The_BlauerDragon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 An American once told me that it was illegal NOT to own a gun where they lived - which I think was Georgia or somewhere down there.True or false?There are a few small cities across the U.S. that have made gun ownership mandatory. Not surprisingly, they have nearly non-existant crime rates now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Define assault weapon please. :)When I think 'assault weapon' I think automatic weapons. But.. there is a difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and a tommy gun. I wouldnt want to be the one to have to find a place to draw that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsoert Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Look I for one dont give a fuck about UHC if you cant pay then you shouldnt get care period. I dont recall seeing in the US Constitution or any of its amendments a right to health care. Oh and troll post is troll.I believe this is the point. Effective health care should be a right to every citizen. And "Look I for one dont give a fuck about UHC if you cant pay then you shouldnt get care period" just make you look a tool I'm afraid so I hope that was a joke post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 If you don't believe in the right to bear arms (and are a citizen) and you think your view is correct and convincing, then all you have to do is repeal the amendment.Shouldn't be that hard if it's so obvious.Then of course you have to come up with the several hundred billion to enforce strict gun bans, and collect all the weapons, but those are pesky details not worth pointing out in the context of addressing purely rhetorical ranting.....;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 This simply isn't true. It's impossible for Canada to NOT be influenced by America's actions. They are inherently linked to us, and us to them. When we fuck up, they pay as well. They have every right to complain, you don't like it, GTFO of the thread.While there are many US laws and actions that affect Canada, I can't see how individual gun ownership is one of them. Would you please explain to me how it does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 While there are many US laws and actions that affect Canada, I can't see how individual gun ownership is one of them. Would you please explain to me how it does?Gun trafficking from the United States is the primary source of weapons for criminals in the Greater Toronto Area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouran Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I believe this is the point. Effective health care should be a right to every citizen. And "Look I for one dont give a fuck about UHC if you cant pay then you shouldnt get care period" just make you look a tool I'm afraid so I hope that was a joke postNope not joking. At what point do we draw the line on entitlements? Does everyone have the "right" to a "free" college education? How about the "right" to housing? Or even more absurd how about the "right" to food. I mean god forbid everyone needs food and shelter, why not make it a "right" of everyone. Look everyone is going to get sick and everyone is going to die. If the people insist on UHC then their needs to be a cost benefit analysis on every patient and if there is no benefit to working on them then they shouldn’t get any care. UHC for basic medical care I can see, but UHC for long term health issues the person brought on themselves is just asking the government to pay your way out of bad habits and I won’t stand for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Gun trafficking from the United States is the primary source of weapons for criminals in the Greater Toronto Area.And are those guns originally purchased legally? A lagre majority of guns used in trafficing and in crimes are not purchased legally to begin with, so how would the repeal of the 2nd amendment change this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 LOON - Word - You are posting Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouran Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Gun trafficking from the United States is the primary source of weapons for criminals in the Greater Toronto Area.Sounds like Canada needs better border enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 When I think 'assault weapon' I think automatic weapons. But.. there is a difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and a tommy gun. I wouldnt want to be the one to have to find a place to draw that line.So you support a ban on something that is already banned (automatic weapons)? Or you support a ban on a type of gun that you don't know the definition of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 And are those guns originally purchased legally? A lagre majority of guns used in trafficing and in crimes are not purchased legally to begin with, so how would the repeal of the 2nd amendment change this?I'm not sure if they are purchased legally or not. But presumably, as others have admitted, the abundance of firearms in the United States is because of the second amendment and the firearm loving culture of many Americans. So while repealing the second amendment might not change this fact, it is arguable that the original cause of the existence of said weapons is the second amendment, and the culture that it promotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So you support a ban on something that is already banned (automatic weapons)? Or you support a ban on a type of gun that you don't know the definition of?Yes, I support a ban on something that is banned already, but I'll betcha 5 bucks its not hard to find a someone that opposes that ban. And since you wanna be nitpicky about terminology when I feel that you quite obviously knew what I meant, I now also support a ban of whatever your favorite gun is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsoert Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Nope not joking. At what point do we draw the line on entitlements? Does everyone have the "right" to a "free" college education? How about the "right" to housing? Or even more absurd how about the "right" to food. I mean god forbid everyone needs food and shelter, why not make it a "right" of everyone. Look everyone is going to get sick and everyone is going to die. If the people insist on UHC then their needs to be a cost benefit analysis on every patient and if there is no benefit to working on them then they shouldn’t get any care. UHC for basic medical care I can see, but UHC for long term health issues the person brought on themselves is just asking the government to pay your way out of bad habits and I won’t stand for it.Then in that case the only things you should be treating is Infection and Trauma and ea lot of those could be classed as the patients fault rather than just one of those things.So with the tobacco companies hiding the effects of smoking you're going to deny COPD and lung cancer sufferers health care, some of whom may be your veterans? Mesothelioma caused by working with asbestos, they didn't have to work there, let them die. Genetic diseases, your parents didn't have to reproduce so nope go away and die. Anthing caused by hypertension, many of the factors are genetic or dietary, bugger off and die. In the NHS there is a cost benefit analysis so its certainly feasibleAh how I love America with is preoccupation with the $$$. Stepping on those lower down the socioeconomic ladder to boost yourself up the next rung. ALL HAIL THE AMERICAN DREAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungtotte Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Sounds like Canada needs better border enforcement.Like say, a fence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doran Doran Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Gun trafficking from the United States is the primary source of weapons for criminals in the Greater Toronto Area.It is a bit ironic that you admit gun control doesn't work in the middle of a rant about its opposite, innit? I mean, if downright fascist controls like the one y'all have in Canada can't do the job, that speaks loudly about the measures the statist crowd would have to push through in the US to further their agenda. But points for a well executed outpouring of the Candian Inferiority Complex! Nothing like a helping of that to brighten one's day in a schadenfreude kinda way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbor Gold Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 False. No one can force you to spend money.Unless you live in Kennesaw, Georgia. They made gun ownership mandatory in 1982. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 AG,Unless you live in Kennesaw, Georgia. They made gun ownership mandatory in 1982.I'd love to see how well that particular statute is enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Unless you live in Kennesaw, Georgia. They made gun ownership mandatory in 1982.That is beyond bizare.While I loved the guns I owned, I have not missed them since selling them and no law could force me to buy one now. I'd be in court in a heartbeat (if I could find a pro bono lawyer, anyway ;) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouran Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Like say, a fence?If the Canadians want to pay for a 4,000 mile long fence more power to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.