^^ um, was that directed at me? Lol - if so, you severely misread what I wrote. I gave a brief legal analysis. They don’t come more right-wing libertarian than me, bro. I can promise you that 
Saki
Words don’t typically kill anyone, and if they do (incite violence), then that individual can indeed be legally silenced.
Anyway, the Americans who claim there’s nothing wrong with guns in their country are either pretty blind to the hard numbers or just selfish and don’t mind innocent people losing their lives just so that they can keep their guns.
Meh, in the end I don’t live there and I sure am glad about that. It’s a screwed up country in terms of politics where it’s painfully obvious most politicians aren’t working to improve their own nation’s issues (cough congress cough senate). Let them kill themselves. It’s just a pity innocents have to die along the way. (I just wish less guns made it across the border into mine).
I am pretty sure words have killed more people in the history of mankind than anything else. We just use cannons or guns, nukes whatever, to get the job done.
That is besides the point that I am trying to convey. People against the 2nd amendment conveniently try and limit the definition to conform to their liking. But if we were to apply the same logic, or behavior, to another amendment (like the first amendment) – their would be war (which you would need guns to accomplish).
double post
To clarify:
It was directed at Saki, but it obviously wasn’t personal.
I was drawing an analogy of applying amendment changes from one amendment to another. Basically a pepsi challenge experiment. Take both the 1st and 2nd amendments, flip the language by stripping the subject lines, but impose the objective – people would understand the attack that people feel is happening with their right to gun ownership.
Edit, why am I getting negative Karma for entering into the Trayvon discussion? That is chicken shit whoever is doing that.
Exactly our point. If knives and clubs, etc. were used “to get the job done”, we wouldn’t have as many fatalities.
Thanks for confirming what we’re saying.
Again, kill yourselves all you want, just try and keep it contained. The gun spill-over into my neck of the woods is a PITA.
Maybe you got negative karma from something else? I can’t see anyone caring enough about this to -ve you
My point was that the 1st amendment should be tested by the country, and should evolve if necessary. Just as the 2nd should. All law. Happens everywhere.
Hell your rights and freedoms are very publicly being eliminated right now with no discussion or input from the country.
That’s ok, they’ll have their guns to fend off the government when they realise the “land of the free” isn’t quite so “free”. :
Don’t worry, you’re not the only one. I seem to have lost one as well. That said…ask me if I care
No shit! Unreal the amount of things that get glazed over by the media these days, and then stories like this (while horrible, still happen every week) become frontline national news for months while real nationwide issues are brushed under the rug. Although, the amount of people that rely on comical satire news shows as their sole source of information is almost scarier than anything else to me, especially when I realize those same people have the right to vote.
Back on topic.
Here are the facts clearly laid out:
Another thing that is also of importance. When George was being interrogated by the police, one officer lied to him and said that their were surveillance cameras and the whole thing was caught on tape. Guess what his reaction was? “Oh thank God!”
Sounds good. Then just don’t come knocking next time your government needs a pistol or black rifle, because we and Europe basically manufacturer the weapons for peace.
People just don’t seem to understand the way our government was set up. The 2nd amendment gives the people the power to overthrow the government when deemed necessary…I fear that time is approaching soon. Government is getting far too big and far too corrupt and with bankruptcy looming on the horizon this is one of the most powerful amendments we have. “the second protects the first” and boy is that quote ever so true. You anti-gunners always attempt to point to the fact that the writing and intention of it is outdated. Well the supreme court disagrees and so do I. As someone else pointed out…if the 2A is outdated then computers, internet, and ballpoint pens should also be eradicated. Do you think the founding fathers would have envisioned such tools the government can use to spy on us? I’m sorry you feel that way about the American constitution but the majority does not. Your reference is one with no merit and is quite the outrageous assumption to say the least.
The gun violence in this country stems from the ghettos and very low income areas for the most part. Most of those convicted of the crime were convicted felons in the past. More so, many of them did not buy the gun in a gun store, rather they purchased it off the street from another felon or stole it. Meaning they acquired the firearm illegally. Don’t believe me? Read John Lott’s book titled “more guns less crime”. He is one of the leading researchers on gun crime and violence in America. How effective are the gun free zones in America? Well since 1950 every mass shooting with the exception of Giffords in 2009 has occurred in a gun free zone. Mag cap bans? Not a problem for criminals. The Columbine shooters had 13 ten round mags and were still able to get close to 100 rounds off. These bans have also been proven to do nothing in the wake of mass shootings. All the proposed laws are simply “feel good” laws with no real purpose to stop the illegal shootings and murders. Simply politics.
As I understand with Canadian laws, you can have a gun within your place of residence but even if an armed intruder were to break in and threaten you, once you fire that gun you are the one going to jail. Correct me if I am wrong as I do not know much of Canadian law at all. But in effect that is similar to what many of our liberal states here have in the way of laws. You guys may have ghettos but they do not amount to the intensity and sheer numbers we have here.
I just wonder why some of you are ok with being victimized? If an intruder breaks into your home or is forcefully trying to take your money you are ok with that? At some point criminals need to know that it’s not ok and people will be willing to stand up to them. Yes, we have a gun violence problem here but we also have a constitution and within it a bill of rights that precedes any social problem we face. Attacking gun ownership is not the place to begin. Education, research, the war on drugs, and dismantling gangs and ghettos is a place to start. As it is I think we have a large amount of gun restrictive laws that violate the 2nd amendment.
More so I love my shooting sports and hate it when these laws get in the way of them…but what I hate more is the politics that arise and give way to politicians moving to create “feel good” laws…very very few laws I agree with in regards to restrictions
If my government needs armament for the varying law enforcement/military divisions then that’s fine. They have a job to do and there’s a process in place to keep them in check (albeit not good enough in my view but that’s another conversation altogether amongs us Canadians). Why are you crossing over to government use? This conversation is about civilian use. Weird tangent…
Great, let’s go into complete anarchy and have a “revolution”! Woohoo!!! Try and give me some notice though so that I can leave the continent as there’s bound to be some spillover of violence.
You’re right about one thing. You don’t know much about Canadian Law.
Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if:
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
The key part of this entry is the “repelling force by force” part. If someone breaks into your home with a knife and you have a gun and shoot him before he even has a chance to attack you, you went too far.
If he breaks in with a gun and threatens to shoot you/doesn’t run away when he sees you, you can shoot him with a gun. The fact that the intruder threatened to kill you, possessed a gun and didn’t run away is sufficient justification. There’s always going to be some assessment. However, if you do shoot the person and kill them, in your home, and the intruder had a gun, he’s not going to be a witness in court to go against your word and you’re pretty safe in saying he was going to shoot you but you shot him first. Now if you shoot him in the back and upon falling, shows he was trying to get away, you might be in trouble. The fact that he broke into your home doesn’t give you permission to kill him. By breaking in, he threatened to steal your belongings, he didn’t threaten your life. But once he threatens your life with a gun or jumps you (even with a knife or brass knuckles or rope or even just his fists as those can easily be fatal), go ahead and shoot him all you want. But if he doesn’t have a weapon and you don’t have a single bruise, you’ll have some explaining to do.
why is that? so we don’t cause amendments to become outdated?
Love this…
I don’t know the stisticts on gun crime. I did read that the majority of gun crime is committed by repete offenders and that acts of gun violence are almost always involving unregistered or stolen weapons.
This wasn’t a gun crime it was an example of why good honest citizens should be able to carry and have guns…this jist like other situations that involved guns as protection show why its impornant honest law bidding citizens jave them…the only crime here was how this was reported and that our looser president spends more time on Facebook then on important issues that effects not jist the miornorites
This case was only publicized to this extent to push a racial prerogative and political agenda…it’s quite sad.
Explain to me why cases like this aren’t scrutinized in the publics eye?
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/09/david_james_air_force_veteran.php
Why is there no NAAWP? Why can’t the grand dragon of the KKK speak out against crime against whites?
It’s all quite sickening to see how shit is twisted to cause social unrest…but thats the fucking wonderful world we live in.
Good point