background checks doesn't everyone win?

I suppose the assaults weapon ban might be a sticking point but I'm hearing two arguments about this. One is that this ban will do nothing to prevent mass shootings since guns covered under the ban are not much different than many guns which would not be covered under the ban. But then the other argument is that these types of guns are required to combat a tyrannical government. So which is it? Are these so-called "assault weapons" no-big deal (in which case it shouldn't be a big deal if they're banned) or are they powerful enough that you feel banning them would a hindrance to future revolutionary purposes (in which case you need to acknowledge their role in how deadly recent mass shootings have been.) Honest question here.

As an aside, I'm not sure why it seems so impossible to have an honest discourse about this issue. I mean surely, deep down, both sides see the need for compromise here? So why does every debate about this devolve into people making cracks about gun-happy "Mericans" and suggesting wild unrealistic solutions like banning all guns and repealing the second amendment vs. others virtually promising revolution if anyone dare "take their guns away." As an outsider, these recommendations all seem to be very moderate and sensitive to both sides of the debate. It seems like you get a little more gun control without anyone's rights being infringed upon. So I'm just wondering why it still seems to provoke such extreme responses from both sides? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

There's quite a bit of answering to be done there.. to try and keep it short:

A number of the US population realise that country was founded upon revolution. Mistrust for government is part of American nature, even though Americans can be seen treating politicians like CDC treats their favourite hockey players (or Obama) or most hated like Tim Thomas (or ex candidate Mitt Romney).

Assault rifles were banned in the 90s until about a decade ago, the provision sunset just following the release of studies that showed there was no significance to any correlation between assault rifle bans and gun murder rates, nor mass shootings. Thus, an extension of the ban was not necessary.

These forums represent American politics well because it's either you're labelled for one extreme or the other. Information is often cherry picked which is pretty common for debates due to the inherent subjective nature of opinions and the will to find opinions (and thus studies) that agree with an already existing premise.

Logic dictates one shouldn't overreact to bad circumstances, especially given US history and warnings from their founding fathers, and while here in Canada we are more than willing to hand over freedoms to government, in the US they are rather reluctant most times. Given the American nature of preserving individual rights, pressure to concede them, even if by a smallest of fractions, can easily be met with fierce resistance. Personally, I see these occasional mass shootings as an event that is not frequent enough to warrant any significant changes to the second amendment, and I find it only out of convenience and knee-jerk outrage that assault weapons get targeted despite how infrequently they are used for gun murders compared to the rest that happen in the US. Obviously I'm a sceptic toward people who are out to blame guns for those who commit murder because it's too blatantly an axe to grind. Preserving rights is tough following tragedy, it's easy to get emotional and jump on the bandwagon to want to hang something or someone. Following 9/11 a number of Americans shockingly said they'd give up some freedom for "security" -- a significant amount of the population there believe their own freedom is security, particularly the freedom to defend themselves.

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 January 2013 - 03:52 AM.

  • 1

#103 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,264 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:55 AM

I'm so glad I'm Canadian, that's all I can say.

Our freedom isn't measured by what types of weapons we're allowed to own.

I can't even imagine a world where fighting over the right to own a weapon is even a big deal. I guess we just don't have fantasies of taking up arms against our government like some Americans seem to.

Edited by DeNiro, 17 January 2013 - 03:58 AM.

  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#104 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

There's quite a bit of answering to be done there.. to try and keep it short:

A number of the US population realise that country was founded upon revolution. Mistrust for government is part of American nature, even though Americans can be seen treating politicians like CDC treats their favourite hockey players (or Obama) or most hated like Tim Thomas (or ex candidate Mitt Romney).

Assault rifles were banned in the 90s until about a decade ago, the provision sunset just following the release of studies that showed there was no significance to any correlation between assault rifle bans and gun murder rates, nor mass shootings. Thus, an extension of the ban was not necessary.

These forums represent American politics well because it's either you're labelled for one extreme or the other. Information is often cherry picked which is pretty common for debates due to the inherent subjective nature of opinions and the will to find opinions (and thus studies) that agree with an already existing premise.

Logic dictates one shouldn't overreact to bad circumstances, especially given US history and warnings from their founding fathers, and while here in Canada we are more than willing to hand over freedoms to government, in the US they are rather reluctant most times. Given the American nature of preserving individual rights, pressure to concede them, even if by a smallest of fractions, can easily be met with fierce resistance. Personally, I see these occasional mass shootings as an event that is not frequent enough to warrant any significant changes to the second amendment, and I find it only out of convenience and knee-jerk outrage that assault weapons get targeted despite how infrequently they are used for gun murders compared to the rest that happen in the US. Obviously I'm a sceptic toward people who are out to blame guns for those who commit murder because it's too blatantly an axe to grind. Preserving rights is tough following tragedy, it's easy to get emotional and jump on the bandwagon to want to hang something or someone. Following 9/11 a number of Americans shockingly said they'd give up some freedom for "security" -- a significant amount of the population there believe their own freedom is security, particularly the freedom to defend themselves.

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.


Like I said, pathetic considering you berate people here for plugging their ears.
  • 1

#105 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:06 AM

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.


Speaking specifically and directly to the 6th paragraph content in quoted post:

Self-recognition leads to the path of true enilghtenment, young padwan.......... thank you, from several other users and myself.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 17 January 2013 - 10:08 AM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#106 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:06 AM

I'm so glad I'm Canadian, that's all I can say.

Our freedom isn't measured by what types of weapons we're allowed to own.

I can't even imagine a world where fighting over the right to own a weapon is even a big deal. I guess we just don't have fantasies of taking up arms against our government like some Americans seem to.


Even in Canada, the amount of freedoms we enjoy are directly dependent on the amount of clout we as citizens wield compared to the government.

An entity that becomes unaccountable will act like it, sooner or later, as demonstrated by numerous historical and present day examples.

Guns are only a part of that equation, but a very important part.

Anyways, all you who are saying that "the U.S. military is gonna crush teh populace!!!111!!", stop and think for a moment who composes the majority of the U.S. Military's rank and file, conservative patriotic types who frequently own guns, and increasingly pissed ones at that.

And there are dozens of veterans out there for every one currently serving...
  • 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

#107 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

Even in Canada, the amount of freedoms we enjoy are directly dependent on the amount of clout we as citizens wield compared to the government.

An entity that becomes unaccountable will act like it, sooner or later, as demonstrated by numerous historical and present day examples.

Guns are only a part of that equation, but a very important part.

Anyways, all you who are saying that "the U.S. military is gonna crush teh populace!!!111!!", stop and think for a moment who composes the majority of the U.S. Military's rank and file, conservative patriotic types who frequently own guns, and increasingly pissed ones at that.

And there are dozens of veterans out there for every one currently serving...


exactly ones who have been trained to serve the GOVERNMENT! Not likely most of them are going to flip
  • 1

#108 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Real Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:23 AM

The rebels in Syria started with small arms like assault rifles and now they are close to toppling the dictator Assad.  The government of Syria has tanks, artillery, and fighter jets.  So it is possible for an armed force to overthrow a government with superior military power.

Plus wars are still on in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Its called guerilla or assymetrical warfare and can lead to overthrow of governments.

Two classic case are Cuba and Vietnam.  In Cuba, Fidel Castrol lead a ragtag band of fighters that overthrew the Batista governent which was heavily armed and funded by the US,

The other case is Vietnam where the Viet Cong defeated BOTH France and the United States.  The Viet Cong were heavily outgunned by the Americans but still won the war.

Its nonsense that well organized civilians cannot defeat a greater force.


Vietcongs won because they were able to fight in the jungle in "jungle style". USA simply donīt have an extensive training on this enviroment. one thing is the everglades, another thing is a tropical rainforest with zillions of bugs and deseases. itīs a very, very dirty enviroment to live/deal....
  • 0
Shup up and fly! you´re not payed to think, you´re payed to fly!

#109 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:24 AM

I can't. But I can guarantee that it's a far less likely scenario than some nutjob taking a semi-automatic with a high capacity magazine into a school and indiscriminantly shooting children.


Do you think a "1984" scenario on a global scale is within the realm of possibility within the time frame that we speak of?
  • 0

#110 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets.

This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government?


Dude, you're a refugee from Iran, right? Where would Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollah be if every protester that marched the streets of Tehran had a gun with them?
  • 0

#111 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:47 AM

exactly ones who have been trained to serve the GOVERNMENT! Not likely most of them are going to flip


They ultimately serve the country, perhaps their state, not so much the federal government.
  • 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

#112 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:19 AM



I particularly enjoyed last night's show where Jon points out that yes, while there are literally thousands of current laws regulating guns in the US, the enforcement of these laws have been curbed by politicians working directly with the NRA.

http://watch.thecome....ca/#clip845603
  • 1
Posted Image

#113 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,888 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

WHAT!?!? Its far less likely but carries FAR FAR greater risk. You think whats happening in North-Korea isn't as bad as Sandy Hook?  Some really dumb posts on CDC today.



Yeah, speaking of dumb posts....

I was saying that the chances of the US turning into another North Korea are far less that another mass shooting.

If you really believe that Obama is on his way to becoming the next Kim, I've got some tinfoil to sell you...
  • 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!

#114 Richard Parker

Richard Parker

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 13

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:33 PM

There's quite a bit of answering to be done there.. to try and keep it short:

A number of the US population realise that country was founded upon revolution. Mistrust for government is part of American nature, even though Americans can be seen treating politicians like CDC treats their favourite hockey players (or Obama) or most hated like Tim Thomas (or ex candidate Mitt Romney).

Assault rifles were banned in the 90s until about a decade ago, the provision sunset just following the release of studies that showed there was no significance to any correlation between assault rifle bans and gun murder rates, nor mass shootings. Thus, an extension of the ban was not necessary.

These forums represent American politics well because it's either you're labelled for one extreme or the other. Information is often cherry picked which is pretty common for debates due to the inherent subjective nature of opinions and the will to find opinions (and thus studies) that agree with an already existing premise.

Logic dictates one shouldn't overreact to bad circumstances, especially given US history and warnings from their founding fathers, and while here in Canada we are more than willing to hand over freedoms to government, in the US they are rather reluctant most times. Given the American nature of preserving individual rights, pressure to concede them, even if by a smallest of fractions, can easily be met with fierce resistance. Personally, I see these occasional mass shootings as an event that is not frequent enough to warrant any significant changes to the second amendment, and I find it only out of convenience and knee-jerk outrage that assault weapons get targeted despite how infrequently they are used for gun murders compared to the rest that happen in the US. Obviously I'm a sceptic toward people who are out to blame guns for those who commit murder because it's too blatantly an axe to grind. Preserving rights is tough following tragedy, it's easy to get emotional and jump on the bandwagon to want to hang something or someone. Following 9/11 a number of Americans shockingly said they'd give up some freedom for "security" -- a significant amount of the population there believe their own freedom is security, particularly the freedom to defend themselves.

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.


Interesting assertion. I was always taught and read that the American Revolution was rooted in Anti-Colonialistic measures, such as taxation without representation and the desire for self-determination through democratically elected representation.

I'm also under the impression, concerning these gun measures coming from the Whitehouse, is that they were put in place by a duly elected representative of the majority of the population, and that the majority of the population, through polling, desires that some measures be taken by their elected representatives. Isn't that essentially what is occurring here?

And all these measures are up for debate and ratification through the U.S. Congress, another body of elected representation......so, where all this talk of 'tyranny' from some of the populace down south, or talk of constitutional violations.....is beyond my comprehension...i freely admit.
  • 1

Posted Image

"Physical bravery is an animal instinct; moral bravery is a much higher and truer courage"


CDCGML - Pittsburgh Penguins - Click Here


#115 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:11 PM

http://youtu.be/K13HdTsW_E0

I particularly enjoyed last night's show where Jon points out that yes, while there are literally thousands of current laws regulating guns in the US, the enforcement of these laws have been curbed by politicians working directly with the NRA.

http://watch.thecome....ca/#clip845603

Here is an article exploring the same sort of issues that Jon Stewart raised:


After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., President Obama asked Vice President Biden to lead a group tasked with drafting policies to reduce gun violence. One of the issues sure to come up in the Biden group's discussions is the role of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


The ATF is the primary enforcer of the nation's gun laws, but advocates and former ATF officials say the agency has been underfunded, understaffed and handcuffed in its abilities to go after gun crimes.


In an ad campaign launched Tuesday by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Roxanna Green, whose child was killed two years ago, appeals directly to the camera: "My 9-year-old daughter was murdered in the Tucson shooting. I have one question for our political leaders: When will you find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby?"


Standing up to the gun lobby is seen by gun control advocates to mean not only banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, but restoring some teeth to the ATF.


"The restrictions on ATF are absurd," says Jon Lowy of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "They're not allowed to use computers in doing their trace work. They're not allowed to do more than one spot inspection on a gun dealer."


When looking at the problems facing the ATF, it's instructive to start at the top. The current acting director of the Washington agency is B. Todd Jones, who is juggling the ATF post with his other job, that of U.S. attorney in Minneapolis.


There hasn't been a permanent ATF director for six years, since back in the Bush administration.


Michael Bouchard, a former ATF assistant director, says that lack of leadership has handicapped the agency.


"You need somebody there who has ownership and is going to be there for the long haul and can start projecting a couple years out, versus people who are just brought in for a temporary fix," Bouchard says.


Obama has nominated a permanent director, but there hasn't even been a hearing on the nomination because of opposition from the gun lobby.


There are other administrative issues: Funding has been relatively flat, and the agency has roughly the same number of agents today as it did a decade ago.


Then there are the issues ATF agents face with gun laws. Congress refuses to allow a centralized gun database, so tracing a weapon used in a crime means a lot of legwork, says former ATF agent William Vizzard.


"They have to contact the manufacturer or importer, who tells them, 'Oh, on July 14, 2009, we shipped that gun to Buckeye Sporting Goods, a wholesaler.' Then you contact Buckeye Sporting Goods, and they say, 'Oh, yeah, we received that gun four days later and we shipped it out to Billy Bob's Bait and Tackle Shop.' Then you go to Billy Bob and you say, 'OK, what do your records say?' "


Another frustration, says Bouchard, is the lack of gun-trafficking statutes to charge those suspected of supplying guns to criminals.


"It's very frustrating when you see people that you know are criminals and buying guns for the criminal element, and you don't have ... a statute to prosecute them under," he says. "You have to be creative and try to make other statutes fit."


Advocates also say the ATF should be allowed to inspect firearms dealers more than once a year, and that dealers should be required to keep track of their inventory.


The Brady Center's Lowy says that more than 100,000 guns are missing from dealers' shelves.


"There's a great likelihood that most of those guns were sold off the books to criminals," he says. "Easy way to fix that is to simply require dealers to do an inventory every year of their stock. ATF is prevented from even requiring dealers to do that. That makes absolutely no sense."


Gun rights advocates say they are defending law-abiding dealers from overzealous government agents.


Former ATF officials have written Biden with suggestions to correct what they see as the agency's problems. Lowy and other gun control advocates will be meeting with the vice president Wednesday to make their case for changes at the ATF.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied
  • 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.

#116 MANGO

MANGO

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:22 PM

Well one good thing about these new laws. It has dawned on them that less bulits means less death. Now the next step.....less triggers.
  • 0
Posted Image



formerly......puck n icehole

#117 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:24 PM

The leftist useful idiots have had decades to indoctrinate supporters though their taking over of the education system, corporate media and many other institutions (see the concept of "active measures"), ultimately bringing the legitimacy of any such elected officials into question.

  • 1
"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

#118 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:26 PM

The leftist useful idiots have had decades to indoctrinate supporters though their taking over of the education system, corporate media and many other institutions (see the concept of "active measures"), ultimately bringing the legitimacy of any such elected officials into question.


Electro Rock World must be a scary place to live in. I'm thankful the rest of the world lives in reality for the most part......how stressful it must be to always be looking over your shoulder and in the shadows for THE MAN screwing you over.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 17 January 2013 - 01:27 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#119 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:34 PM

I'm so glad I'm Canadian, that's all I can say.

Our freedom isn't measured by what types of weapons we're allowed to own.

I can't even imagine a world where fighting over the right to own a weapon is even a big deal. I guess we just don't have fantasies of taking up arms against our government like some Americans seem to.

Louis Riel and the Metis say hi. The Natives shoved into residential schools say hi also.
  • 0
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#120 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:41 PM

Here is a transcript of the Daily Show video link from above:


Following a series of terrible gun tragedies in this country, and let's call it 30 years of urban warfare, America is in the midst of a serous conversation about guns. The NRA's been very clear that it would meet any attempt to put limits on gun ownership with a great deal of resistance, and they're sparing no expense in getting the message out.


NRA AD: Are the President's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zKLA3BODXr0


And why does he get to veto bills and command an army when we don't? All right, so the conversation has started, and we're off to a deplorable start.

I swear to you, if I didn't know any better, and I'm not a big conspiracy guy, after seeing that ad, I would think the NRA is either an elaborate avant-garde Joaquin Phoenix-style joke, or a false flag operation run by Michael Moore in an attempt to discredit responsible gun owners.


But anyway, your response, Mr. President.


BARACK OBAMA (1/16/2013): I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. ... I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.

Huh. All right, interesting open on his part. I thought he was going to go with, "If you bring up my kids again, I will drone strike your crap to Kingdom Come." But I understand.


But anyhow, at that conference today at the White House, the President unveiled legislative proposals and 23 executive actions to begin to address gun violence, including recommendations to limit magazine size, restrict assault weapons — that's going to happen through Congress if it happens at all — expand background checks, and oddly enough, also provide money for increased school security, which had originally been suggested by that really charming ad. Um, so how did his recommendations go down with the pro-gun crowd?


JERRY HENRY, GEORGIA CARRY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (1/16/2013): All the things that he pointed out will only affect law-abiding citizens who already abide by the law. ... We've got over 20,000 gun laws on the books. We need to enforce those gun laws.

You know, that is... OK, that's true, that thing he said was true. That happens to be entirely accurate. I think we have like 20,000 on the books, we need to enforce those. But lest mayors and governors and local police try and take that enforcement job on themselves, slow down. There's no need. As former Kansas congressman Todd Tiahrt pointed out, in a conversation that he had about why mayors should not be actively trying to trace where illegal guns were coming from.


EX-REP. TODD TIAHRT, R-KS (7/11/2007): And when crimes are committed, or when there's a dealer selling guns illegally, we have an organization that goes after them, 24/7, every day. It's called the ATF, and they have officers completely assigned to do this.


The ATF! The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms! It's an actual government agency, not just a traditional Southern wedding gift.

Posted Image


(audience laughter and applause)


Depends on where you're registered. Although when you get those, they don't have to be registered. That's the beauty.


I'd like the ATF's director to explain to us law-abiding citizens, if you're out there 24/7, why is this country ass-deep in illegal guns?


NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (12/18/2012): We have not had a director of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire for six years.


Oh sure! I'm supposed to believe Captain Can't Have Sugary Drinks! I don't trust information from anyone who can't handle more than 16 ounces of high fructose carbonated ambrosia.


PETER JOHNSON, JR. (8/1/2012): We don't have a permanent director.


BOB CUSACK, THE HILL MANAGING EDITOR (1/16/2013): They haven't had a permanent director of that gun agency in six years.


Oh my God, there really is no ATF director! If I heard it on Fox, it must be true!


So there's no director of the ATF. So is the ATF like a Montessori agency, where there's no director, but agents are just encouraged to be curious, and regulate weapons at their own pace?


JOHN AVLON, CNN (12/19/2012): The current acting director commutes from Minnesota. He's the U.S. Attorney from Minnesota as well as Acting Director of the ATF.


What?!?

Posted Image


You're telling me this dude, the guy who is the Acting Director of the ATF, has another full-time job. That regulating alcohol, and tobacco, and firearms, is his side gig? He's just moonlighting, pickin' up a little extra dough.


Why?? There's 7.8% unemployment in this country, we could find someone to take that job who doesn't already have another job!


RACHEL MADDOW (6/20/2011): The Senate won't confirm anybody to the full-time job.


The Senate won't confirm anybody? Well, who gives a crap? It's the director of the ATF, it's not a Cabinet-level position or a Supreme Court justice. Why is it the Senate's business to even confirm.... (listens to earpiece)


I'm being told the Senate has to confirm the ATF director, because apparently Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner, for some reason, inserted that provision into the PATRIOT Act in 2006. Sorry, I don't have footage of that, it was apparently done on the Q.T. I do have footage of Sensenbrenner from that very same year accepting the NRA's coveted Defender of Freedom award.


Posted Image


(audience groans in disgust)


Coincidence!! Unrelated action.


But you know, I mean, OK, they don't have a director, they still have ATF agents.


FORMER ATF AGENT JAMES CAVANAUGH (6/14/2011): In 1972, and I went on ATF in the '70s, there was 2,500 agents. And there's still 2,500 agents, 39 years later.


Not the same ones, though, right?


So policing over 100,000 gun dealers in this country, with just a couple of thousand agents, who are also responsible for tobacco and alcohol may seem impossible, but here's the good news. 18 years ago, a professor analyzed ATF tracing data, and found that 57% of guns used in crimes — the illegal guns — could be traced back to just 1% of licensed gun dealers. All the ATF has to do is create some sort of federal registry of these transactions, trace them back to the bad dealers, and those dealers — the dealers ruining it for the law-abiding gun dealer and citizen, flooding cities with illegal guns — they can be stopped!


LAWRENCE O'DONNELL (12/27/2012): According to today's New York Times, the Bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions.


What the frack are you doing?? Why?? That makes no sense!! Was it getting too easy to police illegal guns? "Hey, what if we do it with our arms like this?" (motion of arms being tied behind back)


Are there any other somewhat comical limits on federal law enforcement's ability to enforce federal law? (sound of letter arriving via pneumatic tube)


I'm sorry, I normally get that through my ear, but I guess the old pneumatic tube system didn't realize the question was rhetorical. But I'll bite, let's see what we got here. All right, hold on.


(reads message) Oh! Apparently, the ATF isn't allowed to inspect dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year. And in reality, get to inspect them once every 17 years. 17 years! I'm assuming that's because the ATF doesn't have enough agents, and not that the ATF agents are cicadas. (audience laughter) Let that insect joke just wash over ya.


Well, I guess self-reported inventories from dealers are better than nothing.


Posted Image


Oh my God! Why, it's Gunther, my messenger pigeon!


(reads message) Oh, I see, we can't rely on self-reported inventories either, because the ATF cannot require dealers to keep track of their own inventory!


You see, about 10 years ago, a Congressman stuck an amendment into a federal spending bill that severely restricted the ATF's ability to do what the NRA says they want them to do, which is enforce existing gun laws! It allowed dealers to ignore police requests for assistance. It denied Congress formerly public crime gun data. It ended the oversight of used firearm sales. It required the destruction of background check records within 24 hours, you know, to make sure no mistakes could be corrected!


Who did this? What Congressman jammed this amendment into an unrelated spending bill, completely castrating the ATF's ability to enforce existing gun laws?


PETER JOHNSON, JR. (7/19/2011): It was the amendment named with your name, Tiahrt.

EX-REP. TODD TIAHRT (7/11/2007): The Tiahrt Amendment is to protect those who protect us.


Holy crap!! Tiahrt!! You're the guy from five minutes ago who was saying, "Slow down, states and municipalities, the ATF's got the enforcement game.


Let the ATF handle it." And then you cut their balls! You have broken my... ti-heart.


That amendment couldn't be worse if the NRA wrote it themselves. (sound of letter arriving via pneumatic tube) Oh boy.


Posted Image


Noooo!!! Gunther, why??? Why would you be in the tube?? You're never supposed to cross antiquated message delivery systems like this!


(reads message) The NRA did write that law.


Well, it's not like the ATF has been completely de-balled. Thanks to the First Amendment, they still do have a YouTube channel that they use to warmly encourage gun dealers to act responsibly.


ATF AGENT PATRICK HOOVER: Although conducting a firearms inventory is not required by federal law, ATF suggests that you conduct a complete firearms inventory at least once a year.


ATF ATTORNEY ERIKA RITT: If you observe a buyer who appears to be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and it appears their judgment may be impaired, you may want to deny the sale. Not because it would be a violation of the Gun Control Act to complete the sale... but because that person's judgment is likely impaired.


(shocked audience laughter)


"But obviously it's up to you. It's not our job at the ATF to tell you, you can't sell guns to drunk people. I will say this, though, to the gun dealers. You can sell the gun to the drunk people, but if those motherfrackers try and get in a car and drive home, you take them down!"


We'll be right back.

http://www.dailykos....urrent-gun-laws
  • 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.




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.