Trudeau announces ban on assault-style weapons in Canada

[sl1pstream 551]

39 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

?

 

I didn't say there were no rules to moving to Canada, I immigrated to Canada myself. I'd advise just reading what people type rather than inventing things they didn't and calling them dumb. 

 

 

The Bill of Rights were formed specifically because they were non negotiable, the founders overthrew a government because they didn't recognize many of these rights. If you don't understand, there should be plenty of post-secondary courses on American History. The point of the Constitution isn't to give people rights, it's to formally recognize restrictions upon the government. Think of it like a contract. Not exactly something to be easily changed like  "a law".

Want to look up the definition of amendment? Besides, there's a procedure to allow for change to any of the constitutional amendments. It requires a significant amount of votes, but it's possible.

 

35 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I’m trying to have a factual discussion. 

Nothing's stopping a legal gun owner from driving across state lines and shooting up the place. Sure, not every state has CCW reciprocity (including Massachusetts), but the risk is still there. It's super weird that something like this falls under state rights and isn't the something that's controlled solely at a federal level.

[NikLR 13,227]

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Who said anything about moving to another country illegally.  People move to Canada all the time legally, just as they do to other countries.  People in most countries do have freedom of choice as where they want to live within the rules.

Cavalier attitude of just move north then. It's dumb. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

34 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Want to look up the definition of amendment? Besides, there's a procedure to allow for change to any of the constitutional amendments. It requires a significant amount of votes, but it's possible.

 

Nothing's stopping a legal gun owner from driving across state lines and shooting up the place. Sure, not every state has CCW reciprocity (including Massachusetts), but the risk is still there. It's super weird that something like this falls under state rights and isn't the something that's controlled solely at a federal level.

How do you feel about alcohol? 

[sl1pstream 551]

8 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

How do you feel about alcohol? 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that access to alcohol is easier than access to weed, even though it's a lot much more destructive. Advertisement on alcohol should be way more limited as well. It's hypocritical to show alcohol as a social, fun thing to consume while weed's still actively being demonized.

Edited May 2, 2020 by sl1pstream

[spookyturtle 9,465]

7 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that access to alcohol is easier than access to weed, even though it's a lot much more destructive. Advertisement on alcohol should be way more limited as well. It's hypocritical to show alcohol as a social, fun thing to consume while weed's still actively being demonized.

So if you’re against licensed gun owners who have to pass a Federal background check, you should also be against alcohol too. Ditto for weed or anything else that impairs ones judgement or ability to operate machinery. You can’t just pick weed because you use it and don’t like the other stuff. That’s hypocritical. 

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

also odd to want to take away firearms from everyone, including the law abiding, yet be highly concerned about abortion rights in rape.

[sl1pstream 551]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

So if you’re against licensed gun owners who have to pass a Federal background check, you should also be against alcohol too. Ditto for weed or anything else that impairs ones judgement or ability to operate machinery. You can’t just pick weed because you use it and don’t like the other stuff. That’s hypocritical. 

I don't use, will never use and have never used weed. It's less destructive and lethal than alcohol though. I really don't see the comparison between alcohol and weed and guns. Drunk driving is illegal and I don't really see how someone walking into a sold out concert or a school with a bottle of alcohol or a joint is going to cause the same amount of damage as someone with a semi-automatic rifle. At most the dude with the bottle of alcohol will get in a small fight and get kicked out.

And not every state actually requires a gun license, or that the person purchasing the weapon has gone through the appropriate amount of training.

[Neonred 3,562]

16 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that access to alcohol is easier than access to weed, even though it's a lot much more destructive. Advertisement on alcohol should be way more limited as well. It's hypocritical to show alcohol as a social, fun thing to consume while weed's still actively being demonized.

Ah, OK I get it now.  You're a pot head?

[sl1pstream 551]

12 minutes ago, Neonred said:

Ah, OK I get it now.  You're a pot head?

Yes, because you need to be a pothead to realize that alcohol is a lot more destructive than marijuana.

https://drugabuse.com/marijuana-vs-alcohol/

 

Also, marijuana is being actively used by people with chronic pain to be able to live with and manage their pain on a day-to-day basis. Alcohol, on the other hand, is a depressant.

Edited May 2, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, sl1pstream said:

Want to look up the definition of amendment? Besides, there's a procedure to allow for change to any of the constitutional amendments. It requires a significant amount of votes, but it's possible.

 

Nothing's stopping a legal gun owner from driving across state lines and shooting up the place. Sure, not every state has CCW reciprocity (including Massachusetts), but the risk is still there. It's super weird that something like this falls under state rights and isn't the something that's controlled solely at a federal level.

There needs to be overwhelming consensus, and the desire to see out the entire process, that's true. Like any contract it can be modified but clearly at the consent of the populace by a very large margin, through their representatives. There's no chance at the second amendment being modified as it stands, never mind removed. That doesn't cover what is likely to happen should people overtly try and eliminate those government restrictions set forth in the Bill of Rights. These rights were among the basis for the revolution, and accurately described by the founders as non negotiable, necessitating government overthrow when eradicated, so, can figure the rest out.

 

With regard to federal and state, along with other things you've said, it seems clear to me you need a primer in Civics and American History. I don't know how one can be so politically involved yet be oblivious to basic ideas like state sovereignty. Plenty of other countries have a top-down federal system where the federal government dictates all, but that's not how it works in the US. Things were made deliberately adversarial when it comes to this process specifically because its long established that a large central government becomes authoritarian. The more impediments it has to imposing its will, the better for the populace. The more local decisions are made, the more representative it is, the more people can be directly involved. We've seen what happens when we allow the federal government substantial powers, they try and dictate elections, gladly spy on everyone, and so on. 

 

1 hour ago, NikLR said:

Cavalier attitude of just move north then. It's dumb. 

If you actually want to know what my attitude is, feel free to ask. You've already proven yourself bad at trying to speak for others here.

[NikLR 13,227]

46 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

There needs to be overwhelming consensus, and the desire to see out the entire process, that's true. Like any contract it can be modified but clearly at the consent of the populace by a very large margin, through their representatives. There's no chance at the second amendment being modified as it stands, never mind removed. That doesn't cover what is likely to happen should people overtly try and eliminate those government restrictions set forth in the Bill of Rights. These rights were among the basis for the revolution, and accurately described by the founders as non negotiable, necessitating government overthrow when eradicated, so, can figure the rest out.

 

With regard to federal and state, along with other things you've said, it seems clear to me you need a primer in Civics and American History. I don't know how one can be so politically involved yet be oblivious to basic ideas like state sovereignty. Plenty of other countries have a top-down federal system where the federal government dictates all, but that's not how it works in the US. Things were made deliberately adversarial when it comes to this process specifically because its long established that a large central government becomes authoritarian. The more impediments it has to imposing its will, the better for the populace. The more local decisions are made, the more representative it is, the more people can be directly involved. We've seen what happens when we allow the federal government substantial powers, they try and dictate elections, gladly spy on everyone, and so on. 

 

If you actually want to know what my attitude is, feel free to ask. You've already proven yourself bad at trying to speak for others here.

Who said I was speaking for others? In MY opinion when people say "just move north if you dont like this" it makes me angry. Like as if it's easy to just pick up and go because someone disagrees with you?  I think facing your issues is better than running away from them. Fighting for what you feel is right is a good thing. While we may disagree on what is right, that's okay.  

 

No one asks how I feel about guns or gun control or laws regarding guns. No. You probably assume I want all the guns taken away? Do YOU assume you know my thought processes towards firearms including AR? 

 

I feel there is a cavalier attitude Americans have towards immigration to other countries. That if you don't agree you should just leave.  Why should people just leave? Why do they have to "go north" if they arent happy with laws?Can't they do something about it? Why cant they disagree with the law? That's okay to do! But dont tell people they can just move or should have to because they dont agree.  Don't assume its even possible for them to visit a country let alone move there.  You said it just like others say it, like it's easy and just in an offhand way. That's what bothers me. Its not just you, its everyone who acts as if immigration is easy. It annoys me when people use my country as a stepping stone to come here as well.  Plenty of Canadians get angry about refugees and asylum seekers just like they do here.  We spent a long time getting rid of ridiculous gun registries too.  

 

Guns are never leaving America. I dont think they should. I don't think the people who don't agree with the 2nd amendment should leave either. There is an importance in the disagreement. 

 

[NikLR 13,227]

Of course you say now "i expect people to follow immigration laws" but you didnt state that before either. Just move north. 

 

FWIW which in all of your eyes is very little, but whatever, in Canada I felt more free than I ever have here.  I have walked the streets of downtown Calgary alone at night and only once felt unsafe. I spent a week walking alone in Montreal downtown and didnt feel unsafe. Never would I worry about approaching  a police officer in Canada. But here I have looked into conceal carry licenses. I dont walk alone. I have a large dog. I lock my doors always. I wouldnt talk to a cop unless really necessary.

 

Yes I would move back in a heartbeat but since my husband served this country and continues to make the skies safe, I will live here until he decides otherwise. So go ahead and tell me to leave and go back if I dont like it. Im still not going, i just get really good at ignoring all the bull. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by NikLR
Edited for language.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

Want to look up the definition of amendment? Besides, there's a procedure to allow for change to any of the constitutional amendments. It requires a significant amount of votes, but it's possible.

 

Nothing's stopping a legal gun owner from driving across state lines and shooting up the place. Sure, not every state has CCW reciprocity (including Massachusetts), but the risk is still there. It's super weird that something like this falls under state rights and isn't the something that's controlled solely at a federal level.

So because a fraction of a percent of legal gun owners commit a crime, all law abiding owners should be accountable? Now that is bizarre. 
And weed falls under state law, not Federal. 

[sl1pstream 551]

2 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

And weed falls under state law, not Federal. 

Uh, no. It's still not legal at the federal level. Even if your state legalizes weed, it's still illegal under federal law and you can still get arrested and convicted for it.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

10 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Of course you say now "i expect people to follow immigration laws" but you didnt state that before either. Just move north. 

 

FWIW which in all of your eyes is very little, but whatever, in Canada I felt more free than I ever have here.  I have walked the streets of downtown Calgary alone at night and only once felt unsafe. I spent a week walking alone in Montreal downtown and didnt feel unsafe. Never would I worry about approaching  a police officer in Canada. But here I have looked into conceal carry licenses. I dont walk alone. I have a large dog. I lock my doors always. I wouldnt talk to a cop unless really necessary.

 

Yes I would move back in a heartbeat but since my husband served this country and continues to make the skies safe, I will live here until he decides otherwise. So go ahead and tell me to leave and go back if I dont like it. Im still not going, i just get really good at ignoring all the bull. 

I think you bring up a good point about feeling unsafe. Even in the nicest suburbs violence occurs, just not as often as in the city. It all depends where you live, but it can happen anywhere. I live in a town where I could leave my doors open and the keys in my car, but I certainly don’t. 
 

Lots of drug abuse here too, you never know if you’re going to be a victim of crime. The Second Amendment gives you the right to protect yourself if you do chose.