Lets keep it civil........it's been a busy day in here and I don't need it to get busier. Thank you for your cooperation!:thumbsup:
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
Printable View
Lets keep it civil........it's been a busy day in here and I don't need it to get busier. Thank you for your cooperation!:thumbsup:
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
Canadian here well im very sorry to hear what happened at VT its a sad day.Gun control will never work in your country because too many people are armed so what do you do?Idont know but im glad our country has strict gun laws.But we do get the odd shooter at a school just like you guys.3 in the past 20 years i think.But not many deaths are caused by guns in Canada maybe 50-100 a year but i really dont know i can speak for my city which has about 1 or 2 a year with a population of 650,000 people some years none.most of the killings are done by knife or domestic abuse that kind of thing.The bikers tend to kill each other so thats ok usually with guns.But having a unregistered firearm here is pretty fucking serious the cops dont like you having guns.But hey this is Canada its always been like this so we are use to it,and in my city there is not alot of home invasions either so your pretty safe here i rarely lock my doors but my 2 big dogs help alot.So again im really sorry for what happened today and you guys do not have an easy answer and i dont think there is one to your problem of gun violence:(
Once I can I'm going to legally purchase a gun, just for protection of course.\\:rastasmoke:
:rastasmoke:
:hippy::wtf:
first off ,lets understand that the 2nd addmendment is shit, and has been shit for about 100-150 years.
when the 2nd addmendment was made, it was not made for you to defend yourself from jamal robbing and ass raping you.
for the history people in here that read the federalist papers, they know one of the biggest concerns of the newly formed usa was a standing army(king george ring a bell?)
the framers understood, that without weapons to defend ourself from outside invasions(and inside ones as well), america would slowly go the way it is going now.
to the few.
now, tell me exactly
if the us government order martial law, and was taking control of it's citizens for no reason.
how would you defend yourself from nato troops with m-16's?
if during the war in iraq, we get invaded by mexico(or whoever)
how would you keep there army off your land and loved ones?
with your 9mm?
against a fully loaded squad?
if only they knew that, instead of americans(unlike the swiss)being able to fully arm themself(m-16's/army type arms/etc), we would be held to 9mm hand guns and shotguns, of which there is no way the citizens could defend itself against a rogue government.Quote:
Origin of the Second Amendment
In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.
In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Philadelphia Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles. When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).
Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe. Although the anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to insure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.
The Federalists on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, particularly as the Federal Government could never raise a standard army powerful enough to overcome the militia. Leading Federalist James Madison wrote:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[7]
Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote:
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.[8]
One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[9]
The controversy of a standing army for the United States existed in context of the Continental Forces that had won the Revolutionary War which consisted of both the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress and of State and Militia Units. In opposition, the British Forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia, and mercenaries (e.g., Hessians).
Federalists, on the other hand, believed that federal government must be trusted and that the army and the militias "ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal" of federal government. This belief was fundamentally stated by Alexander Hamilton:
The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.[10]
The origin of the Second Amendment also occurred in context of an ongoing debate about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny, (as described by Antifederalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people", (as described by the Federalists).
then we would have seen wording like, "the american citizen possess the right to own any arms the federal government can own."
the 2nd addmendment came from the thought of us not being able to protect ourself(not so much from criminals) but from our own government and other governments.
so, like i said, if you think the 2nd addmendment means anything today, besides keeping the gun rights guys semi happy, then your wrong.
so, when the day comes, and the army is at your door talking martial law, and they have to split up your family and put them in work camps, see how well your 9mm does against a squad of m-16's.
enjoy your imaginary freedoms untill they get taken away for security from the terrorists.
lets go further shall we?
Quote:
The following COMBAT ARMS SURVEY was sent to Geoff Metcalf by a U.S. Marine, with a (non-anonymous) note explaining that the survey was given May 10, 1994, at the Twenty-nine Palms (CA) Marine base, to a number of Marines from different units which had participated in either: Operation "Just Cause," "Desert Storm" or "Restore Hope."
Quote:
The following survey questions, except for the last one, were not reprinted in the July 11 New American article. They were forwarded by the magazine to the New Jersey Conservative PAC (NJCPAC, 2 Thornton Lane, Piscataway NJ 08854-5044 ph/fx:908-463-0797), which also reports that preliminary fact-finding at the base indicates that the "surveys came through the chain of command." The questions are reproduced here with NJCPAC's permission.
NJCPAC asks that anyone who knows of other administrations of this or similar COMBAT ARMS SURVEY(s) pls contact them or Congressmen Bob Dornan (ph:202-225-2965) or Duncan Miller (ph:202-225-5672 fx:202-225-0235).
the last question is the only one that really matters
now, most of the people said no to this question, but there are ways around this.Quote:
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
example: most of our armed forces are off fighting terrorism in iraq/iran/etc
a terrorist attack takes place in the us, we are now under martial law.
the government decides to(do a whole crapload of things) lets just say, they wanna implant chips in everyone to keep the terrorists from comming in(sounds good huh)
meanwhile, thousands of americans resist this ideal, some with force(as i would)
now, the president calls in nato to "help keep the peace"
you think those nato "peacekeeping" troops from (anywhere but the us) are gonna have any problems shooting you?
WAKE UP
the government decides to(do a whole crapload of things) lets just say, they wanna implant chips in everyone to keep the terrorists from comming in(sounds good huh)
meanwhile, thousands of americans resist this ideal, some with force(as i would)
now, the president calls in nato to "help keep the peace"
you think those nato "peacekeeping" troops from (anywhere but the us) are gonna have any problems shooting you? Could happen, I know G.W. could pull that on us, I don't know if the congress would be willing to go along as they get their support from the states, but if the state governments willed it, then you're right, I'd have to break out the secret stash of weaponry. Every adult citizen that is not crazy or a criminal, should be issued an M-16 or an AK-47, I'd prefer the AK as it is indestructable. A deer rifle makes a good sniper rifle, and for close in wet work, you can't beat a shotgun, of course, you should always carry at least two hand guns into combat, one to defend yourself, and one to take yourself out with if being captured by crazies, always save the last bullet for yourself.
Got to protect yourself in such environments and realities.
could guns be phased out in us?
i dont know but I find gun laws like yours hard to believe if noone has guns it is surely a lot safer.
YouTube - Pennywise - Homesick
VisionaryUrban Um what?
Yeah i see what your saying.... but the point for us bear arms for what ever reason, has shifted to the protection of ourselves.
I dont know what the hell your rambling on about, why the gov would show up at my door with an an arm telling me to go somewhere? what? this isnt a conspiracy issue duh,
The fact is, we have a right to bear arms, for what ever fucking reason we have to protect our selves, and the gun laws dont limit you to your 9mm, u can purchase assault rifles if u wanted to. You could in fact have an legal gun arsenal.
The point of the 2nd ammendment is for our protection, from anyone, it doesnt limit it to the gov trying to force us to do anything, the law is so we may defend ourselves rightfully, in any situation.
Lets stop thinking about how our government is trying to fuck us over, when there the ones telling us we can own the guns and defend ourselves.
When people stopp rapes and murders becuase they simply have a gun, how can u say the ammendment is twisted?
I think its stupidity to think the ammendment was only made to defend ourselves from governing powers, it so we can protect ourselves in a situation where no one else is able to.
You would be in stict violation of the rights of the poeple in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Souproller
Not to mention all of the crime that will increase because store owners wont be able to legally defend themselves when some ass hole shows up to robb them with a illegal weapon. The point of guns are for protection, not wars, sorry people think differently, but its people who kill people not guns, its not going to change a damn thing, most killings with guns are done with illegally obtained weapons anyway so does it really matter?