From my cold dead hands!

[Guest American Woman]

Pretty much the way I see him as well but I feel the same way about many others.

Same here - but this thread is about him.

[Guest American Woman]

Whether it is the norm or necessary is very relevent. You're not taking the idiotic position that the President's children shouldn't have armed security because their father is in favour of gun controls? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

You're not taking "the idiotic position" that Jim Carrey has the same security issues as the President's children, are you?

Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Pliny]

So Wilder would also be a hypocrite if he spoke out against your gun laws, as well as any other actor who had played a role involving a gun and spoke out against them, including the likes of Tom Hanks for movies like Saving Private Ryan.

Poor buggers wouldn't be allowed any opinions at all without you branding them hypocrites.

Perhaps Carrey would just prefer not to need an armed body guard. Selfish brat.

You don't see that him using armed guards is not in keeping with his position on gun ownership? While many people cannot

afford an entourage of armed guards they can afford and should be allowed to purchase their own protection as they feel necessary. The fact that the majority of people in the US do not feel the necessity to arm themselves, is a comment on

their civility but they currently have the choice. I think they are starting to think they need protection more from

their government than anything else.

Your opinion of the Constitution is one I've heard expressed by a few American politicians but it is what it is and a

new Constitution would probably make them a socialist state, similar to France or Sweden, in no time - and we know where

they are heading.

Luckily the US has some influence over Canada as regards a free market and has restrained our progressive creeping socialism to a degree. It's really a losing battle though, even in the US, as the public education system churns out its

prefabricated electorate solely concerned with demanding their "special interest" entitlements and unable to live

without the ones they have already voted themselves.

[Wilber]

You're not taking "the idiotic position" that Jim Carrey has the same security issues as the President's children, are you?

I'm not making up the rules as I go along. Who are you to say what his security needs are?

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not making up the rules as I go along. Who are you to say what his security needs are?

Who is he to say what others' security needs are? But surely you're not taking "the idiotic position" that Jim Carrey has the same security issues as the President's children, are you? That his security needs are on the same level as theirs'?

Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Who is he to say what others' security needs are? But surely you're not taking "the idiotic position" that Jim Carrey has the same security issues as the President's children, are you? That his security needs are on the same level as theirs'?

I don't know. Maybe he receives threats, maybe he has had some bad experiences. I don't think he is talking about security. If 50% of your population own guns and there are more privately owned guns than people, that means 50% of your population owns at least two guns. That's not a question of security, particlularly if the other 50% don't believe they need any.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know. Maybe he receives threats, maybe he has had some bad experiences.

Doesn't matter. He's not in the same league as the POTUS and family.

I don't think he is talking about security. If 50% of your population own guns and there are more privately owned guns than people, that means 50% of your population owns at least two guns.

It means no such thing. Far less than 50% of Americans own guns, and of those who do, many own just one while many own several guns. Some own many, many guns.

That's not a question of security, particlularly if the other 50% don't believe they need any.

So what is it a question of?

[Wilber]

Doesn't matter. He's not in the same league as the POTUS and family.

So who else is? Does that mean no one else requires it? You are making the judgement so where do you draw the line?

It means no such thing. Far less than 50% of Americans own guns, and of those who do, many own just one while many own several guns. Some own many, many guns.

Right, so it isn't about security.

So what is it a question of?

You tell me.

[Pliny]

So who else is? Does that mean no one else requires it? You are making the judgement so where do you draw the line?

Right, so it isn't about security.

You tell me.

It's a question of changing circumstances and the necessity of free choice in meeting them. No one may need a gun or choose to have one but circumstances may change and the choice must still be there for them.

[Wilber]

It's a question of changing circumstances and the necessity of free choice in meeting them. No one may need a gun or choose to have one but circumstances may change and the choice must still be there for them.

I don't dispute that, I'm not about banning private ownership of all guns.

[Pliny]

I don't dispute that, I'm not about banning private ownership of all guns.

I know. You are only talking about making laws infringing upon the right to bear arms because the constitution is a 230 year old agreement made by business interests at the time and thus has no relevancy to today......although the spirit of King George hovers over most of us in the world today and serves no less a threat.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Pliny

[Wilber]

I know. You are only talking about making laws infringing upon the right to bear arms because the constitution is a 230 year old agreement made by business interests at the time and thus has no relevancy to today......although the spirit of King George hovers over most of us in the world today and serves no less a threat.

When it comes to tyrants, George III was the light version. He was not a bad man but he badly misjudged a situation and made some major mistakes.

From Wikipedia

"Lord North's government was chiefly concerned with discontent in America. To assuage American opinion most of the custom duties were withdrawn, except for the tea duty, which in George's words was "one tax to keep up the right [to levy taxes]".In 1773, the tea ships moored in Boston Harbor were boarded by colonists and the tea thrown overboard, an event that became known as the Boston Tea Party. In Britain, opinion hardened against the colonists, with Chatham now agreeing with North that the destruction of the tea was "certainly criminal". With the clear support of Parliament, Lord North introduced measures, which were called the Intolerable Acts by the colonists: the Port of Boston was shut down and the charter of Massachusetts was altered so that the upper house of the legislature was appointed by the Crown instead of elected by the lower house. Up to this point, in the words of Professor Peter Thomas, George's "hopes were centred on a political solution, and he always bowed to his cabinet's opinions even when sceptical of their success. The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution. Though the Americans characterised George as a tyrant, in these years he acted as a constitutional monarch supporting the initiatives of his ministers."

Edited March 31, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest Derek L]

I know. You are only talking about making laws infringing upon the right to bear arms because the constitution is a 230 year old agreement made by business interests at the time and thus has no relevancy to today......although the spirit of King George hovers over most of us in the world today and serves no less a threat.

Exactly

[Guest Derek L]

And look at this:

http://www.gunnews.com/sikh-sues-state-over-gun-ban-claims-1st-amendment-violation/

Gursant Singh Khalsa, a follower of the Sikh faith for 35 years, filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California March 13. Twist: His suit claims the state is stopping him from fully practicing his religion by not allowing him to own and use AR-style rifles and standard-capacity 30-round magazines.

“Decrees from the Tenth Sikh Guru state in the most vigorous and clear words that, ‘a Sikh’s conception of God is the sword of God is the sword of dharma,’” Khalsa said.

The Yuba City, California, resident said some practicing Sikhs already carry what he calls “the sword of dharma” for protection. Khalsa said if assault weapons were legalized in the state, the loss of life in mass shootings, like the one in Wisconsin, could be minimized.

I wish the gentleman luck with his lawsuit…..In essence, he claims the State of California is preventing him from carrying out the tenements of his religion by impeding his ability (and Right) to defend himself and his family………Maybe Carrey can make a video mocking Sikhs and see how it goes over…….

[Guest American Woman]

I think Carrey is coming across as too full of himself for his own good. I'm no fan of Fox News, but his reaction to what they had to say about him is just more hypocrisy on his part. His going on about it, as he has said some out-of-line, really nasty things about people who don't support his view, makes him come across as a big baby, IMO.

"'Cold Dead Hand' is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you're offended…"

And I'm sure Fox News is sorry that he's offended ....

Edited April 1, 2013 by American Woman

[Pliny]

"'Cold Dead Hand' is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you're offended…"

He should add a "Mr. Perfect" and a little sniffle at the end.

Us MFers would support something that was effective in curtailing the occurrence of horrendous seemingly random acts of violence.

So the law about gun control passes and things just get worse. There was a ban on semi-automatic rifles from 1994 to

2004 which was allowed to lapse because it was basically ineffective. There was no improvement in statistics.

What do you do with a Mother that drowns her three kids in the bathtub? Or a Nanny that stabs her two charges to death?

Or any number of events that occurred without the use of guns? Yet there is at least one common thread to them all - psychotropic drugs.

[Guest Derek L]

He should add a "Mr. Perfect" and a little sniffle at the end.

Us MFers would support something that was effective in curtailing the occurrence of horrendous seemingly random acts of violence.

So the law about gun control passes and things just get worse. There was a ban on semi-automatic rifles from 1994 to

2004 which was allowed to lapse because it was basically ineffective. There was no improvement in statistics.

What do you do with a Mother that drowns her three kids in the bathtub? Or a Nanny that stabs her two charges to death?

Or any number of events that occurred without the use of guns? Yet there is at least one common thread to them all - psychotropic drugs.

Bingo..........

[WWWTT]

I'm can't wait till Carrey does a spoof on this guy!

http://slnm.us/Ac9PH4d

WWWTT

[Wilber]

I'm can't wait till Carrey does a spoof on this guy!

http://slnm.us/Ac9PH4d

WWWTT

Wow!

[GostHacked]

I think it's quite funny and ironic, that the US is trying to restrict guns for the average american, and yet recently pushed back on the UN small arms treaty.

[Pliny]

I'm can't wait till Carrey does a spoof on this guy!

http://slnm.us/Ac9PH4d

WWWTT

This is a diversion from the real problem and it's a pity really. The lives of children and innocent people are at stake. We need an understanding and effective solutions to the problem of senseless random acts of violence.

This is from the same website.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/our_kids_are_on_too_many_drugs_and_the_drug_companies_win/

What the drug pushers are doing is widening the net and in doing so are essentially saying those children cannot control their behavior so need a prescription to do so. They forever need a prescription then to "control" their behavior.

[Pliny]

I think it's quite funny and ironic, that the US is trying to restrict guns for the average american, and yet recently pushed back on the UN small arms treaty.

Is it perhaps because it isn't the US pushing gun control it is the President.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it's quite funny and ironic, that the US is trying to restrict guns for the average american,....

Really?? "The US" is doing that? That's news to this American....

Edited April 3, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

Interesting but not surprising study...unless you listen to NRA rhetoric. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/ "The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies in Congress frequently claim that gun violence is highest in places with the toughest crime laws. But a new study from the Center for American Progress (CAP) suggests something closer to the opposite is true"

While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of a state’s gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

[GostHacked]

Is it perhaps because it isn't the US pushing gun control it is the President.

Just the President?? Right ....