Mass shooting

[Guest American Woman]

Then get used to watching more and bigger mass shootings in your country.

You don't have a ban on guns in your own country.

[WWWTT]

What other rights do Canadians want to take away from Americans? How about that awful "Free Speech" thing that makes banning hate speech impossible in the U.S. ?

You sound like your bummed out if your not trolling.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

You sound like your bummed out if your not trolling.

No..I'm good...it is avery exciting NFL weekend of games that have lots of playoff implications. Dallas is threatening right now against Pittsburgh, and later tonight, the 49'ers play the Patriots. Lots of Canadians without guns will be watching too.

[Guest Derek L]

No..I'm good...it is avery exciting NFL weekend of games that have lots of playoff implications. Dallas is threatening right now against Pittsburgh, and later tonight, the 49'ers play the Patriots. Lots of Canadians without guns will be watching too.

And Canadians with guns........I think they should have tried the 61 yard kick.........

[Guest American Woman]

No..I'm good...it is avery exciting NFL weekend of games that have lots of playoff implications. Dallas is threatening right now against Pittsburgh, and later tonight, the 49'ers play the Patriots. Lots of Canadians without guns will be watching too.

And Canadians with guns........I think they should have tried the 61 yard kick.........

Did I mention ... Yay Packers?

[bush_cheney2004]

For the same reason it loves its guns. Because it wants to. The Constitution has little to do with it. That's only the justification.

The Constitution has everything to do with it. I don't expect you to understand that....I have socks older than your 1982 Constitution Act.

[Guest Derek L]

Did I mention ... Yay Packers?

Don't mess with Texas!!!!!

[Wilber]

The Constitution has everything to do with it. I don't expect you to understand that....I have socks older than your 1982 Constitution Act.

It's something to hide behind, just like ours.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's something to hide behind, just like ours.

Maybe for you, but not for me...and lots of other Americans who take such things quite seriously despite any fun grab-assing on this forum. You are talking about something that is an order of magnitude more important to Americans than universal health care is to Canadians.

Edited December 17, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Maybe for you, but not for me...and lots of other Americans who take such things quite seriously despite any fun grab-assing on this forum. You are talking about something that is an order of magnitude more important to Americans than universal health care is to Canadians.

Right, and no one would ever use your precious constitution to be self serving.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right, and no one would ever use your precious constitution to be self serving.

Doesn't matter either way. You are talking about messing with Founding concepts for the republic and principles that define what the nation is and stands for. Next we can ignore the 1st Amendment, right ?

Edited December 17, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Doesn't matter either way. You are talking about messing with Founding concepts for the republic and principles that define what the nation is and stands for. Next we can ignore the 1st Amendment, right ?

Do what you want. I'm just saying that you love your guns because you want to and the Constitution is a convenient excuse. I don't care if you change it or not.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Do what you want. I'm just saying that you love your guns because you want to and the Constitution is a convenient excuse. I don't care if you change it or not.

I don't own a gun, I have no desire to own a gun, I've never so much as held a gun, much less shot one off - so am I using the Constitution as a "convenient excuse" to support gun ownership too?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't own a gun, I have no desire to own a gun, I've never so much as held a gun, much less shot one off - so am I using the Constitution as a "convenient excuse" to support gun ownership too?

Indeed...I don't think some get it. It's not about the hardware itself, but the constitutional rights of "The People". Canadians don't live within a republican framework and can easily dismiss what they perceive as silly and dangerous American rights.

During WW2, Canada wanted to register all guns for fear of an internal security problem. Their's is a "Crown" mindset, not individual liberties.

Edited December 17, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Why, because some rich dudes, half of them slave owners had all the answers 230 years ago and you dare not change them even though it is costing you tens of thousands of lives every year for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting your Constitution or your country. You're right, we don't get it.

[Hudson Jones]

Actually I advocated, in the response to your post above, tougher licensing, combined with insurance, mental health screening and equal requirements as law enforcement

That sounds like a sensible and a responsible view.

.…………..Perhaps emotionally unstable folks such as yourself shouldn’t have guns.

=/

Was there a need for that or the gun porn?

[kimmy]

I've recently gone through the process of getting a firearms license (just approved, by the way.)

The first thing I can say about it is that it took over 5 months. I think that if I'd been in a rush to kill somebody, I'd have given up waiting for my PAL to arrive and gone and strangled them instead. The glacial pace of the process was frustrating enough that it could itself probably provoke a rampage of some sort.

The second thing I can say is that all of the information I was asked to provide about my mental health was, as far as I can tell completely voluntary. I informed them that I have been treated for depression in the past, and ongoing treatment for general anxiety. They asked me for my doctor's contact information and for a letter indicating that she felt I was not a risk to harm anyone. Which I provided, and they approved my application afterward.

I told them about my mental health history because that's the sort of person I am. However, as far as I can tell I could have just as easily told them that I had no mental health issues at all, and they would have never been the wiser. It would have been easy to write "no" on the application form and to tell them I'd never had any mental health concerns during the interview. How would they have found out otherwise?

Further, if somebody who doesn't even know he's got mental health issues applies, how would they know?

This voluntary screening might turn up somebody like me, who is aware and honest enough to tell them about it. It wouldn't turn up a liar. It certainly wouldn't turn up somebody with undiagnosed mental health issues.

I think the only part of the process that provides any real screening is the interview with the references... and you're still depending on the honesty of the applicant's friends. "Joey's my friend and he's a pretty good guy... I don't think I'll mention the time he screamed at the boss and said he was going to kill everybody. He probably didn't mean it..."

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Why, because some rich dudes, half of them slave owners had all the answers 230 years ago and you dare not change them even though it is costing you tens of thousands of lives every year for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting your Constitution or your country.

Slavery was debated at length by the founders, generations before slavery was abolished in Canada or the USA. As an economic system, it was continued for the near term priority of forming a union and kicking your monarchy to the curb. Civil War ensued when the issue came to the fore again and the union was threatened. The same thing would happen over gun rights.

You're right, we don't get it.

That's OK.....you're in Canada. If "thousands" of deaths each year in the U.S. disturbs you, stop watching so much American media. Most Americans have no idea that Marc Lepine killed 14 people and injured 14 more in 1989....they don't watch the CBC. And I guess you really wouldn't like Mexico !

Edited December 17, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Nothing to do with disturbing us. What we don't get is why it doesn't disturb you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing to do with disturbing us. What we don't get is why it doesn't disturb you.

Why should it ? If a deranged individual is hell bent on killing people and take his/her own life, not much can be done. The worst school incident in the U.S. involved a bombing, not 2nd Amendment gun rights. 45,000 people have been killed in Mexico since 2006, but I don't read one crocodile tear about it from concerned and righteous citizens in Canada. Why is that...no hablo Español ?

[Wilber]

Haven't noticed many Mexicans on this forum but everythings cool cause Mexico is worse. OK

Edited December 17, 2012 by Wilber

[jbg]

Why, because some rich dudes, half of them slave owners had all the answers 230 years ago and you dare not change them even though it is costing you tens of thousands of lives every year for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting your Constitution or your country. You're right, we don't get it.

Wilber, normally we've enjoyed a harmonious level of discussion and I hop that doesn't change. I disagree sharply with your views here.

Amendments 1-10 had little to do with protecting slave owners. The fear was that the Federal Government would centralize power and render the states to be cyphers. The Amendments generally were a restriction on Congress, not on the states. The wording and intent of the 14th Amendment gradually had the impact of applying those restrictions to the states.

I do not want to attack or disparage Canada by this post. I do need to point out that the grounding of liberty is not nearly as firm under the Charter.

[Bonam]

Slavery was debated at length by the founders, generations before slavery was abolished in Canada or the USA. As an economic system, it was continued for the near term priority of forming a union and kicking your monarchy to the curb. Civil War ensued when the issue came to the fore again and the union was threatened. The same thing would happen over gun rights.

You believe that if the federal government try to impose stricter gun control, that it would lead to another civil war?

[bush_cheney2004]

Haven't noticed many Mexicans on this forum but everythings cool cause Mexico is worse. OK

The point that escapes you is that Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

[Wilber]

Wilber, normally we've enjoyed a harmonious level of discussion and I hop that doesn't change. I disagree sharply with your views here.

Amendments 1-10 had little to do with protecting slave owners. The fear was that the Federal Government would centralize power and render the states to be cyphers. The Amendments generally were a restriction on Congress, not on the states. The wording and intent of the 14th Amendment gradually had the impact of applying those restrictions to the states.

I do not want to attack or disparage Canada by this post. I do need to point out that the grounding of liberty is not nearly as firm under the Charter.

Seems I'm not the only one here who doen't get stuff.