Guns/Second Amendment

[August1991]

I admire you Americans.

I disagree with your 2nd Amendment - and your 14th Amendment.

You should have rescinded the 2nd Amendment. Or your Supreme Court should strictly understand it.

[August1991]

In Canada - because of Quebec - your 14th Amendment would never have passed.

====

We in Canada are civilised.

 

[Bluedragon]

I constantly asked my Quebec Rep. "If Britain kicked your butts and you continue bow to pay the queen......Why do you speak French?" 

Civil .....laughable. 

Desire to be a Separatist? Separate, then declare war on the US. We'll come up and end the war within two months ......then rebuild you. All you have is Hydro Quebec and that is a disaster. 

[herbie]

Nuther dumb Yank

They speak French as they could keep it so long as they shot American invaders along with the Brits.

And nobody pays the Queen. She's dead. And no one pays the King either.

Just because you can't handle a society where there are slight differences among people, doesn't mean the rest of the world is so incapable.

Edited August 17, 2023 by herbie

[Rebound]

On 6/11/2023 at 4:31 AM, August1991 said:

I admire you Americans.

I disagree with your 2nd Amendment - and your 14th Amendment.

You should have rescinded the 2nd Amendment. Or your Supreme Court should strictly understand it.

It is true that the Second Amendment pertains to permitting arms because a Militia is necessary.

And it is true that there is no longer a requirement that the Militia is comprised of gun-owning men.

But the Second Amendment still says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." That is what it says. So the legal issue boils down to what it means to "bear arms" and what is an "arm," and I think the current state of affairs is absurd. When written, the Constitution permitted ownership of muzzle loading weapons only. Even then, it did not permit ownership of cannons. 

In today's world, there are many forms of "arms" which are outlawed. You cannot own grenades, bombs, heat-seeking missiles, nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and, for the most part, fully automatic weapons. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the second amendment does not protect ownership of semi-automatic weapons or weapons with removable magazines or weapons which can accept more than 3, 5 or 7 rounds. But the Supreme Court in its current incarnation does not see things that way, and so we have the terrible mess that we have.

[August1991]

On 8/13/2023 at 5:17 PM, Bluedragon said:

I constantly asked my Quebec Rep. "If Britain kicked your butts and you continue bow to pay the queen......Why do you speak French?" 

Civil .....laughable. 

Desire to be a Separatist? Separate, then declare war on the US. We'll come up and end the war within two months ......then rebuild you. All you have is Hydro Quebec and that is a disaster. 

Quebec - like Alberta - ensure that Canada is civilised.

Edited September 2, 2023 by August1991

[August1991]

On 8/23/2023 at 2:40 PM, Rebound said:

It is true that the Second Amendment pertains to permitting arms because a Militia is necessary.

And it is true that there is no longer a requirement that the Militia is comprised of gun-owning men.

...

According to the 2nd Amendment, does any American citizen have the right to bear an RPG? An IED?

A nuclear weapon?

=====

Your framers were smart - but they lived in the 18th century.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

According to the 2nd Amendment, does any American citizen have the right to bear an RPG? An IED?

A nuclear weapon?

=====

Your framers were smart - but they lived in the 18th century.

According to the 2nd Amendment, there is a right to bear “arms.”  It says absolutely nothing more than that.  At the time, it meant a muzzle loading rifle or pistol and that is all it meant. Whether it allowed citizens to own canons, I do not know, but I doubt it as canons were about as realistic to own as a personal jet fighter is today. 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 6/15/2023 at 6:59 PM, August1991 said:

In Canada - because of Quebec - your 14th Amendment would never have passed.

====

We in Canada are civilised.

 

Americans don't like to depend on government for much of anything.  That includes self-protection.  They don't trust government, it's the very origin of the country.  Americans are very independent, Canadians are less so, Canadians don't mind being controlled by government authority as much, and don't mind government dependency. This is the crux of the gun culture there.

But Americans need to calm down with the guns and let the police handle things a lot more.  It's far safer.  But I admire the sentiment of self-reliance, it just doesn't work with guns in this age.

[August1991]

On 9/5/2023 at 2:47 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

Americans don't like to depend on government for much of anything.  That includes self-protection.  They don't trust government, it's the very origin of the country.  Americans are very independent, Canadians are less so, Canadians don't mind being controlled by government authority as much, and don't mind government dependency. This is the crux of the gun culture there.

But Americans need to calm down with the guns and let the police handle things a lot more.  It's far safer.  But I admire the sentiment of self-reliance, it just doesn't work with guns in this age.

I understand what you are saying. I understand the logic of your Constitution.

====

But your Constitution was written before anyone knew about a Central Bank.

(I happen to think that an independent Central Bank is as important as an independent Supreme Court.)

2nd  Amendment & Guns?

In the late 18th century, who knew about nuclear weapons or RPGs.

The right to bear arms at least added the term "well-ordered".