NRA to party in Houston

Was in the NRA article. Here's another.


Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will order hunters, farmers and sport shooters to surrender about 200,000 of their firearms if re-elected, Global News reportedtoday, citing Bill Blair, the minster for confiscation.

The estimate covers what Blair called “assault-style weapons,” Global said, citing Blair speaking to reporters this morning. It would be the biggest single firearm seizure in Canadian history.

It means at least some 90,000 so-called “Non-restricted” rifles and shotguns will be forced away from their owners in case of a Trudeau election victory.
On a spring evening in 2020, a gunman disguised as a police officer and armed with semi-automatic weapons began a shooting rampage in rural Nova Scotia that left 23 dead.
Days after Canada’s worst mass shooting, the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, promised swift action, announcing an immediate ban on about 1,500 makes and models of military-grade and “assault-style” weapons in the country.
“These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada,” he said. “Effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country.”
Trudeau’s actions prompted minimal debate and were met with relatively little political resistance – in stark contrast to the United States, where the latest mass shootings have once again highlighted the calcified nature of the gun control debate in a country unwilling or unable to confront firearms violence.
But experts and gun control advocates caution that Canada’s relatively strict laws do not fully shield it from violence of the kind that is rampant in the United States.
A nation where hunting is common, Canada has one of the world’s highest per-capita gun ownership rates. According to the 2018 Small Arms Survey, there are an estimated 34.7 firearms per 100 people. Canada still trails far behind its southern neighbour, both in gun ownership rates and firearms-related incidents.
Part of that is credited to a gun ownership regime that mandates extensive background checks and requires that guns be kept locked and unloaded. There are no comparable “open carry” laws in the country, gun owners must be licensed and all handguns and most semi-automatic weapons must be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
 
How many children died from anything to do with guns last year?
Nationwide death certificate data compiled by the CDC show that firearms were the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1-19 years old in 2020. The public health agency hasn’t shared data for 2021 or 2022.
In 2020, firearms led to the deaths of 4,357 children and teens compared to 3,639 deaths from motor vehicle traffic, according to CDC data. An analysis of the data by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Violence Solutions shows that nearly two-thirds of children and teens who died by guns were homicide victims.
How many died from abortion?

It's not even close.
Do you pretend that mindless, microscopic cell masses are "children.?

In 2019, women were allowed to make personal decisions concerning their pregnancies in accordance with Roe v Wade. 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

 
Is the US’s gun problem becoming Canada’s gun problem?

Canaduh is a tyrannical shithole, founded in cowardice and shame; founded in groveling before and kissing the ass of the same tyrant against whom we Americans violently rebelled in order to found our country.

If sharing a border with a much freer country creates problems for Canaduh, then tough shit. It's not us Americans' fault that Canaduh is a tyrannical shithole.
 
Last edited:
LMAO..............

Pellet gun. We only used them on rabbits and squirrels as a kid. Wasn't charging at the school.
The police say different, but YOU know better?
They SWARMED INTO ACTION and shot dead someone with a pellet gun.
Sure they did, retard, you just can't prove it, like everything else you post.
Bunch of fucking morons...........just like you.
There are plenty of morons like you, disobey the police, then wonder why they get shot, because YOU think YOU have that right.
Just like some black Americans do in the US.
I miss the Leave it to Beaver days when your side had almost no power..............You are a bunch of LUNATICS.
Sure, in leave it to beaver days people didn't need 50 to a 100 rounds to wound a turtle.

Trumptards do.
 
Nationwide death certificate data compiled by the CDC show that firearms were the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1-19 years old in 2020. The public health agency hasn’t shared data for 2021 or 2022.
In 2020, firearms led to the deaths of 4,357 children and teens compared to 3,639 deaths from motor vehicle traffic, according to CDC data. An analysis of the data by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Violence Solutions shows that nearly two-thirds of children and teens who died by guns were homicide victims.

Only if you pretend that mindless, microscopic cell masses are "children."

In 2019, women were allowed to make personal decisions concerning their pregnancies in accordance with Roe v Wade. 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

Most are drugs and gangs. Yawn. This has been going on forever
 
Only if you pretend that mindless, microscopic cell masses are "children."

So your only argument against counting a category of murders that dwarfs the category that you want to fraudulently claim is the number one cause of death, is to deny the humanity of the human being who were murdered.

Only by “pretending” that Jews and other Untermenschen were human beings can we claim that the Nazis murderer millions of people. Only by “pretending” that black people are human beings can we argue that there was anything wrong with slavery, as it was practiced in our own country's past.
 

No one is “seizing a womb”. It is what is in the womb that we are not wanting to be killed. A woman can do what she wants with her body, but not with someone else’s.
 
Do you think they will follow the law if you are able to ban guns? is this the one law they will decide to follow?
I oppose your suggestion that guns be banned.

Like most rational Americans, I support reasonable measures to reduce the firearm carnage in the United States.



Denying teenagers ready, easy access to all the assault weapons and rounds of ammunition they might crave is one such popular measure. Those who want to cling to the permissiveness that facilitates the slaughter don't like it, of course. They plead impotence, instead.

 
Last edited:
I oppose your suggestion that guns be banned.

Like most rational Americans, I support reasonable measures to reduce the firearm carnage in the United States.



Denying teenagers ready, easy access to all the assault weapons and rounds of ammunition they might crave is one such popular measure. Those who want to cling to the permissiveness that facilitates the slaughter don't like it, of course. They plead impotence, instead.

The problem is your definitions vs my definition on what is reasonable are going to be vastly different. BTW…We have background checks, so supporting them or not is irrelevant.
 
The problem is your definitions vs my definition on what is reasonable are going to be vastly different. BTW…We have background checks, so supporting them or not is irrelevant.
Universal background checks are not currently required by U.S. federal law.

Again, besides universal background checks, I agree with most Americans that teenagers shouldn't be indulged with all the assuaut weapons they yearn for.

The democratic will may finally be grudgingly respected to a small degree:

 
Last edited:

The only way either could legitimately be enacted would first be to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

As long as the Second Amendment is in effect, every gun control law, including those, is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.

If there's really 88% support for any such policy, then that should be enough support to get a Constitutional amendment ratified.

So where is any credible effort to author any such proposed amendment, and initiate the process of adding it to the Constitution?

There is no such effort, because nobody in a position to initiate it believes that such an effort would have any chance of success. Which puts the lie to any claim that there is really that much public support for any policy that would require such an amendment.

Your side is full of shit, and it knows that it's full of shit. If anyone on your side really believed you had that much public support, then you'd get to work on that amendment to overturn the Second.
 
Universal background checks are not currently required by U.S. federal law.

Again, besides universal background checks, I agree with most Americans that teenagers shouldn't be indulged with all the assuaut weapons they yearn for.

The democratic will may finally be grudgingly respected to a small degree:

Background checks for gun purchases

Gun buyers are required to submit to a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

A prospective buyer fills out ATF Form 4473 and the federally licensed firearms dealers relays this information to the NICS. NICS staff perform a background check to verify the prospective buyer does not have a criminal record and is not otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm.

State and local gun laws

State and local officials can implement higher age restrictions on gun ownership but cannot implement lower age restrictions on gun ownership. “Right to carry” laws that determine whether a person can carry guns in public are decided by state and local governments.
 
Last edited:
The only way either could legitimately be enacted would first be to amend the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.
Sensible, publicly-supported restrictions to reduce the firearm carnage by addressing the permissiveness - such as no longer indulging teenagers with all the assault weapons they fancy - in no way violates the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ANTONIN SCALIA
 

A bipartisan group of senators, confronted with the public outrage over the lethal permissiveness, are now considering legislation that would raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21, require a universal background check for all gun sales, and implement "red flag" laws.
 
Last edited:
Screen Shot 2022-05-31 at 12.16.38 PM.png
I'm not if you disagree with Justice Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
... or you support firearm permissiveness, such as indulging teenagers blithely amassing all the assault weapons they fancy.
 
That only holds true if you are a private seller.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top