The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

No.  In Canada in Federal politics, federal parties and candidates cannot receive money from organizations, corporations, or unions.  All donations must come from individuals and is limited to about $1300 per year and the same amount to a candidate's election campaign.  There are no donations from a gun lobby.  In the U.S. the NRA provides millions of dollars to politicians they choose.  Not in Canada.

 

Nope...lots of money flows in Canada by many methods, even from across the border, same way that Canadians try to influence U.S. politics.

Ever heard of the Koch Brothers ?    Or Sierra Club ?    

 

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, Kerfuffle said:

California passed some of the nation’s toughest gun laws over the past two decades, and gun deaths across the state have declined by more than half....same result with many other states...proof gun control works.

 

Gun deaths were declining in the U.S. long before that, for lots of reasons.  

More guns per capita...fewer gun deaths per capita.

If "gun control" means selling more guns, please give me more "gun control" !

[Kerfuffle]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Gun deaths were declining in the U.S. long before that, for lots of reasons.  

More guns per capita...fewer gun deaths per capita.

If "gun control" means selling more guns, please give me more "gun control" !

Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/09/16/Shocker-States-More-Guns-Have-More-Gun-Deaths

Edited February 22, 2018 by Kerfuffle

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Kerfuffle said:

Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent

 

Please cite referenced/posted content per forum rules....so others can read the entire article:

 

Quote

...For all states, the average firearm homicide rate decreased from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in 2010.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/09/16/Shocker-States-More-Guns-Have-More-Gun-Deaths

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[blackbird]

33 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope...lots of money flows in Canada by many methods, even from across the border, same way that Canadians try to influence U.S. politics.

Ever heard of the Koch Brothers ?    Or Sierra Club ?    

 

These private organizations cannot donate money to a candidates election campaign.  The private organizations cannot give money to a candidate's political campaign or riding association.   Private organizations that exist for certain causes probably find other ways to promote their causes.  But if they are claiming charitable status for income tax purposes, they cannot get involved in politics per se

Election campaigns fall under the supervision of the Elections Canada and there must be a paper trail for all donations and expenditures.  The campaigns begin on an actual date prior to the election.  Of course there may be organizations that promote certain causes in the media throughout the year.  Environmental organizations are an example which use money for their causes anytime.  But any organization which claims charitable status from the federal government Revenue Canada cannot be partisan or involved in politics.  At least they are not supposed to be.

Edited February 22, 2018 by blackbird

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

These private organizations cannot donate money to a candidates election campaign.  Election campaigns fall under the supervision of the Elections Canada and there must be a paper trail for all donations and expenditures.  The campaigns begin on an actual date prior to the election.  Of course there may be organizations that promote certain causes in the media throughout the year.  Environmental organizations are an example which use money for their causes anytime.  But any organization which claims charitable status from the federal government Revenue Canada cannot be partisan or involved in politics.  At least they are not supposed to be.

 

That's all well and good, and getting off topic, but foreign money influences lots of things in Canada, including elections.

The NRA is just one of many, many groups in the U.S. that contribute to and influence elections, including Canadian lobbyists and campaign "volunteers".

I don't really know why the U.S. gun control debate gets so much attention and passion in Canada....must be another way that the Canadian identity is defined as..."not American".

(Even though Canadians own more guns per capita according to Michael Moore).

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's all well and good, and getting off topic, but foreign money influences lots of things in Canada, including elections.

The NRA is just one of many, many groups in the U.S. that contribute to and influence elections, including Canadian lobbyists and campaign "volunteers".

I don't really know why the U.S. gun control debate gets so much attention and passion in Canada....must be another way that the Canadian identity is defined as..."not American".

(Even though Canadians own more guns per capita according to Michael Moore).

Canadians watch the news of everything that is going on in the U.S. and it gets as much coverage as things going on in Canada, maybe more at times.  The CBC carries much of the American news and everything happening around Trump.  So Canadians are deeply immersed in American culture, entertainment, and politics, whether they live there or not.

ON the gun issue, many of us just don't see why so many innocent people need to die from guns just because they happen to live there.  It's seen as a huge tragedy.  You also know Canadians, especially the left, are quite enthusiastic at spending taxpayer's money to try to solve the world's problems.  I'm not a support of liberals or lefties, but I look at the gun issue as a non-political problem.   Saving lives should be more important than some abstract notion of "gun rights", which is purely subjective and open to interpretation as to what it should mean.

[LonJowett]

48 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No they don't....only desperate gun grabbers make that kind of argument.

Guns have killed far more people than "nukes" ?

 

That is textbook cowering to avoid an argument. It even resorted to childish name-calling to bring home my point. So you're saying American jihadists have the right to nukes to form a self-regulating militia? I'll take your avoidance of the question as a sign you're waiting for your Russian bot-masters to give you some talking points so you can express your position clearly.

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canadians watch the news of everything that is going on in the U.S. and it gets as much coverage as things going on in Canada, maybe more at times.  The CBC carries much of the American news and everything happening around Trump.  So Canadians are deeply immersed in American culture, entertainment, and politics, whether they live there or not.

 

Canadians have been obsessed with American culture long before Trump came along.   Another separate topic, but "gun control" in a foreign country really hooks 'em for some reason.  Ranks right up there with "health care" (which is not a right in Canada).

 

Quote

ON the gun issue, many of us just don't see why so many innocent people need to die from guns just because they happen to live there.  It's seen as a huge tragedy.  You also know Canadians, especially the left, are quite enthusiastic at spending taxpayer's money to try to solve the world's problems. 

 

I would agree that the Canadian left often seeks like minded partnership and kinship with American political dynamics, even at the peril of being "Americanized"...depends on the issue.   Canadians even import their anti-American rhetoric from...America.  As for gun control, Canada has plenty of it but also has greater homicide rates than other nations.   However, Americans do not obsess over homicides in Canada.

Edited February 22, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

24 minutes ago, LonJowett said:

That is textbook cowering to avoid an argument. It even resorted to childish name-calling to bring home my point. So you're saying American jihadists have the right to nukes to form a self-regulating militia? I'll take your avoidance of the question as a sign you're waiting for your Russian bot-masters to give you some talking points so you can express your position clearly.

 

Already addressed above....I have already possessed "nukes" and it wasn't because of the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[LonJowett]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Already address above....I have already possessed "nukes" and it wasn't because of the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

No, never address. Still waiting. Can't find a coherent argument?  Try changing the subject to Canada. The irrelevant statements about your "self" failed to distract from your inability to make an argument.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, LonJowett said:

No, never address. Still waiting. Can't find a coherent argument?  Try changing the subject to Canada. The irrelevant statements about your "self" failed to distract from your inability to make an argument.

 

There is no argument, especially from Canada, try as you might to inject yourself.

Edited February 22, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[LonJowett]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

There is no argument, especially from Canada, try as you might to inject yourself.

Exactly. Ultimately your position argues that American jihadists have the right to a nuclear militia. And changing the subject to Canada doesn't make that argument any less stupid.

I don't think your Russian bot-masters are going to give you the coherent argument you are looking for though.  Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau will help you feel better about yourself.

Edited February 22, 2018 by LonJowett

[betsy]

12 hours ago, LonJowett said:

Cars are made to transport; guns are just made to kill. Nonsense doesn't makes sense just by repeating it over and over. 

 

Guns are means of protection, and for hunting.  That it can kill, isn't the problem.  It's still the people who's handling them.

 

If you're going along that line of argument - you should scream for cigarettes to be banned.  They serve no other purpose but for enjoyment.  And while you're at it - scream for processed food too, to be banned. 

 

Btw,  you can always scream that we go back to the cart-and-horse mode of transportation.  Not that it will eliminate accidents, I'm sure.

 

 

Quote

Why are they trying to to prevent Iraq and North Korea from getting nukes? It's not the killing machines that kill, it's the people that are using them!

And, aren't those people trying to kill their enemies - or anyone they want to?   Who's been making threats wanting to annihilate a whole nation with nukes?  For religion? Or, ideology?

You think Fat Boy isn't mentally unstable?????

 

 

If you can't differentiate NKorea from  us.......oh boy, is it safe to give you any guns? 

 

 

Quote

 

If you don't let them have nukes, are you going to take away their cars next?

 

 

 

What a silly comment.

Edited February 22, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

12 hours ago, LonJowett said:

What terrorists has Trudeau let in? What are you even talking about? Are you just making up unrelated anecdotes to change the subject from your willingness to maintain the status quo for future school shootings?

Who's talking simply about Trudeau?  Anyway.....be specific which Trudeau you mean.

His dad had helped Khadr Sr, didn't he?  

Trudeau's brother Alexandre, lobbied for terror suspect Harkat to be let to stay in Canada, didn't he?

 

 

Quote

 

Trudeau's brother asks government to keep Harkat in Canada

In his letter, dated Feb. 27, Trudeau appealed to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to halt the unfair security certificate process and end the government’s attempt to deport Harkat. 

Alexandre Trudeau has been involved in the Harkat case for more than a decade.

In 2005, he offered to act as a surety for Harkat during a bail application.

 

 

In May 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the government’s revised security certificate regime and affirmed a decision that found Harkat to be an active member of the al-Qaida terrorist network. The case against Harkat was built on 13 wiretapped phone conversations and at least two unnamed informants, one of whom failed a lie-detector test.

 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/trudeaus-brother-asks-government-to-keep-harkat-in-canada

 

 

Quote

In May 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that security certificate process used against Harkat was fair and reasonable.^[32][33] While this theoretically cleared the way for his deportation to Algeria, the risk that he could be tortured if returned prevents the Canada Border Services Agency from removing him from Canada.^[32] In March 2016 filmmaker Alexandre Trudeau, the younger brother of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, wrote a letter to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale asking that Harkat be allowed to stay, causing Erin O'Toole, the Conservative public safety critic and Democracy Watch to demand the Prime Minister recuse himself from any decision regarding Harkat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Harkat

 

Isn't it wonderful to have the Trudeaus for friends?

 

 

Who knows who among the thousands of immigrants/refugees will slip through the cracks!  Maybe, we'll know a decade from now. 

I'm saying, vetting and screening - like any other processes such as screening for mental health  - aren't perfect!  Good grief!  Why is that so hard to understand?

Edited February 22, 2018 by betsy

[kactus]

24 minutes ago, betsy said:

If you can't differentiate NKorea from  us.......oh boy, is it safe to give you any guns? 

Do not flatter yourself... Trump is no better than NK’s fat Kim. Right now he is picking up a fight with literally ant country he doesn’t like. The one who is mentally unstable is your president.

[kactus]

8 hours ago, LonJowett said:

Exactly. Ultimately your position argues that American jihadists have the right to a nuclear militia. And changing the subject to Canada doesn't make that argument any less stupid.

I don't think your Russian bot-masters are going to give you the coherent argument you are looking for though.  Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau will help you feel better about yourself.

Might makes it right. So is the policy of the  POTUS. They never learn...

[LonJowett]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Guns are means of protection, and for hunting.  That it can kill, isn't the problem.  It's still the people who's handling them.

 

If you're going along that line of argument - you should scream for cigarettes to be banned.  They serve no other purpose but for enjoyment.  And while you're at it - scream for processed food too, to be banned. 

 

Btw,  you can always scream that we go back to the cart-and-horse mode of transportation.  Not that it will eliminate accidents, I'm sure.

 

 

And, aren't those people trying to kill their enemies - or anyone they want to?   Who's been making threats wanting to annihilate a whole nation with n

 

If you can't differentiate NKorea from  us.......oh boy, is it safe to give you any guns?

 

 

What a silly comment.

Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. The second amendment was written before nuclear weapons and assault weapons existed. If we can apply it to future weapons technology like assault weapons, we can apply it to nukes.

Again, please explain how your position differs from the argument that a well regulated American jihadist militia has the right to pursue nuclear arms technology. Don't just change the subject or make personal attacks like the other guy. Try to defend your position. 

[betsy]

2 hours ago, kactus said:

Do not flatter yourself... Trump is no better than NK’s fat Kim. Right now he is picking up a fight with literally ant country he doesn’t like. The one who is mentally unstable is your president.

Well.....he's getting them to do what he wants.  Picking up a fight (for a reason)  is one thing........ threatening to nuke or annihilate  a nation just because, is definitely another.  You can't differentiate that, too? 

Edited February 22, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

58 minutes ago, LonJowett said:

Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. The second amendment was written before nuclear weapons and assault weapons existed. If we can apply it to future weapons technology like assault weapons, we can apply it to nukes.

 

Why don't you take that several  steps farther - let's go back to bows and arrows?  Swords? Sling shots?  Clubs?

So, you send our soldiers with those weapons while their enemies had all the modern ones? 

 

Why don't we save lives - let's just submit to anyone who challenge us?  Accept any one who invades us and accept it as it is. 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by betsy

[LonJowett]

You're not answering the question again. How is your argument for inclusion of assault rifles under the second amendment different from an American jihadi arguing for the right to bear nuclear arms? It's a simple question about your own position that you should be able to answer. 

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

you should scream for cigarettes to be banned

scream for processed food too, to be banned

Next time I hear about some nutcase murdering 17 children at a school with a carton of cigarettes or by forcing feeding them hamburgers, I will be on your side.

4 hours ago, betsy said:

What a silly comment.

For now, I will just say what you said.

[Hal 9000]

16 hours ago, Kerfuffle said:

 

An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun.  An AR-15 is not.

[kactus]

Can there be ever more insanity?

Where does this all end? This genius now wants 20% of teachers to have gun...

President Donald Trump elaborated on his proposal to arm 20 percent of teaching staff at schools in a series of tweets Thursday:

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-school-shootings_us_5a8ec224e4b077f5bfebf094

Edited February 22, 2018 by kactus

[?Impact]

Trump brings guns into schools, what a complete jackass. If any of these guns is ever misplaced and someone ends up dying, then Trump should be charged with murder.