You nailed it.
ALL rule of law is backed up by PHYSICAL FORCE.
Those who rely on constitutions etc are ridiculously naive and don't do their historical homework.
Would you support an asbolute ban on all guns?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
ALL rule of law is backed up by PHYSICAL FORCE.
Those who rely on constitutions etc are ridiculously naive and don't do their historical homework.
Pretty scary that people actually excuse a Government that pulls this shit.Nice to see the militia movement is alive and well in the 2020's.
Pretty scary that people actually believe that shit.
Burglaries and home invasions are down by about 50% since 2000, but based on 2020 stats there is still about a 0.4% chance your home is going to be broken into. In Toronto the probability is less. Does that warrant having a gun on the premises? Perhaps.
If I lived in a rural part of the country where police response is more than 30 minutes on average, I'd be inclined to have a firearm to protect my dwelling and person.
Illegal guns are trafficked to and from Mexico but come from many other countries in Central and South America and even China.
Many illegal guns also originate in the U.S.. People are paid by criminals to get guns for them. That is why I think one thing the U.S. should do is limit the number of gun sales to individuals. Unless they are a registered collector or dealer.
I really dislike comments like. Ban everything, I grew up in a community and family where hunting and guns are a way of life. Respect, muzzle control, ethical hunting are taught. It's something the GTA community can probably never wrap their heads around. It's something that I enjoy and is part of my life. There are firearms that have been handed down 3 generations, and few historical Lee Enfields. Let's take away something you enjoy, or hold sentimental, would your mind change? Lets ban all motorcycles? Makes more sense really, more people die every year from bikes then guns.
There are people like farmers, trappers, geologists, and so on who have legitimate reasons for gun ownership. I'd support a licensing program based on legitimate need.
I thought you guys would appreciate this.
thehill.com
Americans bought almost 60 million guns during the pandemic
One-fifth of U.S. households purchased guns during the pandemic, a national arming that exposed more than 15 million Americans to firearms in the home for the first time, academic studies show.&nbs…
thehill.com
I just made a comment in frustration man. But I agree with you. I hate to propose something that takes away from people who hunt and use guns responsibly. I know several people like that. Heck I myself would love to learn to hunt and I am respectful of people who do, because they often times have more respect for food than the rest of us who pick up meat and leave it in the fridge for a week only to throw it out later. lol.
But as I said before, I just dont know what the solution is. Atleast for the US. Canada is not as bad.
"Better to have it and never need it, than to need it and not have it."I thought you guys would appreciate this.
Americans bought almost 60 million guns during the pandemic
One-fifth of U.S. households purchased guns during the pandemic, a national arming that exposed more than 15 million Americans to firearms in the home for the first time, academic studies show.&nbs…
For every person who actually needs a gun to save their life, there are a whole bunch of people who think they do because someone's basketball rolled into their yard or a kid rang their doorbell.
How about no. First, the chance of a home invasion where they are trying to kill an average person is essentially zero. Second, the vast majority of robberies happen when people are not home (makes it far more likely that your gun would get stolen in a robbery than 'having' to use it). Third, there's this thing called insurance. If some guy broke in to my place, drew a gun on me and demanded by TV and wallet, I don't see a reason to try and kill them when it will just be replaced. That said, I know there are some people with so fragile an ego that they think that being robbed diminishes their manliness.
And finally, last I checked, Canadian law doesn't see protecting your dwelling and person from other people as a legitimate reason to own a gun.
Love the way Mr. Calm and Rational schools her on how it's only 30,000 deaths a year in the US by gun. The concise response to his pro gun argument is "so how's that all working out for ya?
His opening monologue is so filled with errors it doesn't even make sense.
"We fled the world's greatest superpower and became the world's greatest superpower." Oh? Was that the English, French, Dutch, Portuguese, or Spanish the he's talking about? Also he's just going to discount the massive numbers of people who were ripped from their homes and forcefully brought to the US, whose slave labour gave them a massive economic edge, be they from Africa, Asia or South America? Or does he think they were also "fleeing the world's greatest superpower"? To him, only the white, English settlers and founders are relevant to the US, and that's why the US wasn't tyrannical. It's nonsense.
The right to bear arms is an amendment, and wasn't even the first amendment, and the Constitution wasn't even really the document that stated their core principle - that would be the Declaration of Independence - and it doesn't mention guns at all. Besides, the entire point of the second amendment was to arm the white male slave owners only. It was not "let everyone have a gun" it was "let the people we want have a gun", and many places had little to no gun control at the time so it was hardly unique. In fact, the exact playbook we see from dictators is "we'll arm our followers only".
Get a time machine and go back to visit the cotton plantations, ask the slaves if they felt free or if they felt they were under a tyrannical government. To say the US used guns to successfully fight off tyranny is such a narrow view. If the Nazis had won Germans today would be saying the same thing and there'd be no Jews to disagree. Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin's die hard followers would probably also tell you that they were defending their beliefs and their way of life and that they weren't tyrants.
King George was also hardly a tyrant, regardless of what they say. He merely raised taxes to pay for the war that he had fought to defend them, and they decided that was tyranny despite them having slaves who were treated decidedly worse by their masters than the founders were by the king; they've always had a strange understanding of the word.
The mechanisms by which the US became a superpower are well studied, and no rational, scientific mind attributes it to gun rights.
Voting is arguably a bigger, more important right in the quest to avoid tyranny, and yet, despite the fact the a vote can't be used by someone in a mental crisis to shoot up a school, the GOP is on board with registration, identification, etc. Freedom of speech is what enabled the founders to hold assemblies, and get up on chairs in pubs, and on soap boxes in the street, and share their views on the "tyranny" they saw to drum up support to launch their war against it, but the GOP is happy to limit that in the name of protecting people.
But if you say the sale of guns, weapons that can kill large numbers of people in minutes, and whose only purpose is to kill living creatures, should be subject to registration and background checks, then you're a tyrant too. Fundament rights that every democratic society has and that existed in the originally published Constitution, so important that were remembered at the start and didn't need to be amended in, it's ok to have reasonable limits on. But not weapons. And this whole "guns are the ultimate right from which all others derive" is far too new a thing to be founding principle anyway.
In less than one minute he has proven he's not worth listening to because he's going to be selective and cherry pick. His view is so narrow and skewed.
This is a far better video on the topic if you ask me:
Last edited:
Stewart isn't arguing whether the 2nd Amendment should exist because, like me, he believes that Americans have the right to bear arms. He understands that it's a right enshrined in their Constitution.
He's arguing with a politician about whether gun deaths are negatively or positively correlated with the number of guns available in society, and registration requirements for ownership of guns.
Your other points are deflections, non-sequiturs, and misreading of history.
My interpretation is that a government armed militia would have been too expensive so they told people to bring their own.
I also believe Americans have a right to bear arms, so I'm not sure what your point is.
He's asking a lawmaker why he's constantly making laws that curb and curtail rights in a reasonable manner but refuses to do the same with gun rights. He starts with the fact that there a correlation between the number of guns and gun deaths, but that's not the point he's trying to make.
Being glib rather than addressing the points just makes it look like you can't debate them. Tell me what I've "misread" about history if you actually want to be taken seriously.
