From my cold dead hands!

[Guest American Woman]

Just the President?? Right ....

It sure isn't "the US," because if it were, it would be a done deal, eh?

[GostHacked]

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

Really? Umm I mean there was no rhetoric of gun control after something like Sandy Hook? We don't have a few threads on that? Something related to the NRA perhaps?

But we do have people in the US government (maybe that was more to your liking????????? ) that are pushing for gun control within the USA. That is clear and a fact. We also have the senators and such pushing back against the small arms treaty from the UN. So regardless of the simple beef of 'oh the usa eh??' (canukistan inflection done there) the real issue of what I posted goes right over the head.

It is hypocritical to pose gun control for US citizens while pushing back on some kind of global gun control run by the UN.

[Guest American Woman]

Really? Umm I mean there was no rhetoric of gun control after something like Sandy Hook? We don't have a few threads on that? Something related to the NRA perhaps?

But we do have people in the US government (maybe that was more to your liking????????? ) that are pushing for gun control within the USA. That is clear and a fact. We also have the senators and such pushing back against the small arms treaty from the UN. So regardless of the simple beef of 'oh the usa eh??' (canukistan inflection done there) the real issue of what I posted goes right over the head.

It is hypocritical to pose gun control for US citizens while pushing back on some kind of global gun control run by the UN.

Unless it's different people doing it, eh?? In other words, again, it's not "the US." Capice? Therefore, nothing hypocritical about it.

[GostHacked]

Unless it's different people doing it, eh?? In other words, again, it's not "the US." Capice? Therefore, nothing hypocritical about it.

Right over your head. Edited April 3, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Right over your head.

Wrong. Just because you think you have a point, it doesn't mean you do. Again. "The US"* is not trying to restrict guns for the average american - therefore you have no point.

*That's a fact.

[GostHacked]

American Woman, on 03 Apr 2013 - 14:52, said:

Wrong. Just because you think you have a point, it doesn't mean you do. Again. "The US"* is not trying to restrict guns for the average american - therefore you have no point.

*That's a fact.

Semantics is what you are arguing over, missing the real argument.

But let me throw a little 'American Woman' back at you. Don't tell me that I don't have a point. Clearly you do not understand what I am 'trying to say'. (obligatory smiley faces)

[Guest American Woman]

Semantics is what you are arguing over, missing the real argument.

But let me throw a little 'American Woman' back at you. Don't tell me that I don't have a point. Clearly you do not understand what I am 'trying to say'. (obligatory smiley faces)

In order for you to have a point, "the US" would have to be trying to restrict guns for the average american. It's not. If it were, it would be a done deal. As I said. If what you are saying is not true, then there can be is no hypocrisy - except in your mind; so in your mind, you do have a point.

[GostHacked]

American Woman, on 03 Apr 2013 - 15:02, said:

In order for you to have a point, "the US" would have to be trying to restrict guns for the average american. It's not. If it were, it would be a done deal. As I said. If what you are saying is not true, then there can be is no hypocrisy - except in your mind; so in your mind, you do have a point.

You are right, there was no talk of gun control and no push to restrict firearms. Sandy Hook, and Aurora never happened then either. Are you really going to play the ignorance card here?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

Quote

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

Infringing on American's rights are Obama's responsibility.

So we have talk about reducing clip size, 'assault weapons' having gun owners pay liability insurance within the USA. Even going after the gun manufacturers themselves. While export of arms to areas around the world INCLUDING KNOWN TERRORISTS .....

I have a point, but you chose to not see it. I guess this Canadian does not know squat eh?

[waldo]

In order for you to have a point, "the US" would have to be trying to restrict guns for the average american. It's not. If it were, it would be a done deal. As I said. If what you are saying is not true, then there can be is no hypocrisy - except in your mind; so in your mind, you do have a point.

uhhh... if you're trying... still trying... it can't be done - you're still trying, yes?

[Guest American Woman]

You are right, there was no talk of gun control and no push to restrict firearms. Sandy Hook, and Aurora never happened then either. Are you really going to play the ignorance card here?

Again. In spite of the reality of Sandy Hook et al, there isn't a push by "the US" to restrict guns for the average American. Good grief. There's been just as much talk about preserving gun rights. One could just as easily say "The US is trying to preserve gun rights for the average American." Are you really going to play the ignorance card here?

[GostHacked]

Again. In spite of the reality of Sandy Hook et al, there isn't a push by "the US" to restrict guns for the average American. Good grief. There's been just as much talk about preserving gun rights. One could just as easily say "The US is trying to preserve gun rights for the average American." Are you really going to play the ignorance card here?

You could not have talk about preserving gun rights if someone did not want to take those rights away from you.

[waldo]

Again. In spite of the reality of Sandy Hook et al, there isn't a push by "the US" to restrict guns for the average American. Good grief. There's been just as much talk about preserving gun rights. One could just as easily say "The US is trying to preserve gun rights for the average American." Are you really going to play the ignorance card here?

apparently... the recent U.S. Senate Feinstein bill to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines... was not a 'restriction' attempt, hey?

[Guest American Woman]

You could not have talk about preserving gun rights if someone did not want to take those rights away from you.

"Someone," yes. Not "the US." Get it? "The US" has 320+ million "someones." As I said, you could just as easily say "the US is trying to preserve gun rights for American citizens." Your claim of hypocrisy holds no water - unless you can show that it's the same "someone" that you are referencing in both instances. It's like trying to say Canada is hypocritical because the NDP is trying to do this while the Tories are trying to do that - referring to both parties as "Canada."

Edited April 3, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

American Woman, on 03 Apr 2013 - 15:27, said:

"Someone," yes. Not "the US." Get it? "The US" has 320+ million "someones." As I said, you could just as easily say "the US is trying to preserve gun rights for American citizens." Your claim of hypocrisy holds no water - unless you can show that it's the same "someone" that you are referencing in both instances. It's like trying to say Canada is hypocritical because the NDP is trying to do this while the Tories are trying to do that - referring to both parties as "Canada."

And you are STILL arguing over semantics.

[GostHacked]

But in the terms of the NDP and the Tories and Conservatives, they are all part of the Canadian government and all share the responsibility of Canada's successes and failures. Nice to see you take some pages out of the BC_2004 playbook.

[Guest American Woman]

But in the terms of the NDP and the Tories and Conservatives, they are all part of the Canadian government and all share the responsibility of Canada's successes and failures. Nice to see you take some pages out of the BC_2004 playbook.

Of course they do, but neither one of them is Canada. When they are in conflict, you can't pick one side and attribute it to Canada. As I've pointed out several times now, there's a completely opposite force going on at the same time, and one could just as easily say "the US" is trying to do what they are trying to do. To pick one side and then refer to hypocrisy when it could involve completely different "someones" is not making a point. If you still don't see that, keep attributing it to "the US" so you can hold on to your accusation.

And what in God's name does BC_2004 have to do with any of it? You might want to check the forum rules and guidelines there, buddy.

[GostHacked]

Of course they do, but neither one of them is Canada. When they are in conflict, you can't pick one side and attribute it to Canada. As I've pointed out several times now, there's a completely opposite force going on at the same time, and one could just as easily say "the US" is trying to do what they are trying to do. To pick one side and then refer to hypocrisy when it could involve completely different "someones" is not making a point. If you still don't see that, keep attributing it to "the US" so you can hold on to your accusation.

And what in God's name does BC_2004 have to do with any of it? You might want to check the forum rules and guidelines there, buddy.

Still arguing over semantics even after I have cleared that up.

And the thing about BC_2004 was about bringing Canada into everything we discuss about American politics.

Maybe staying on topic would be within the forum guidelines as well. Call me crazy.

Edited April 3, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Still arguing over semantics even after I have cleared that up.

The "semantics" are what you are basing your "point"/accusation on, and I'm not arguing anything - just pointing out that "the US" isn't doing what you claim it's doing.

By your reasoning, every country in the world is hypocritical about everything that every "someone" in the country isn't in total agreement on - which is basically everything. Also, by the same reasoning, for every force within every country trying to do something, "the country" is trying to do it.

[Pliny]

GostHacked, on 03 Apr 2013 - 11:43, said:

Just the President?? Right ....

...plus some of his adoring fans, some of whom work at the WH, and can't forget the Attorney-General.

[GostHacked]

...plus some of his adoring fans, some of whom work at the WH, and can't forget the Attorney-General.

Riiiiight .. the same guy responsible for the gun running to the drug cartels in Mexico. Later to only have those same guns cross back into the USA to be used in criminal activity. Hmmm, I believe his name was Holder. Maybe I should wait for someone south of the 49th to tell me how things really are.

No wonder they opposed this UN arms treaty thing.

[Guest Derek L]

Well I disagree with magazine limits, both Democrats and Republicans at the State level in Connecticut have actually come up with some effective gun safety measures:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/01/connecticut-gun-laws-restrictive-newtown.html

The proposal Monday also called for background checks for private gun sales and a new registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a compromise for parents of Newtown victims who had wanted an outright ban on them, while legislators had proposed grandfathering them into the law.

Good luck with background checks on private sales and a magazine registry………complete and utter idiocy and utterly ineffective or enforceable………Pure political optics.

The package also creates what legislators said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales and expansion of Connecticut's assault weapons ban.

A new state-issued eligibility certificate would also be needed to purchase any rifle, shotgun or ammunition under the legislation. To get the certificate, a buyer would need to be fingerprinted, take a firearms training course and undergo a national criminal background check and involuntary commitment or voluntary admission check.

Actual effective measures and almost on par with our current licensing program………..Dealing with the person, not the gun………what a concept.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Really? Umm I mean there was no rhetoric of gun control after something like Sandy Hook? We don't have a few threads on that? Something related to the NRA perhaps?

But we do have people in the US government (maybe that was more to your liking????????? ) that are pushing for gun control within the USA. That is clear and a fact. We also have the senators and such pushing back against the small arms treaty from the UN. So regardless of the simple beef of 'oh the usa eh??' (canukistan inflection done there) the real issue of what I posted goes right over the head.

It is hypocritical to pose gun control for US citizens while pushing back on some kind of global gun control run by the UN.

Though I disagree with the UN treaty in principle, many of the requirements in regards to weapons importing and exporting laws are already in place in the United States………Who said treaty will “hurt” the most are the Russians and Chinese, as both nations will sell anything to anyone (and cheap)………

And the US did support the treaty, whether it will go through the Senate is another thing.

[waldo]

Well I disagree with magazine limits

uhhh... why?

"We learned, the way that no other parents should learn, that the most dangerous, dangerous part of an assault weapon is the magazine," Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan, 6, was killed Dec. 14, said at a press conference with other parents at the Capitol Monday morning.

"The horrible, brutal truth is that 154 bullets were fired in four minutes, killing our children, our daughters, our wives. The shooter carried 10, 30-round large-capacity magazines," Hockley said. "We have learned that in the time it took him to reload in one of the classrooms, 11 children were able to escape. We ask ourselves every day — every minute — if those magazines had held 10 rounds, forcing the shooter to reload at least six more times, would our children be alive today?"

.

[Guest Derek L]

uhhh... why?

.

Because a piece of pop-steel or plastic is even less dangerous then a gun.....

Dealing with the person, not the gun………what a concept.

And the difference in reload time for a AR-15 x 6? ~12-15 seconds for an experienced user and about double that for a novice……..Even the Waldo, after shown once, could do it in about 5-6 seconds……..

[waldo]

Because a piece of pop-steel or plastic is even less dangerous then a gun.....

And the difference in reload time for a AR-15 x 6? ~12-15 seconds for an experienced user and about double that for a novice……..Even the Waldo, after shown once, could do it in about 5-6 seconds……..

if you're going to quote the graphic I provided, you should at least have the decency to directly acknowledge the circumstance/timing/words of the mother of the dead Sandy Hook victim relayed. Cause, like you see... apparently... 11 kids escaped during the time it took for the perpetrator to reload one of his 30-round magazines.

11 kids... in spite of your preferred figure spew.

what "recreational enthusiast" needs 30 round magazines? What requirements of a "recreational enthusiast" couldn't be met/satisfied with say, uhhh... a 10 round magazine load? Oh wait, don't tell me - did your militia go and buy up a tonna huuuuge capacity magazines? Are they coming for your mags... as well as your guns?