Gunsmoke: USA

2011 ,    »  -   331 Comments
Ratings: 6.90/10 from 21 users.

An ongoing source of controversy in America, gun laws are increasingly polarizing the Southern states and Washington. In Arizona, Tea Party supporting, heavily armed, vigilante groups are taking over.

"The one thing we know about gun control is that it has never provided security", argues former Arizona sheriff and local hero, Richard Mack.

Despite the recent massacres, the majority still support free gun laws. Heavily armed citizens take Mexican border security into their own hands in this "state with a frontier mentality".

With over 100 new civilian militia groups forming in the last 2 years, it is fertile ground for Tea Party supporters. There is no doubt as to who is the real enemy here: "The greatest threat to our God-given American liberty is our own federal government".

With the cultural divide between North and South looking dangerously wide, Arizona is becoming more than a state: it's a state of mind.

More great documentaries

331 Comments / User Reviews

  1. oQ

    Great choice for the 24th when families are gathering for a loving time together.

  2. Nwttp

    I hate how this doesn't talk about the biggest reason for the right the bear arms, defense against our corrupt government.

  3. brianrose87

    The current discussion seems to be centered around banning sales of new assault weapons. This would not prevent much, and here's why:

    1. Dianne Feinstein wants to reintroduce a ban that exempts a number of assault weapons because it only bans assault weapons with certain attachment like grenade launcher and bayonet attachments. Many assault weapons then slip under the radar, and gun companies modify the banned guns to get them back in stores.

    2. Even if this extremely limited ban is passed it won't do anything about the 300 million assault weapons already owned.

    To me, limiting clip size is the most intelligible and accessible way to limit the carnage of future shootings.

    No law we pass can prevent 100% of shootings, but we can limit the offenders ability to turn a shooting into a massacre. When Gabrielle Gifford's was shot, and 6 others died in the 2011 Tucson shooting, it was only after the shooter ran out of bullets and was reloading that people were able to stop him.

    Breaks in firing lead to opportunities to stop a shooter, and the most effective way to make that happen is limiting clip size to 5-15 bullets. Gun enthusiasts get to keep their guns under this scenario, so it has a better chance of making it through the House of Representatives.

  4. brixmo

    I hope that with all 180,000 armed U.S.citizen , you will see in close future what civil war and guns can do to family ...... Better armed your self more , because UFO will come and attack only USA - because you are the only one remain of Darwin monkeys in Earth which are not envolved.

  5. cliff o ciardha

    what is the future for america? This is a culture that needs guns to defend itself against its own people. How does america arise from this viscous circle? people need guns to defend themselves but that means everyone including psychopaths and criminals also have access. Who disarms first? unlikely to be the latter.

  6. brianrose87

    Christmas is a Christian holiday, which covers about 1/7 of the world population. Where were you complaining about docs during Hannukah, or docs during Ramadan, or during Vesak (a major Buddhist holiday in May)?

    Just because 1/7 of the world celebrates a religious holiday today doesn't mean that the other 6/7 of the world population should stop their lives.

  7. Geoffrey Grekin

    People always get the 2nd amendment wrong
    It does not affirm ones right to hold on to guns so that they can shoot deer or protect themselves from unsavory characters.

    As the original ratified amendment passed by Thomas Jefferson proclaimed

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The reasons for this was that in the late 18th century many militia groups met regularly to organize as a quasi-military training exercise in preparation for war by enemies both foreign and domestic.

    The practice of organized militia's have long since phased out of american culture and the amendment has been hijacked by groups like the NRA who claims it has more to do with guns when this was not its original intent whatsoever.

  8. Nwttp

    Right, that is what I was getting at.

  9. oQ

    I am Canadian and do not own guns. As for UFOs....

  10. Zednotz

    There are multitudes of other things in society that kill more people. The more important question to ask is why are all the mass shooters from Columbine all the way through to the Batman shooter, the Iraq shooter and Sandy Hook shooter on anti-depressants (As far as my research goes , in the last 20 years the only shooter that wasnt was the Washington sniper). These drugs have side effects like delusion, aggression, and suicidal tendencies. Perhaps we should ban these instead
    Secondly, if you examine all the governments in the 20th century that committed mass atrocities on their own people it has overwhelmingly been countries with low gun ownership or countries that had gun conviscation. Math doesnt lie. 180 to 260 million civillians died at the hands of their own government (depending on whose estimates). More than any other cause including everything except perhaps Malaria. A government with nothing to fear from its citizens is something to fear

  11. TheDanishViking

    I have no idea whether more strict gun laws in the US would prevent mass killings. Not so long ago a crazy person with a gun killed more than twenty young people in Norway where they have very strict gun laws. On the other hand just this month a man in China attacked a local school with a knife and wounded many kids, but if he had owned a gun many kids would most likely have been killed.

    So who knows?

    However, what I really dislike is this "tea party culture". They seem to think that they are victims, whereas in fact they are the ones that are aggressive towards basically everyone who is not like them.
    As if having a big gun somehow makes you a better person. Grow up!

  12. oQ

    I couldn't care less about the origin of Christmas but what i know is that it happens to be a time of Holidays when millions of people, friends and family, get together in countries around the world.
    No one is asking to stop your life, it is an opinion about the choice of a doc among many choices. See the one today...great choice!

  13. Vlatko


    "No one is asking to stop your life, it is an opinion about the choice of a doc..."

    No one is asking you to watch the doc. 24th of December is an ordinary day, as any other.

  14. oQ

    you are right, no one is asking me nothing. I stated an opinion, if you don't like it delete it!
    And sorry these days are not ordinary days as any're thinking religiously, i am thinking humanly....look around.
    Been in many non Christian countries during the holidays, saw the smiles, the fireworks and the likes.
    As i said many times, it's your as you for me i stay as respectfull as i am.
    and happy Holidays to all moderators!


  15. Vlatko


    On the contrary, I'm not thinking religiously, I'm thinking humanly. You are the one who should look around.

    While you eat and drink with your friends, people are dying in Syria, and children are starving in Africa. I would say Christmas for them is the same as any other day, as it is the same for the vast majority of the people on this planet.

  16. oQ

    Yes i have seen the hunger and the tears of wars too, a hunger caused mainly by guns and hatred.
    I invite you to delete all my comments on this thread as they seem to bother you while you eat and drink.
    My initial comment was "inspirational...not"....i stand by it.
    This is my last comment on this thread, i have no interest to watch this doc, today or any other day.

  17. princeton

    funny how most of these shootings happen in gun free zones.. its also interesting how no one mentions that the batman shooter chose the theater that posted signs banning concealed weapons.. out of several more convenient and closer theaters that allowed concealed weapons. predators look for weak prey.

    as well, drugs have been illegal since the sixties.. they are now easier to get than ever.. what makes us think itll be different with guns. compare 300,000 crimes committed with guns annually as opposed to over 2.5 million cases of people who defend themselves with guns each year.

    gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.

    youtube watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg for more numbers on gun crime

  18. princeton

    gun laws don't get rid of guns.. they just put them in the hands of governments and criminals with the rest of us completely harmless.

  19. robertallen1

    If you don't wish to watch it, you don't have to, but you have no business complaining about either its selection or the timing thereof.

  20. John Gros

    So gun owners like to shoot the weak? Yes lets not ban guns.

  21. Mike Mathwig

    americans are nuts.
    should have a 12 step program for em
    "we addmitted we were powerless over our birth place......
    and that our lives had becom unmanageable."

    "came to believe that a power greater than a corporation
    could restore us to sanity"

  22. Jack1952

    I live in a rural area of Canada where hunting is a way of life and the vast majority of Canadians believe that American gun laws and the American attitudes towards gun control is absolutely insane.

    When the American constitution was written, guns were muzzle loading single shot muskets. The founding fathers could and did not envision a population that would be armed with assault weapons and hand guns. Had they known how their views on citizen weaponry would evolve into the situation that is the reality of modern America, they may not have written the right to bear arms in the same way they did. They were dealing with technology of the times. A new reality must also bring a new way of thinking. To go on the way it is now in the United States is absolutely crazy.

  23. Jack1952

    That is just about the dumbest idea I've heard yet. Let's have an all out revolution against the government so hundreds of thousands of people will be slaughtered in the mayhem. A terrific idea.

    While you are waiting for the insanity of revolution to start, you can practice your mastery of firearms on each other. I see that the American public is quite adept at killing each other so this practice has paid off. Your revolutionaries will be highly trained when the revolution begins.

  24. Earthwinger

    I had to rewind the first part at about 01.50, because I thought I must have heard it wrong. But no, apparently, not being allowed to shoot a few illegal immigrants, and leave them hanging on a fence as an example to others, is political correctness gone mad.

    Good luck to anyone that tries to reason with those folks! :D

  25. alpineadam

    I am not sure that guns were around when Jesus was around, so dont go associating god's name with guns.

  26. robertallen1

    So what do you suggest?

  27. sean kilgariff

    Im afraid Princeton your view is so small you cant see outside the box your in. The REST OF THE WORLD manage to live quite peacefully without all being armed I Know in Australia if I go out and have a fight with someone, no one will produce a gun, Ahh but what about a Knife I hear you say, People can run from that.
    Cant run from a gun.

    Anyway this all leads back to one question really.

    What the hell are you all so scared of? Only a shit-scared population would feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth, and please don't try to use terrorism as an excuse either, Your guns, end up being used on each other.

    I really really like you guys, Americans are good people with great energy and ideals, but get a grip, England no guns, Australia no guns, Canada no guns, Europe no guns, only farmers and hunters that can hit things with a bolt action rifle or possibly a semi automatic. What sort of marksman needs an automatic assault rifle? I had rifles here at 14yrs old, got on a bus with a shotgun I'd bought no problems, but I have never even seen a pistol, except on a police officer and they have only had them exposed on their belt for 20 yrs.

    Also your constitution, that amendment was written when you didn't have a standing national military to protect you like you do now, So your guns aren't for external use they are for use on your own people.

  28. robertallen1

    So what are you suggesting?

  29. Nwttp

    People like you are why the world is so messed up. Brainwashed much? So Thomas Jefferson's Knowledge of the FACT that our government would eventually need to be ousted is the dumbest idea you've ever heard? Maybe you should learn the read books.

  30. Nwttp

    The founding fathers did however know that the people must have the same thing the government does. Who are you to tell anyone what is crazy or not? What have you accomplished?

  31. Nwttp

    You should probably try reading, because AGAIN I must state, the most important reason for our right to bear arms is protection from oppression, and whether or not you're all too blind to see that is no gun owners fault. Remember, and this goes for Americans reading this more so than any others,
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

  32. Jack1952

    Brainwashed? In Canada, handguns are severely restricted and rifles are limited to semi automatics that are used for hunting. I have no reason to fear that at a public gathering or a house party the place may have multiple characters walking around with a legally concealed weapon. All the years I was a bartender, I never had to worry that some drunken nut would pull out his weapon out of fear or anger and start blasting away. Why anyone would want to live under those circumstances is beyond me and almost everyone in Canada would agree with me. We think, collectively, that Americans are out of their collective minds when it comes to their obsession with their weaponry. Even the more unstable Canadian shakes their head in wonderment at the insane gun laws of the United States.

    As for a corrupt government, show me a government in the world that doesn't have a certain amount of corruption. A government is made up of people and everyone, everyone, is capable of a certain amount of corruption. An armed insurrection does not in any way guarantee that this will end this corruption. As a matter of fact, anyone who is willing to kill his fellow citizens for political gain, has shown that they believe that they know what is right for everyone else. That is corruption in itself. You would be in a state of perpetual revolution. You will never rid humanity of its corruption. You can only put in place a system that recognizes this fact and allows a mechanism to deal with it. Shooting perceived corrupt officials is never going to fix it.

    People like me are the reason that the world is so messed up? I would think that supporting a system that allows any nutcase easy access to all kinds of assault type weapons is messed up. Fill all your homes with these weapons and then believe that only law biding citizens will use them is messed up. Canadians are grateful that we do not allow this foolishness in our country.

  33. Jack1952

    The government has nuclear weapons so all its citizens should too? That is crazy. I may not have accomplished anything but I recognize insanity when I see it. Thirty million fellow Canadians most heartily agree with me.

  34. Jack1952

    Take a good look at the gun laws in all the other western industrialized countries. In Canada, we don't think its a bad thing to have guns for hunting but to own weapons whose express purpose is to kill fellow citizens is dangerous and places each one of us at risk from the spontaneous outbursts of the unstable. The unstable are dangerous enough. Why exacerbate the problem by giving them access to weapons specifically designed to kill people at maximum efficiency.

    As for the American attitudes towards these people killing apparatuses, I have no good answer. All I can say is that if they live in a society that doesn't allow for easy access that they will begin to see how much more a secure feeling they get when it isn't a concern. An escalating arms race because one wants to make sure that he can shoot it out with the bad guys is a life that is motivated by fear and shows just how insecure their lives really are.

  35. Nwttp

    Yes people like you who ramble on and on completely disregarding any points any others make. Simply speaking, neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell anyone else what they may or may not own.

  36. Nwttp

    Yea cause that's what I said right? Are you in preschool?

  37. Jack1952

    The "everybody is blind" argument. Except you, of course. You have been given the unique insight that allows you to see what others cannot. Check your ego as well as you assault rifles at the door.

  38. Jack1952

    This tendency to disregard points made appears to be a two way street. You have not addressed any point that I have made, either. You are right about one thing. As a Canadian, I do not have the right to tell Americans how they should run their own country. If you are happy with the murder rates in your country and prefer that over the murder rates that we have in Canada, then, you are welcome to them. As long as you don't think that its the civilized way to live and that we should live that way too. Life is much more relaxed here and I/we prefer it that way.

  39. Jack1952

    "The founding fathers did however know that the people must have the same thing the government does" Lifted from your comment. I don't know what you mean by that, apparently. Doesn't seem to be a limit anywhere is this statement. So why can't the average citizen own a nuclear weapon?

  40. robertallen1

    Really, how about a colony of anthrax spores? How about an H bomb?

  41. over the edge

    i would like to address some posts here.
    "the biggest reason for the right the bear arms, defense against our corrupt government." that is ridiculous the government has a well trained,organized and armed defense with weapons and technology not available to the masses. look around the world. armed civilian uprisings against a well armed/trained military results in a bloodbath. the recent successes are a result of having the support of the military or outside aid

    "funny how most of these shootings happen in gun free zones" so what is the answer? should we arm the teachers? didn't Columbine have armed guards on duty? do you want people in a dark theater opening up on who they "think" is the perpetrator(s)? how would someone in that theater know how many/who the bad guy(s) are?

    " compare 300,000 crimes committed with guns annually as opposed to over 2.5 million cases of people who defend themselves with guns each year." the recent school shooting started with a legally armed person having their gun taken and killed. if she did not have the legal weapons (including the assault rifle) things would have been different.

    "The founding fathers did however know that the people must have the same thing the government does." correct me if i am wrong but weren't they against a standing army? wasn't it a protection for the states from the federal government?

  42. I AM POP SLAG.

    Whats the debate here? Americans are not going to give up their guns and their government doesnt look like unoccupying half of the planet and removing its military bases any time soon- in order to breed an army you need a culture where violence is praised- thats going to have a few symptoms isnt it? If you dont sign these nutters into the forces so they can rape brown children and bomb villages like their movies teach em to do...
    then they are going todo it at home arent they?

    Just like a country gets the government it deserves it gets the lunatics it ordered via the i*iot box for its wars...
    All these shooters would have made rather efficient soldiers dont you think?

    Hoo ra semper fi etc etc etc.

    if you bake fruitcakes its not going to be wholesome apple pies you find in yoyur oven now is it?

  43. DeShaun Williams

    For everyone who is arguing here the solution is... GOVERNMENT MUST FOLLOW THE SAME EXACT LAWS IT PUTS ON ITS OWN PEOPLE. Do not be an id**t and ignore history. Do not be stupid and pretend that it cant happen to you. Imagine if none of the citizens in Syria had weapons. Then what?

    I would love for there to be no guns, but as long as our government has them then we have the right to have them too. The only solution is to demilitarize the whole world and stop America in its tracks. Cause only then the American citizens will give up their protection from the possibilities.

    We know our own government better than anyone so stfu

  44. Burton Dye

    "that is ridiculous the government has a well trained,organized and armed defense with weapons and technology not available to the masses." Good point! In my opinion, a computer would be a far more powerful weapon against a modern tyranny. What do you think?

  45. over the edge

    Burton Dye
    i agree. just look at the ability to communicate and unite that the modern social tools available have had. in Egypt one of the first things the government did was try to shut down the internet. thanks to many in/out of the country the ability to organize and gather information was kept going. we have to keep an eye on our governments and support each other when oppressed. in my opinion governments are more fearful of an informed public then they are of an armed one.

  46. SurvivorVeteran

    so by your (backwards) standards, Nuclear bombs are acceptable for the people too?

  47. Giacomo della Svezia

    Reading your comment I would say you don't know your government at all. You are part of the problem, because you have chosen to distrust and oppose it, although it's there to protect all of its citizens.
    Your comment is cynical.

  48. Imightberiding

    "Maybe you should learn the read books" also: one of your founding fathers initiated a government that he was not secure enough in that he knew for a "FACT" that it would eventually have to be ousted? Why on earth do you revere the man or even take the constitution that he was instrumental in as serious if he thought it would eventually have to be ousted? Either you believe & follow his platform or you don't. Which is it? He had some good ideas to start with but ultimately you toss them aside or his idea of government was a good thing?

    Pass this intellectual a gun & hope he's just smart enough to shoot himself in the foot & not kill himself or others.

  49. Imightberiding

    Not my conversation, sorry to interrupt but I just wanted to correct your stats on the percentages you quoted. It's actually over 2 billion christians world wide or about 1/3rd of the world's population.

    Cheers! Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays or whatever you prefer. No offense intended, I don't really have a solid opinion about this time of year.

  50. bubascary

    In all the post, people have called the mass shooters crazy, nuts, insane, on anti-depressant meds (and btw the side effects mentioned is complete crap), we can all agree they have serious mental health issues.

    So why are we not talking about how the system failed the victims of these crimes. I believe that we should look at increasing funding to mental health, and demand the answers to really important questions like WHY!

    I am from Australia and I am happy with our gun laws, you need to apply and must pass a background check which includes mental, criminal and lots more.

    Whether you introduce strick gun laws or not, the underlying issues will still be there and remember people, we are raising the next generation of bullys, victims and mass shooters.

  51. Imightberiding

    If I recall correctly, most states if not all nations require a person to qualify to a certain minimum standard to obtain a driver's license. Of course accidents happen & people are killed by vehicles out of control. You could even use a vehicle as a weapon if so desired. A few people could be injured or killed in such a circumstance of vehicular accidents or homicide. Driving is a big responsibility & a privilege not a right. Dozens or more people can be killed & have been in a brief moment in time through the use of automatic assault weapons.

    Gun ownership is for some reason a right & not a privilege in the U.S.A. Hand guns & assault rifles are made for one reason: to kill other human beings. Not for hunting. Automobiles were not invented with the intention to kill other people yet it unfortunately happens & thus one has to prove himself worthy to operate a vehicle.

    I suspect a mentally ill person might be subject to restrictions or outright prohibited from driving. Why is it then that something that was not intended to kill other people has stricter regulations than something that was clearly designed to kill other human beings.

    It is easier to purchase a weapon made solely for the intent of killing others than it is to obtain a driver's license. It is also considered a privilege to drive & not a right. What is wrong with this concept?

    Any self respecting hunter will be just fine with a bolt action rifle. No need for automatic weapons with countless repeating capacity, fired at an uncountable speed.

    A person incapable of handling a vehicle can easily purchase a weapon designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being & there is no test in place to determine if said person is capable or responsible enough to own such a weapon. It's their right & not a privilege.

    Should not any person wishing to buy or sell a firearm have to prove themselves worthy & without a criminal record or any history of mental or emotional troubles in their past?

    In Canada we have a program whereby any person wishing to buy or sell a firearm has to first obtain an F.A.C. or Firearms Acquisition Certificate. (or it was this way some time ago, I suspect it is still the same) This means that you are investigated by the R.C.M.P. & it takes several months to clear who you are prior to receiving permission to purchase or sell a firearm.

    Anyone who is in a bigger hurry than this to obtain a weapon obviously has bigger problems & perhaps should include the local police in assisting their plight. Hunting season usually only comes once or twice a year & if you are buying a weapon for home protection then it is something you plan for in advance just like any other thing in life. You study, you take courses, to apply yourself & if you qualify & pass the required tests then you can proceed from there just like every other thing worth pursuing in life.

    I personally have little to no issue with gun ownership. Provided they are not automatic assault weapons & they are safely & properly stored. Not carried on one's person while in public except at a certified gun club/range or while hunting with a proper license. Of course it goes without saying that this person has already proved him or herself worthy of even owning a firearm by passing an appropriate safety course & being thoroughly vetted by federal authorities.

    There is absolutely no reason to cry about gun registry. Everything you own of significance is already registered with the government. Your home, your car, your children, your wife & husband. They haven't come & taken any of that away from you unless you screwed up & by law deserved to lose any of the aforementioned things. Why is everyone so paranoid about their guns getting taken? Heck, you have a gun... protect yourself!

    Wow, sorry. That got way longer than I intended.

  52. Kateye70

    QTF from Geoffrey Grekin:

    "As the original ratified amendment passed by Thomas Jefferson proclaimed

    " "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    "The reasons for this was that in the late 18th century many militia groups met regularly to organize as a quasi-military training exercise in preparation for war by enemies both foreign and domestic."

    [The unwritten reason: to overcome the native Americans whose lands Euro-Americans were busy occupying. Hello.]

    "The practice of organized militia's have long since phased out of american culture and the amendment has been hijacked by groups like the NRA who claims it has more to do with guns when this was not its original intent whatsoever."

    Well said. Yes, I'm an American, and no, I am not particularly fond of gun culture.

    On the other hand, how else will we get our young people to buy into the idea of a military career? /sarcasm

    It's time to grow up and move on. Assault weapons are named that for a reason. They're not hunting weapons.

  53. robertallen1

    Considering our government, the cynicism is deserved.

  54. robertallen1

    By the way, the doctrine of privilege regarding driver's and other types of licenses is a fraud. If you qualify to drive a motor vehicle, you cannot be refused a driver's license. In addition, your driver's license cannot be taken from you without due process. This describes a right, not a privilege.

  55. Nwttp

    So this is yalls only argument? I didn't think I needed to specify, forgive me for thinking you weren't that simple. Even our government would have a hard time nuking it's own people

  56. Nwttp

    Not things the government uses on it's own people, forgive me for giving you people more credit than you deserve. Yes for all you simpletons, The people must have the SAME things the government would use to frighten them.

  57. Nwttp

    Yes a typo! you must be right then. Like I said read, because clearly you know nothing of the man, or any historical figure actually because many of them knew it would come to what it must. When you point out typos to try and strengthen your argument it only makes you look weaker.

  58. Jack1952

    You still have to qualify for the driver's license. It is not given automatically. If you cannot pass a driver's test you can and will be refused a driver's license. This would suggest that it is a privilege and not a right. Every citizen has the right to vote. It is automatic as soon as one becomes old enough. Not so with a driver's license.

  59. brianrose87

    Happy for the correction. Last thing I want is to misinform. I do wonder how many of those are genuine church going Christians.

  60. Jack1952

    I can only hope that you will not lead this revolution. You use bulling tactics and name calling to make arguments. You feel the only way to political change is violence. Dissenters to your point of view lack in intelligence and are dismissed as preschoolers and simpletons. No respect is shown and if you do lead a successful revolution I would expect this intolerant attitude to be a part of your new administration. You may be a prime example why gun laws should be tightened in the United States if only to prevent one such as yourself from leading a revolution.

  61. Jack1952

    Long winded but you make perfect sense.

  62. robertallen1

    Who's to say what the government would use on its own people?

  63. robertallen1

    But once you qualify, you have the RIGHT to drive a motor vehicle and this RIGHT cannot be taken away without due process.

  64. SurvivorVeteran

    No. You just ignore all the rest. Like a close mind.

  65. SurvivorVeteran

    Driving and having a licence are NOT rights ever. Only privileges.

  66. robertallen1

    As these cannot be taken from you arbitrarily, they are RIGHTS. The doctrine of prilvilege is simply a fraud. On the other hand, private employment is a privilege, for barring a contract to the contrary, you can be arbitrarily terminated

  67. Nwttp

    I am an a$$ hole and I'll be the first to admit it. Doesn't make me any less right. You continue to do the same but can't see it. You still refuse to comment on any point I've put forth.

  68. Nwttp

    Uh what? Care to use an example? You know, you and this other guy I've been schooling would have already lost a debate.

  69. Jack1952

    I see your point. We have the same rights when it comes to gun laws in Canada. When you acquire you FAC you have the right to purchase and gun that is on the legal market and use it according to the laws of the land. It can only be taken through due process. Automobiles are the same. We are only allowed to purchase a vehicle that is legally allowed to be sold and can only use it as long as we follow all laws pertaining to its use. Not a lot of difference.

  70. SurvivorVeteran

    Schooling... Bwahahaha. The only lesson you have taught is how to remain completely naive, and wholly ignorant.

  71. robertallen1

    Also, if you qualify for a driver's license, it must be given to you, i.e., it cannot be arbitrarily withheld. That's what I find the doctrine of privilege to be a fraud.

  72. Nwttp

    Lol, think you got the wrong guy buddy since you can't give even one example of what you claim. (this comment alone is a lesson :)

  73. Jack1952

    The only point that you made is that we need weapons to protect us from our government. I did address that. I'll copy and paste it so you can read it again.

    As for a corrupt government, show me a government in the world that doesn't have a certain amount of corruption. A government is made up of people and everyone, everyone, is capable of a certain amount of corruption. An armed insurrection does not in any way guarantee that this will end this corruption. As a matter of fact, anyone who is willing to kill his fellow citizens for political gain, has shown that they believe that they know what is right for everyone else. That is corruption in itself. You would be in a state of perpetual revolution. You will never rid humanity of its corruption. You can only put in place a system that recognizes this fact and allows a mechanism to deal with it. Shooting perceived corrupt officials is never going to fix it.

    Armed insurrection should be the absolute last resort one should use. If it does become necessary the weapons will be found. The civil war in Syria is being fought in spite of the fact that the civilian Syrian population was one of the least armed populations in the world. Peacetime weapon ownership has nothing to do with the ability to carry on a revolution. It is a myth.

  74. Nwttp

    You said "As for a corrupt government, show me a government in the world that doesn't have a certain amount of corruption."

    Answering a question with a question is not addressing anything. Not only that saying something that is wrong is ok because it's never been right is beyond ignorant.

    You said " anyone who is willing to kill his fellow citizens for political gain, has shown that they believe that they know what is right for everyone else."

    You are the one saying YOU know whats best for everyone else, you do not have the right to tell people there are not allowed somthing. And a bunch of old people abusing an old system and the gullibility of the populous DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT EITHER! I don't care If I'm the only one alive that believes this, It's a fact.

    You said "Armed insurrection should be the absolute last resort one should use. If it does become necessary the weapons will be found"

    What? I don't even need to discredit that it's sooooooo just uhhhg.

    You said "The civil war in Syria is being fought in spite of the fact that the civilian Syrian population was one of the least armed populations in the world. Peacetime weapon ownership has nothing to do with the ability to carry on a revolution."

    The U.S government is not syria, It is the most advanced nation in the history of the world. A people can't not be pushed around with swords and expect slapping back with their mittens is going to change anything.

    You are right in the most basic sense that every government will at some point become corrupt, well it is not the corruption so to speak that bothers me, it is the oppression. And I don't care what else you have to say because "Neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell any other human what they can or can not do to themselves, ingest, own, so on and so forth" If you want to argue that fact then you are clearly against freedom.

    See? no name calling needed if you actually try to use POINTS to argue with me. Still won't help you win though, YOU CAN NOT ARGUE AGAINST LOGIC, and again, the simple fact that "Neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell any other human what they can or can not do to themselves, ingest, own, so on and so forth" is logical pure and simple.

  75. over the edge

    "Neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell any other human what they can or can not do to themselves, ingest, own, so on and so forth" what? of course we do. in a democracy we collectively get to decide those exact things. there are already weapons bans in America. try to carry a bazooka or missile and tell me how that goes. there are bans on what you can inject (drugs). suicide is illegal in many places (do to yourself) you cannot have nuclear material (own). so every part of your point is wrong. i also addressed some of your points in an earlier post so your points have been addressed you just refuse to address it. also making baseless claims and insulting people is not making your case. it is just sad

  76. DigiWongaDude

    @ Nwttp: (some thoughts to consider...)

    "Corruption is the breaking down of something, and it is inevitible due to instability inherent in all things." - rufusclyde (on 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out)

    This statement caused me much angst over the past week! On first appearance it seems easy to reject. That corruption is a inevitable corrosive force (or the result of some entropic natural process) is not easy medicine to swallow. But in trying debunk this statement, it invariably shows to be true in observation.

    We can replace a corrupt system with something brand new, so it's not all doom and gloom. This process may be how we have come to consider ourselves as civilised, without ever addressing the underlying flaws. I guess we have to be vigilant to preventing its onset, or replacing those systems worn down by it.

    Secondly, anyone who believes they are 'doing good' has a means to justify pretty much anything they wish, to achieve meeting their goal. It just comes down to the extremity of the belief (as history repeatedly shows us).

    Your quote: "neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell any other human what they can or can not do to themselves." - laws exist, primarily to tell us what we can not do. For example: not wearing a car seatbelt, a personal choice? The law oppressed us for our safety, and a greater good of reducing fatalities on the road. We are told what to do by law because we wouldn't even when asked nicely.

    "YOU CAN NOT ARGUE AGAINST LOGIC" - I hope you see now that you can always argue logic, because logic itself is relative to criteria and conditions. You fail to define logic, let alone your arguments as logical.

  77. Jack1952

    I would think that the idea of using violence as a last resort does not have to be discredited and I don't so see how it could be. A reasonable and civilized society would find any means at it disposable before using the revolution card. Using violence as the first solution is the way of the unreasonable and intolerant.

    Since corruption is a weakness of humanity it follows that it will always manifest itself in human activity including the government. That means we should always be in a state of revolution and perpetual violence. Dialogue, reason and logic will never work in that scenario and I dispute that. If you believe that the corruption in the American government warrants the type of violence we are seeing in Syria then I will have to re-emphasize my hope that you will never be a leader in American society. I don't wish that kind of life on anyone.

    You still haven't answered my question and others concerning the right of the individual to own nuclear weapons. It is an answer that I would love to hear.

  78. DigiWongaDude

    @ Jack 1952: If one is willing to concede that,
    1) corruption as an inevitable natural process (as I have struggled with lately),
    2) extreme beliefs can justify extreme means or 'the end justifies the means'.

    ...then it is easy to see that (given enough time), there is no justification for nuclear weapons at any level, let alone individuals. Any argument to the contrary fails to acknowledge 1) and/or 2), and can only persist in the realm of borrowed time. [opinion]

  79. Jack1952

    I would think that our acceptance of the rule of law is an acknowledgement of the idea that corruption is an inevitable natural process. If this is to be so, then to prevent perpetual chaos and to mitigate political corruption, we try to put in place a process in which we can deal with the problem in a reasonable way. We deal with it in a case by case manner, using the principles of law. It must also be understood that it will not always be easy. A corrupt official will also try to corrupt the processes put in place to stop him. It is up to all of us, acting as a collective and as individuals, to prevent him/her from doing so. I reject the suggestion that the solution to corruption is to storm the capital and demand that it cease. It will only prompt the corrupt official, as is his nature, to reply in force and can only allow him the opportunity to place a stranglehold on his position of power.

    I would have to agree with you on the nuclear question but unfortunately, this is not the reality of our times. My reference to it is a response to a statement made and was not really meant as topic of human morality but how it pertains to the logic of a certain individual.

  80. mej313

    Jack, an excellent and sober response to this tide of "revolutionary" thought that has swept over America (and Europe towards America). Many seem to forget that our Democratic process was intended to create "checks and balances" in the legal system, which, as you say, can be checked in a case-by-case scenario. Some people want to use Force to get what they want instead of following a Democratic process that goes against their belief system. I believe that this trend against "the government" (with all these conspiracy theorists shouting "wake up") is due in large part to the election of a Black president. Their rationale is, If our Democratic process can't prevent a minority from being president, why, violence and force can, the real motivation behind all their "patriotic" rhetoric. The corruption has been rampant in "the government" for many years now but this sudden spike in militia group formation began during Obama's first term in office and has not stopped since.

  81. citalotus8

    Ugh, First off conspiracy theories have been around way way longer than Obama's election and the "trend" against our government is due to the fact that our government is largely corrupt and its becoming more and more obvious. There of course are people on the far right wing throwing low blows at our black president for the simple reason that hes black but the majority of people don't care what color he is. The old smoke and mirrors trick of dividing the people into two different parties is starting to fail thanks to the fact that both sides represent an old broken system.

  82. Martin Screeton

    I'm just glad most of these prejudicial people on the border look to be mostly senior citizens and therefore will soon be thank God six feet under before they influence other people or kill someone needlessly.

  83. Pete Leclair

    Heavily armed but not in the bathroom? That is the worst place to be caught off guard is it not?

  84. Giacomo della Svezia

    This kind of comment makes me want to scream: Then do something about it and don't give in to this g0dd@mn cynicism that's helping nobody. As a non-american seeing all this potential going to waste is frustrating. What a beautiful country and people the US could be and have, weren't it for the defeatism of so many. It's not really a country's government that's corrupt, it's the heart of its people.

  85. robertallen1

    "The people" have less say in the government than ever before; the people in it stink from top to bottom--and there's nothing we can do about it.

  86. Giacomo della Svezia

    I'm sorry, but that is only more of the same defeatism. I'm not sure the Green Party is the answer, but it's at least an attempt to do something about the deadlock the american political system has been caught in.

  87. robertallen1

    You're right, it's defeatism and in light of everything, it's justified.

  88. Giacomo della Svezia

    That would leave just a few options for an individual that is aware of the situation, and none is attractive.
    I feel all the more grateful not to have been born in the USA.

  89. robertallen1

    You're right--and in many ways, your country which I know is Holland is way ahead of mine, but the problem with most Americans, especially those in power, is that they feel they have nothing to learn from anyone else which explains Korea, Viet-Nam, the Iranian hostage situation, the South American machinations, the economy, social issues such as abortion and contraception and so many other things.

  90. Giacomo della Svezia

    Robert, it strikes me as odd that you seem to be defeatist in one aspect, but I know you to be very combative on the issue of religious fanatics trying to shove evolution out of the classrooms.
    I'd like very much to know your reaction.

  91. Nwttp

    "For example: not wearing a car seatbelt, a personal choice? The law oppressed us for our safety, and a greater good of reducing fatalities on the road. We are told what to do by law because we wouldn't even when asked nicely."

    The greater good is not a reason to oppress. Fine if you want to consign to punishment if you choose to cause harm to yourself, but I do not and that is the problem. You can always argue against logic but you will loose. And then of course the logic depends on the desired outcome. I want and love freedom and therefore someone telling me what I can or can't do to myself is unacceptable. It is fine that you dislike freedom but that gives you no right to push your laws on me. As Napoleon once put, (and you prove so nicely god I wish I could remember the quote but it's something along the line of this) "not all men desire liberty". Well I do and lucky for me there are plenty that agree with me.

    "We are told what to do by law because we wouldn't even when asked nicely."

    Oh really? If you thought I was for rape and murder then I won't bother responding anymore cause youre beyond hope

  92. Lastviewer

    I'm no US citizen. Only from one of the G8.
    1) I feel that as when the US constition was written, they were sure right to fear hegmony from any leaders & thus: The right to defends what they owned.
    But in now days, just think of what a military chopper can do!
    And the US Gov. has thousands of it.
    However, we seen that in the case of the Vietnam, there will of the citizens are much more powerfull that any machine gun.
    That is true for all democratic nation.

    2) Isn't bizarre that in most mass killings, the killers had "Assault weapons" while only a old fashioned 0.12 gauge pump gun could have done the same job? Why does a "Cookoo" buys an assault weapon & a military outfit to commit a typical mass murder? ...

    In short, a car is "Registered" (Licensed), an ATV, a Ski Doo, a dog and all...
    So? What's the problem to register a gun so that if there's something fishy, the authorities can inquire? Inquire to medical or judiciary authoroty.
    Because, as population grows bigger & bigger in a country, "Cookoos" are more numerous.
    There ought to be a way.

  93. Nwttp

    Just went completely over your head huh?

  94. robertallen1

    Being defeatist does not imply not being outspoken.

  95. Giacomo della Svezia

    As I see it, laws are there to define the very freedoms we enjoy and to protect us from harm by either government or fellow citizens. To enjoy freedom gives you responsibilities as well, to respect the freedom of your fellow man for starters.

  96. DigiWongaDude

    @ Nwttp : Let me try and break this down simply for you.

    You live in society so...the society (not me) will have laws that govern the well being of the society, and that you are subject to as a member of that society. (i.e. the society will tell you what you can not do). But the society doesn't just dictate and oppress, it also gives you rights as a member and benefits. It's a system of mutual benefit, the price being some of your freedoms.

    If you could, go live on a island by yourself and you'll have no need for laws and can experience all the freedom you desire, but you will lose the benefits of being a member of society. It's really that simple.

    Logic. You are trying to call something logical when it is not necessarily. Even if it appears to be so. Example: It is raining and you want to go outside. Therefore logic says: Put on a raincoat before going outside. Right? Well not necessarily. What if you are already wearing one? So okay, if it is raining and you want to go outside, AND you are not already wearing a raincoat, put one on. Okay. Logical? Well nope not necessarily. You might decide you only need an umbrella, based on how much it is raining. this is not being difficult, or argumentative, but it is difficult to define what is logical.

    Logic is subject to criteria and conditions, as I said before. As a programmer of multiple computer languages, I simply understand what it is, as opposed to what it is not.

    ...your turn.

  97. robertallen1

    What about vice laws, such as those against prostitution and gambling?

    Does my fellow man (read neighbor) have the freedom to blast with a stereo at 4:00 a.m.?

  98. DigiWongaDude

    Our Freedoms tend to be what's left over after society has finished telling us what we can't do. Sure, we have Rights written in to law but compare the list of rights to the list of wrongs.

  99. Nwttp

    My turn for what? What is the point of your comments? Having freedom as apposed to not isn't logical? Well for you that's fine, but like I said before certain people, be they smarter or not, feel they need freedom. In other words I refuse to agree with the reasoning that because the vast majority of people refuse to care about their rights as humans they are somehow right. Sorry... not logical.

  100. DigiWongaDude

    "Sorry... not logical." - That's ok, you don't have to apologise for not being logical. I can see you have difficulties.

    The point of my comments:
    1) Everybody in society wants freedom.
    2) Nobody in society can have total freedom.

  101. over the edge

    "Just went completely over your head" then explain where i misunderstood. you make statements. myself and others try to address them. in return you supply nothing but denials and insults. that is of course when you don't just ignore the replies. do you have any facts? please tell me this isn't all you have?

  102. deldiablo

    you people with your comments understand nothing. Let me see if I can get through.... Our gun rights do not come from the government.... they come from our creator... Government cannot take them away... UNLESS you sign a CONTRACT with "them" (the Government) allowing "them" (the Government) to do so... Now an incorporated city (which owes its existance to the State government therefore the State owes its existance to the fed) can outlaw the carrying and owning of firearms in the incorporated area.... Once you understand that crap you will know how to fight issues to cirrcumvent your rights... the most powerful thing you own is your signature... do not sign anything....without understanding.

  103. hernandayoleary

    I have researched the issue thoroughly, and in every major nation, on all the contients, you find dictatorship in the last 200+ years, except one. America. Why? It must be our freedom to bear arms, because its the only country that has this law that has not been under tyranny.

  104. Nwttp

    No whats not logical is for some reason believing that you being a programmer makes you somehow the say all on logic. Sorry freedom hater.

  105. Nwttp

    Because something is written down does not mean it gives someone the right to oppress another human being. That is what clearly went over your head, and I choose to ignore only childish debating tactics.

  106. Nwttp


    "you people with your comments understand nothing. Let me see if I can get through.... Our gun rights do not come from the government.... they come from our creator... Government cannot take them away... UNLESS you sign a CONTRACT with "them" (the Government) allowing "them" (the Government) to do so... Now an incorporated city (which owes its existance to the State government therefore the State owes its existance to the fed) can outlaw the carrying and owning of firearms in the incorporated area.... Once you understand that crap you will know how to fight issues to cirrcumvent your rights... the most powerful thing you own is your signature... do not sign anything....without understanding."

    This guy gets it. Young buck

  107. Nwttp

    Other than that I have addressed every semi logical statement you and the other two self admitted (based on logic) freedom haters have made.

  108. over the edge

    " have researched the issue thoroughly, and in every major nation, on all the contients, you find dictatorship in the last 200+ years," really? Australia comes to mind as both a major nation AND continent.

    " because its the only country that has this law that has not been under tyranny." Canada has not been under tyranny and we have gun laws. England has strict gun laws an no tyranny/dictatorship in last 200+ years (unless you extend far beyond 200 years). maybe you should try other area for research because this issue does not seem to be your forte. you assume it is your right to bear arms that gives you this immunity to tyranny. but you fail to recognize other factors. your country is relatively young so there are no ancient hostilities between you and other countries. you have lots of space so no need to fight over it. economic prosperity and military might also come to mind. finally ask the slaves and natives if there is/was no tyranny in America.

  109. Nwttp

    There is no getting through man, why do you think the country, actually the world, is soo messed up right now?

  110. Nwttp

    Does this quote help get through to any of the freedom haters?

    "People who would give up freedom for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin

    I would guess a million men thousands of times more intelligent and/or successful than you telling you the same wouldn't help you.

  111. over the edge

    you have cited no source and presented no facts. you live in a country that has decided to make and follow laws. it is the only way that a society can function effectively. i am not a freedom hater but your freedom to do what you want ends where my freedom to do what i want starts. where these two collide is where society as a whole decides how to deal with it. the pendulum is swinging away from the "wild west "mentality where guns are concerned.

  112. Nwttp

    Over the edge
    you have cited no source and presented no facts.

    Me owning anything does not infringe on your freedom sorry you are wrong.

  113. Nwttp

    Also it seems that you have decided to skip at least half of my comments, and/or have added in your own assumptions.

  114. deldiablo

    Because people are taught in Publik skhools and are taught what the government wants them to learn... nobody understands the power of a signature, and the meaning of giving up their natural rights... when people give up there natural rights to the Government, they expect the Government to TAKE CARE OF THEM... and the Government will.... individual rights is a tricky thing: because we all have the right to be weird... but some people do not like weird and will vote you out... but the constitution says I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WEIRD... and you cannot vote out weird... so people sign and trick the weird to sign... in order to vote him/her out.... understand?


  115. over the edge

    "Me owning anything does not infringe on your freedom sorry you are wrong"yes it does. how am i to know you are stable? how many of these mass shooters got their guns legally or took them from someone who did. the guns i oppose are the ones designed to kill other humans. i have been broken into and been assaulted at work (part time bartender over 20 years) and never did i need a gun to defend myself. and the two times the customer had a gun it did not improve the outcome for him.

    "you have decided to skip at least half of my comments" really? then lets look at them in order shall we?
    1 "the biggest reason for the right the bear arms, defense against our corrupt government." i addressed that
    2 just an agreement with another poster
    3 slew of insults backed by nothing
    4 "The founding fathers did however know that the people must have the same thing the government does" ridiculous as even you would agree that the military has hardware no citizen should have.
    5 more insults and an "argument from authority"
    6/7/8/9/10 more insults and no substance
    11 you state that you are "an a$$ hole " then attack someone for not addressing your non existent points
    12 you claim victory in the debate (here is your cookie)
    13 ask another poster to back up his claim (but you refuse to do the same)
    14 you actually made a point or two (yay). that i and others did address
    15 you disagree with seat belt laws(facepalm) yes they do effect me and it is not just a personal choice as not wearing one leads to higher health care costs and insurance rates for me. so i am effected by actions of others
    16 (to me ) "Just went completely over your head huh?" with no explanation at all
    17 illogical statement claiming others are illogical.
    18 more on logic
    19 response to me. answering nothing
    20 addressed to someone else but a response to me. i guess the comment system is too challenging for you. but who is this "creator" that gave you your gun rights?
    21 a post claiming that you addressed my posts.
    22 nothing of value to the discussion
    23 another appeal to authority
    24 another non answer
    25 what prompted this post anyway

  116. hernandayoleary

    Australia is a country under the Tyranny of the Queen of England who is a dictator, in fact it was America who declared independence from the dictatorship in England which was the cause of the American Revolutionary wars. New Zealand has also suffered a similar fate.

    Canada likewise as Australia is still under the dictatorship of the Royal family of England who is neither elected nor voted for yet retains vast amount of powers to declare war, appoint prime ministers, call elections, pardon prisoners, enact legislations, sign treaties, oh and she is tax exempt and did not pay tax on her 20 million pound inheritance, and is the largest land owner in the world despite never working a day in her life. O yes, and where places like America have an elected Senate, England has an appointed house of lords to hand picked by the queen to ensure her dictatorship reign continues.

    You mean the natives who the british so readily killed or the slaves who the fascist in Spain and England so readily imported into their own lands? It was the southern liberal KKK democrats who didn't want the black people to vote or be elected so they passed the jim crow gun control on black people. Say what you will, but America has a president who leads the country and who is voted for, our head of state is elected by the people, the head of state in Canada and Australia is an unelected dictator in England with wide powers who unilaterally appoints governor generals on her subjects which is the highest branch in those respective nations

  117. Nwttp

    So then where did you get this

    "you have cited no source and presented no facts."

    Facts and sources on god given rights? Sorry that none exist

    and this

    "you live in a country that has decided to make and follow laws. it is the only way that a society can function effectively"

    Did I ever say we should have no laws? sorry again for your fail

    and this

    "your freedom to do what you want ends where my freedom to do what i want starts"

    Absolutely nothing I said infringes on you what so ever and you conveniently decided to not address this AGAIN.

    and of course this nonsense

    "the pendulum is swinging away from the "wild west "mentality where guns are concerned."

    Way to say nothing while still typing. Great job

    Because all of that pertains so little to what I've said that it is either you who is responding to someone else or you are not capable of keeping personal bias' out of argument.

  118. Nwttp

    Oh and

    "20 addressed to someone else but a response to me. i guess the comment system is too challenging for you. but who is this "creator" that gave you your gun rights?"

    To hard for you to figure out I quoted someone else? I know their name must have made it soooooooo hard.

  119. Nwttp

    And just so you know, I love this oh so very much, please please please keep trying.

  120. Nwttp

    "15 you disagree with seat belt laws(facepalm) yes they do effect me and it is not just a personal choice as not wearing one leads to higher health care costs and insurance rates for me. so i am effected by actions of others"

    And this is why Canadians shouldn't talk about things they don't know about, not how it works in the U.S. but with your logic cars should be illegal because the emissions they give off do harm to others and in turn raise your health care costs and insurance rates right? Am I wrong? or will you conveniently not address this?

    I'll get to the rest in the morning for even I need sleep.

  121. Nwttp

    I meant you won't get through to these other jokers, I was agreeing with you lol

  122. deldiablo

    then you understand how we... because you understand..... need to push the point.... failure to push in just a push to failure!!!!


  123. Giacomo della Svezia

    I don''t think I need to explain why there are laws that forbid crime.
    If your neighbour is 'enjoying' his freedom to listen to music in that way, he is violating his neighbours' rights.

  124. Giacomo della Svezia

    What wrongs do you mean, what we are not allowed to do?
    Most of the things forbidden by law are meant to protect citizens from violation of their freedom by others. That's what limits our freedom mostly.

  125. brutusaurio

    The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and I think the highest firearm murder rate of the developed countries. This means the current laws on this issue aren't the most appropriate.

  126. over the edge

    "Canada likewise as Australia is still under the dictatorship of the Royal family of England " really? can you explain the powers (i mean real power not figurehead type powers) the royal family has here? the royals do not declare war for us (we would be in Iraq if they could) or appoint prime ministers, or anything else in your list. your entire post is mistaking figurehead powers for real powers. if the Queen ever tried to force an unwanted action onto us she would be gone faster then you can imagine. your recent post is an obvious ploy to try to support your dishonest claims in your earlier post with more dishonest claims.

  127. Jack1952

    As a Canadian, I can tell you that the Queen has no say over our domestic or foreign policy. Our governor-general is suggested by our government and is appointed by the Queen. This appointment is ceremonial and is automatically approved by the Queen. Our governor-general ending in 2010 was Michaëlle Jean who was an Haitian refugee and grew up in Quebec and was of African descent. Nothing British about her. This position is the result of our involvement in the British Commonwealth. This involvement is optional and we can leave anytime we want. Ireland has left but there are certain advantages to being a member but it is mostly ceremonial. We have our own constitution and write our own laws. That is fact.

    When Britain decided to help invade Iraq, Canada refused to go. Even when pressure was applied, we said no and most Canadians agreed with this decision. Britain had to accept our decision as it has no say over how we make our political decisions. They do not have dictatorial power over us. That is an old American myth.

    Canada is also a member of a group of Francophone nations. This does not give France any power over us. It is a choice that we made as a nation that can be rescinded at any time.

    When doing your research, do it in an objective manner. Research to confirm preconceived opinions is not true research.

    If the majority of Canadians wanted the right to own assault rifles we would have that right. The over whelming majority do not want it. We do not see the logic in owning a mechanism whose sole purpose is to enable an individual to kill fellow Canadians.

  128. Jack1952

    Your emission's argument is faulty. It is the consensus that, although there are certain problems with auto emissions, that it is in the best interests of the nation that cars are allowed. If cars proved to be that much of a detriment to the nation, we may take steps to limit their use. We already take the worst offending vehicles off the road. Every vehicle has to comply with emission control standards or they will be taken, by force, off the road. We do not recognize the right of the individual to blatantly pollute in an irresponsible manner. That infringes on all our rights to a clean environment.

  129. Jack1952

    We do not have our hands and feet so that we have a weapon against other human beings. That is not their sole purpose or a part of their specific design. If it were we would never found the need to invent the gun. Pistols and assault rifles have only one purpose. Their job is to kill people, quickly and efficiently. It is their only purpose. There seems to be something intrinsically wrong with the idea that all of us need to have people killing apparatuses at our disposal. That is a mindset that we here in Canada do not have and do not want. Even the criminal types I have known over the years avoid the gun toting nut. If you want to be a social pariah in this country, produce a handgun that you have hidden on your person. Your social opportunities will vanish.

  130. DigiWongaDude

    @Giacomo della Svezia, yeah sorry, by "wrongs" I mean "don'ts". But this probably does not go far enough in explaining my post to you...

    What concerned me, was your stance that the law is there to protect our freedoms. This is romantic optimism in my view. :) I could have pasted a whole big definition of why, but it seemed easier to reduce it down to its simplest, most common form...a list of things we can not do.

    If that is too simplistic then fine, but the essence is correct. Why? Because it's easy to show the opposite of your statement as true:

    If we do something and its ok with society, then no law needs to be created. On the other hand... we end up with a long, long, long list of things that are not allowed, and rightly so. What's left IS allowed. That's important!

    If there is no law to say you can not do something then you are free to do it. Until, at least, a law is created (or interpreted) to prevent that freedom :-/

    The consequences of that being: the law takes away our freedoms! Making your statement a glass half full, and mine a glass half empty one, and therefore neither opposing statement can be a good definiton, and both are arguably incorrect.

  131. DigiWongaDude

    @Giacomo della Svezia,

    To further my point with regards to your Rights. This is really a list of things you CAN do, written into's the important protect them from laws that would take them away.

    Hence the difficulty of reforming the right to own guns in the U.S. (it's a Right 'protected by law').

    [personally, I'm against guns completely, but that is not what my post is about.]

  132. hernandayoleary

    I already explained the powers. she is in essence an absolute dictator. And you are trying to say she has figure head powers, there are no such thing as figure head powers, either you have the powers or you don't. If you have powers and choose not to exercise them to prevent outrage or rebellion that doesn't mean you don't have powers, it means you choose not to exercise them out of self interest. If you knew anything about dictatorships, you'd realise this is nothing unusual as most dictators tries to distance themselves from actual governing so they can enjoy their wealth and opulence. Ie. during the reign of Gadafi he was essentially a "figure head", and the design was much like that of England Libya had an elected prime minister, 600 elected ministers in the basic people's congress, he did not engage in day to day governing of making budgets per se, but we recognize like the Queen he was a dictator.

    Yes the Royals do have the powers, because they choose to make it appear that Canada and Australia are democracy to subdue outrage and give the appearance of democracy in these nations, they speak to the prime minister who must call the queen every week and instruct them what to do. This is why Canada jumped into ww2 just 7 days after Britain did under the instructions of the then Royal of England. Canada never even patriated its constitution until the 1980s under Pierre Trudeau. You had to have the British vote on your Constitution in the Canada act of 1982. can't have a constitution without the queen, you are not talking about figure head powers anymore. Just because you deny they appoint and dismiss prime ministers like they did in 1974 in Australia or call your elections and shut down parliament does not make it true.

    Again you suffer from a gross amount of naivety, its not ignorance, you are not dumb nor stupid. You have been indoctrinated from child hood to believe these things and were likely taught in a poor education system that glanced over the fact your constitutional monarchy is led by a personal with absolute powers. The queen is the commander and chief of the Canadian armed forces under Canadian law. You go study royal prerogative, and go learn how Canada cannot pass any legislation nor even used the armed forces without the queen.

    You are making an assumption that the Queen is going to go on TV beat her chest like a 500 pound gorilla and say Canada must do xyz. Sorry, this is not how politics works, politics is done through backroom dealings, your media is controlled by the queen and the federal government. She is already the leader she comes from a long line of people who are experts in social control, they know if they did these overt actions as you say people would rebel, so instead they cut backroom deals over the phone, tell the prime minister to make it look like his idea and people outside the political process who rely on MSM are none the wiser.

  133. hernandayoleary

    Simply untrue, when you account for all the murders done by governments in places like Japan, Germany, England, Ireland, France, Italy, and spain, US has the lowest gun murder rate over the century

  134. hernandayoleary

    The things you are stating is what the media in Canada tries to report, but the legislation and the laws are not consistent with this claim. See my response to over the edge posted at around 1:52.

    Francophonie is a language association, we do not have the "King of France" as the head of state in law in canada, he is not the commander of our forces, he cannot appoint and dismiss prime ministers, he is not listed in the constitution as the executive branch of government like the queen is in the constitution act of 1867.

    You are mistaken, Britain meant the Blair government, and not necessarily the Queen, Blair is not the king of england he was the prime minister. Don't get it twisted, had the queen wanted,she could have sent the Canadian forces, who under the constitution act of 1867 she is listed as the commander and chief of in law into Iraq, and there was lots of debate about if Canada was in Iraq or not during this time as they had sent lots of troops into the region to provide logisitical support. They may not have been in on the ground combat, but don't mistake that for not being in the war. When it counts like WW2, Queen will throw you in a war and bring up the draft, faster than your head will spin.

    right, like the majority of Canadians want gun registry,police brutality, corrupt government, high taxes, bad services and high unemployment. By your logic, Canadians would have none of those if they didn't want it. You live in a velvet gloved police state where the government sets up road blocks and forces devices down your mouth to prove you are not guilty of being a drunk driver, no one can seriously think that is a democratic or free country, and if you refuse you are automatically guilty.

    The idea that Canada can just say no to the Queen would be funny if it were not so false. You cannot pass legislation without her agreeing, any law passed in the house and senate must meet royal ascent and must be agreed to by the governor general, her representative and herself. In otherwords she holds an unover-ridable veto power on all Canadian laws.

    The fact of the matter is researched is based off hard facts and legislation. It cannot be based off of the opinions of people in the media who are scared of having their media licensed revoked like in Vancouver because they speak against the dictator of England. It is based off the laws that state the queen has the power to dismiss parliament, dismiss governments, appoint ministers, is the commander of the armed forces in Canada, the power to enact and block legislation. The queen of england's powers are consistent with that of any dictator in legislation. What, do you want me to say that she is not a dictator because she comes from England? That is the height of hypocrisy.

    You write your own laws but the queen must pass them and has veto power over all of them. You may not necessarily be able to leave without fighting a war, the queen is the largest land owner in canada all the crown land belongs to her, she is the crown and controls the army. So you are going to form a new nation with littlel and no army, good luck.

  135. Nwttp

    In your third sentence you are already wrong. If a car is, I believe older than 25 years it requires no emissions testing. I am tired of you people. your only argument is that because oppression is the way things work right now, that it somehow gives governments the right to oppress.

    If you've noticed only three of you are arguing with me, why do you think that is? You think the majority of the people that come to this site agree with you? Why is it you only get likes from the other two jokers than?

    Some day you will wake up with the rest of us, it will probably just be too late.

  136. brutusaurio

    Simply check the figures. Figures from the 21st century (this century).

  137. DigiWongaDude

    Clearly, a firey debate! Read this short piece to the end and remember, be inspired !!...

    The debate needs to move away from random irrational massacres - guns will be outlawed for protecting profit and asserting control. Anything else is just rhetoric noise. Don't believe me? Try to deny this:

    There are what, 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S.?
    The government won't tolerate surveillance drones being knocked out of the sky by private individuals. Sure it will happen a few times, but the more it happens the more action will be taken to prevent it. That's all that's needed to tip the 50/50 balance, not to a 'yes' or a 'no' over gun ownership, but (as always) to the will of government and corporations. The ruling will only go one way. It's not an's a when.

    In your idiotic bickering and procrastination over doing the right thing, imagine if everyone agreed to disarm and give up all weapons. What power would that give to the people to also demand the government not fill the skies with weaponised drones?

    The government wants your indecisive bickering to continue. Stand up and be counted, you have a chance to unite and make a difference. To change your children's history! Is that not what you felt helpless to do? Isn't that worth NOT dying for in some future totalitarianism? The power is not is your's in your hands!

    Do nothing and George Orwell's 1984 "foot stomping on your face for all eternity." is assured. Why? The property rights alone, of corporations and government, far outweighs any rights you think you (the U.S. citizens) have: call it in the interest of national security and all you gun-wielding "I know my rights" rednecks are all f*&ked - Reshape your ideas and throw down your weapons or, resign yourself to the consequences.

    "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

  138. Jack1952

    Canada has its own constitution, drawn up in 1982, which includes a Charter of Rights specific to Canada. Any amendments to the constitution must receive assent from both the House of Commons and the Senate and the approval of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures (at least seven provinces) representing at least 50% of the population. All these criteria must be met. The queen alone cannot over ride a decision to amend the constitution.

    I live in a military town, the largest base in Canada. I know of no one who was sent to Iraq, lots who went to Afghanistan, but no talk of anyone ever going to Iraq. I worked full time as a bartender which was frequented by military personnel and I heard all the stories including some unpleasant ones. Any Canadian military who went there were there as consultants or representatives of the government. Canada was involved in WW2 because most Canadians of the time were of British descent and did so out of a sense of loyalty to their heritage. This is no longer the case and I can guarantee that any British insistence that our involvement in their military adventures should be automatic would be met with acute resistance and would not happen. Our military may be small but any intervention by the British using their military would end in failure and they know it. They would be faced with the resistance of the entire British Commonwealth and the Queen knows it. Your argument is a paper argument and is not rooted in reality.

    High taxes, police brutality and political corruption is a factor in the lives of all people everywhere. It is a continuous struggle for every human being. Free countries have a political mechanism to deal with these problems. They don't always work the way you would like but once again you're dealing with the weaknesses of humanity. This doesn't prove that the Queen is our dictator... at all. If that were true, the United States is ruled by the Queen as it has a huge problem with these same issues.

    The prime minister is elected not appointed. You have to prove this outrageous allegation. Saying it is not enough.

    I do not know of the media revoking incident in Vancouver. You'll have to give more information.

    We pay no taxes to the Queen or to the British government. All revenue gathered from the use of crown lands is controlled by the Canadian government. The Queen cannot sell what we call crown land and has no say over its use.

    Our government builds and maintains our highways so it sets the rules that say how we should use them. Drunk driving is a menace and a danger to all who use the road system. We hate that it is necessary but most Canadians put up with it to ensure our safety while driving. There are certain things that every citizen is obligated to do to allow all of us to live in a civilized society. That means rules, like it or not. That we place limits on our freedoms does not mean we are oppressed. Oppression occurs when all freedom is rescinded and someone has complete control over all the factors and decisions of an individuals life. Not the dase here and especially not by the Queen.

    Our gun registry is fairly new and is favoured by most Canadians. Polls have shown this to be consistently true and casual conversation seem to back this up.

    Once again, your argument is a paper argument. It's not based on reality.

  139. over the edge

    " she is in essence an absolute dictator." can you point me to the last instance that she over ruled a decision taken in Canada? why were we not forced to join the Iraq war? why were we not automatically in ww2 when England declared war? she is a symbol nothing more. i personally cannot remember a time when she forced or over ruled any decision we made. can you?

  140. hernandayoleary

    Ha ha don't get me started on the EU and its lack of democracy, there is enough on the net that you can look for yourself. By 21st century I assume you mean more or less the last decade.

    Even if we look to places like Russia, we see far higher crime and murder rates than the USA and they have very strict gun control there and they are closest in size to the USA in terms of being a populous culturally.racially diverse place in a large geographic region. However, any argument for or against gun control should be looked at in the long term perspective rather than short-medium term because it is the premise of the gun liberty movement and the founders of America that the right to bear arms and the freedom to bear arms stops tyranical government. And you cannot only look at crime done by private citizens and you must also look at all murders. According to the leading scholar on the subject professor rj rummel, democide, or the murder of civilians by government was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century beating out war by a margin of 6 to 1. Leaving a total of 262 people murdered by their governments in a 100 year time span or an average of 2.6 million people murdered by the government per year.

    That is America who is 5% of the world population, would have seen a murder rate of the government murdering 13.1 million people during the period or 131,000 people per year, if its numbers were proportional to that of the world. That is almost equivalent to a 9/11 every week.

    You give the government all the guns, power, authority, bombs, missiles, planes, and make people register and give up their guns, what do you think is going to happen. You are 1 bad man away, 1 hitler, 1 stalin, 1 mao, 1 pol pot from being murdered because your a jew or rich or own a farm or wear glasses. You look throughout the world, most nations are not free, there is a reason. Americans are not special, there is not an invisble forcefield that prevents us from getting a charismatic fascist in office. Its because Americans have guns, and the threat of insurrection is too great, no leader wants to end up like gaddafi or mussolini being hung in the street by his own people or shot in the buttocks. Take away the guns, there is no reason why the government should allow you any rights or freedom, what are you going to do if Prince Harry comes to rape your kids or rape your mother or rape your sister? If you have no machine gun, no assault rifle, no missile, no weapons, the government can enslave you, beat you, rape you, kill you, and you can't do nothing

  141. robertallen1

    I know this is off topic, but as long as you're discussing the Canadian government:

    1. Is abortion regulated by the individual provinces and in general, what is its status? The same question regarding prostitution and gambling?

    2. Are religious institutions taxed?

  142. Jack1952

    Those emission laws covering twenty five year old vehicles were put in place to protect antique vehicles and what we perceive as an important heritage. This accounts for only a tiny fraction of small percentage of vehicles on the road. It doesn't negate anything I said and amounts to nitpicking on your part.

    You're not doing all that well on the like button, yourself. I think I would win if we were to use that criteria.

    If you really think that a bunch of good ole boys with assault rifles can withstand the might of the American military, I would think you had better wake up. That's a dream that most of us gave up early in high school and you should rethink it before the military takes away your ability to dream, permanently.

    The only way to defeat a corrupt government is through the coherent expression and communication of ideas. That is what gives a movement strength. Without a clear and concise principle or ideal to give you purpose, you are rudderless and doomed to failure. Your guns will not help you. You will die and not know why.

  143. Jack1952

    I would like to know, exactly, which country on this planet is a democracy. In your opinion.

  144. Jack1952

    Firearms, abortion and prostitution fall under federal law and gambling is handled by the provinces. Abortion is legal with certain restrictions pertaining to the length of term.

    Religious institutions are not taxed.

  145. robertallen1

    Is prostitution legal and if so, is there some regulation.

    So I gather in some provinces, gambling, or at least certain forms of it, are legal and in others not.

    The thing about religious institutions is that they want a say in the government which they pay no taxes to support.

  146. over the edge

    "n Canada (where the Queen's appointed representative prorogued Parliament for several weeks in late 2008, preventing it from performing its democratic and constitutional functions)."" she was asked to by our Prime Minister. it was not done because the Queen ordered it it was done because our leader asked for it. you fail to understand that while there are documents that state certain powers the expression/use of these powers would result in the cutting of ties from the Canadian government. trust me when a decision or law is made here we never worry about the Queen overturning it. we know the rubber stamp is coming.

  147. hernandayoleary

    Given the fact the prime minister lied about the war in Iraq and various other issues, how can you be certain it was the PM and not the Queen. The media did lie to you, the classified diplomatic cables don't lie.

    Canada does not have the ability to legal cut ties from england. the PM is an appointee, the GG is an appointee, the Queen of England is technically the Queen of Canada and is listed in law as being the head of the executive branch of government in Canada. Your argument would be tantamount to saying a lame duck president is not president because he chooses not to exercise any power. She controls the army and the ROYAL canadian mounted police.

    And since when is it ok to shut down democracy and ignore the constitution because the government appointee, appointed by the queen asked for it? So if Harper ask the queen to rape your family is that cool too? I don't think so.

    I should trust you, a guy who didn't even know Canada invaded Iraq because the state controlled media never told him. And even if it were true that the queen rubber stamps what Canada says, do you think that makes it better. You have a dictator, unelected branch of government listed in the constitution as the executive appointed the functioning leader of government who rubber stamps what you say. Well what use is that, why not become a republic, the only reason is that she must be holding some kind of power. what becomes of all her canadian property?

  148. Achems_Razor

    Canada is a Corporation under UK Queen.

    Canada is traded in the US stock exchange and registered as ...CORPORATE CANADA in USA. This is CANADA'S corporate registered number. 0000230098 CANADA DC SIC: 8880 American Depository Receipt.

    Business Address, Canadian Embassy 1746 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington DC 20036...

  149. DigiWongaDude

    @hernandayoleary, you were doing quite well till your last paragraph where your cheese slipped right off your cracker...those paranoid aggressive delusions are precisely why arming the masses can only lead to a big green light for the coming disastrous oppression and martial law in the name of domestic peace. Zero fascist dictators required. Americans can't see it because they're too busy shouting and stopped listening long ago. Maybe it's in the water?

    Americans drank the soda pop of labelling all and sundry perceived threats as infectious, conniving 'communists' during the cold war, and now glug away at terrorism crawling out of the cracks in the pavement, without having learned a goddam thing about tolerance, dialogue, or compassion or reason. Who needs tolerance, compassion or dialogue when you have a bigass gun and that exact paranoid aggressive delusion to use it? "Reason?" Americans ask, "Reason with this MF. Ba-ba-ba-ba." See my point? No? Pfft!

    You scare me man, but it's not your fault - you are a puppet of the system that will take you from cradle to grave in carrying out its own agenda.

    Watch how those pee shooters stand up to the new riot control microwave energy weapons, mounted atop armoured tanks and aerial drones. Or is the solution to that to just get bigger guns?

  150. over the edge

    you still do not get it. yes i knew that we had troops attached to foreign units at the time. it was in the news and discussed. my step father was on one of those ships in the gulf. they were there as support for our troops in Afghanistan/ fulfilling our duties we agreed to in the UN post war (first war) embargo

    "And since when is it ok to shut down democracy and ignore the constitution because the government appointee, appointed by the queen asked for it? " when the law allows it. we have also had our government dissolved by the GG when the then prime minister asked for it. comparing that to raping my family shows me how ridiculous you are.

    anyway we are far off topic so make your case against gun control. prove to me that guns (or lack of) are the main reason you are not living under a tyrannical dictator and others are?

  151. over the edge

    lol not you as well. i have had enough of this stuff for now. so no offense can i not go into this now? but your position on gun control (either way) would be appreciated.

  152. Jack1952

    40 to 50 Canadian military personnel participated in the war in Iraq so I guess technically you are correct. This was known and was a topic of debate in Parliament. Canadians expected zero participation in the war. There were some air missions over Iraq as part of NORAD but the crew flying those missions are included in the fifty personnel. Not even close to a major contribution and it was not hidden by the media. Had participation escalated it would have been all over the news, especially the Toronto Star which is quite verbal in its stance against the Harper government.

    The appointment of the Prime Minister is a formality and is rubber stamped. If the Queen tried to veto the appointment of an elected Prime Minister, it would end in a disaster for the monarchy. Quebec would quite likely separate and the constitution would no longer apply. However, before that happens, Canada would likely withdraw from the Commonwealth. The rest of the Commonwealth would re-examine their involvement with the monarchy and that would be end of the Queen as dictator of the British Commonwealth. That is the reality of the position of the Queen. Britain does not have the military strength to enforce any dictatorial edicts it would attempt or to force the Commonwealth to remain united.

    The Queen is listed as the owner of Crown lands. However, she cannot sell this land and cannot collect any monetary compensation for its use. This is a traditional ownership and is part of a very old tradition in British law and our association with Britain. Canada never formally declared independence along the lines of the American model. We quietly formed our own government while keeping strong ties with Britain. What is says on paper and what actually happens are two different things. Americans may not be used to governance under these circumstances. Just because someone does not do things the American way does not automatically make them victims of oppression. That is an arrogant position to take.

    Many Canadians were against the gun registry because they felt it did nothing to address criminal usage of guns and penalized law abiding citizens. They also felt the cost of maintaining such a system was exorbitant and could not reconcile these costs with the benefits of such a system. It is not being repealed on Constitutional law but because our elected Government has opposed this registry from the start and when they finally gained a majority in the House, they felt they now had the mandate from the voting public and the power in the House to repeal the gun registry. It is part of our electoral process and I suspect we have not heard the last of this legislation.

    You exhibit a strong anti British sentiment. The O'leary part of your cyber handle suggests an Irish background and explains this sentiment and the Irish have been greatly wronged by the British in the past...but that is in the past. Ireland is now an independent country and has withdrawn from the Commonwealth. We are talking about the realities of today not yesterday and the Britannia that was the largest empire on the planet does not exist any more.

  153. Jack1952

    Prostitution is legal but there are many laws about soliciting which make the situation quite complicated. A basic one on one deal for sex is legal as long as it doesn't contravene soliciting laws.

  154. hernandayoleary

    Jack, first you denied Canada participated, I was lambasted as making things up, you demanded I provide proof, and you said this

    "I live in a military town, the largest base in Canada. I know of no one who was sent to Iraq, lots who went to Afghanistan, but no talk of anyone ever going to Iraq. I worked full time as a bartender which was frequented by military personnel and I heard all the stories including some unpleasant ones. Any Canadian military who went there were there as consultants or representatives of the government. "

    It was hidden by the media, they did not tell us we were participating in a war in Iraq, they told us definitively the opposite. When Canada was bombing Libya, where we didn't even have boots on the ground, I believe it required Harper to go to the parliament and inform the people of war, he did not pretend like Canada was not in Libya and the media did not deny nor say Canada was not participating. It is a clearlie.

    You previously stated

    "The prime minister is elected not appointed. You have to prove this outrageous allegation. Saying it is not enough."

    The evidence shows the contrary. despite providing the links, you still insist the prime minister is elected by the people which is not the case.

    I doubt Canada could really defend itself from Britain who has nuclear weapons and probably the 3rd or 4th best army probably right after Russia and maybe china.

    You mean to tell me that someone listed as the owner of a land in Canada can have no rights to it. I need to see proof of that because on the face of it,it seems quiet bizarre. And if she tries to sell it, who exactly is going to stop her? Its traditional ownership, seriously, do you buy into this stuff, this queen seems to have a lot of "traditional" things that benefit her wallet, she is traditionally the head of your country, who owns all the land, controls your army, appoints your lead, dissolves parliament, dismisses governments, to veto any legislation passed by your democratically elected officials, and the undemocratic senate who is appointed on her consent by her appointed prime minister, make treaties, declare war, conduct diplomacy, grant honors, and govern, o and be given special treatment and use up millions in police resources when she feels like visiting. Well I'd like to have some of those "traditional figure head" powers, and her diplomatic immunity means she does not have to pay for her hotel stays if she chooses not to. I guess if I got all those powers I'd not try to publicly disturb the perception I don't do nothing but collect a welfare check.

    What it says on paper is what is reality. You go into a court, with paper, those are called facts and evidence, you go into a court with a bunch of claims saying this operates that way, no one listens. If you go to North Korea, the average person on the street will say no no no, its not a dictatorship, people in dictatorships seldom are aware and seldom admit to it, because you'd be forced to rebel so it is easier to go with the flow and just say no. I understand that and have many friends of that persuasion, "I don't feel like doing s*it, I just want to drink my beer and be a dumb redneck, who cares what government does".

    I am not saying you are victims of oppression because you are not Americans, I am saying you are oppressed because you have an absolute dictator who in all fairness, appearingly declines (in general) to publicly exercise her powers hence it is called a constitutional monarchy - as opposed to an absolute monarchy. This is what you are referring to as the reality of the situation.

    So because I oppose a dictator Queen where dead women are found on her properties, who has a stash of guns when she tries to outlaw guns for the british and others in her empire, I am anti-british, hardly.

  155. hernandayoleary

    The proof is that the 7 largest countries in all of the other continents have been under tyranny and dictatorship in the last 100 years with governments who have murdered off large swaths of the population. The number 1 cause of non natural death in the 20th century has been democide, people's own government murdering them and the number runs at 262 million according to the leading expert professor rummel out of university of hawaii.

    While Australia, And Antartica are technically contients, they are not really populated in the manner that a place like Asia, Africa, nor North America are and even at that. even at that Australia like Canada was under the dictatorship of England for a very long time. Even if I were to hypothetical agree or conceede the point that the Queen is no longer involved in the day to day operations and "rubber stamps" the decisions, as recently as 1975 the Queens GG was meddling in Australia's politics by dismissing a government and prime minister (not at his request) and her offices of the GG still receives 10s of millions from tax payers in respective countries. Further things like the King Byng affair in the 1920s show the GG and Queen still meddled in the affairs of Canada, and drawing you into ww1 and ww2. Now assuming I agree the Queen is just a figure head, even at that, Canada was not a democracy with any elected figures until the late 1800s. In Australia it was not until 1901 that the governor general ceased being an absolute dictator and around 1926 stopped having much general influence in Canada it was about 1867 and 1926 respectively as well. That is even if I agree with your position of the figure head queen, both Canada and Australia were under absolute authoritarian foreign british governor general dictators until 1867 and 1901 and not really free until the imperial conference of 1926.

    In light of that, America remains the only nation free of government tyranny and absolute dictatorship and foreign intervention from distant far away governments in their congress with rights to veto laws in the last 100-150 years, even using the most favorable view point of places like OZ and Canada.

    Africa: DRCongo, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, South Africa, Uganda, Morocco, Tanzania
    Asia: China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, philipines, Japan, Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia
    South america: Brazil,Argentina,Chile, colombia, peru, venezuela, bolivia
    Europe: Russia, Germany, France, Uk, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Poland
    ME: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, yemen, syria, UAE
    North America: Mexico, Canada, Guatamala, Cuba, Dominican Republic, honduras

    All these countries take guns away from their citizen and ended up with dictators killing their own people. Now clearly you feel Canada is not a dictatorship, even if we remove them from the list, the statistic are still overwhelming. And if Canada were to have an overt dictator odds are the US would overthrow him anyways like they had done to most of the other dictators in north america ie honduras, mexico, attempts in cuba, invasion of grenada and haiti etc. That is there exist a reasonable argument that Canada is with the US sphere of protection.

    Why doesn't America have the same dictatorship as the rest of those countries like Mexico and Brazil who are closest to it in size and culture and history and general demography or Russia and Germany? Without guns, America would be the same as all the other countries on the list. The founding fathers knew that you need guns in the hands of an armed populous to have a free nation, they wrote quiet extensively on this. its not that there were not machine guns, there were, there were cannons as well, and bombs they never said limit those. The whole gun control movement stems out of southern racist democrats trying to prevent freed black people from exercising their civil rights because they have some racist beliefs that all blacks are violent and animals. Yes people might shoot people and do bad things, but that is the nature of society.

    And lets be clear here, the liberal elite who advocate for gun control (and the liberals at the bottom who puppet them are unaware of) that they are not for banning guns. They are for a government monopoly on gun ownership. Its people like Obama who sell guns in fast and furious to mexican cartels to kill cops, who live in gated houses with armed guards and surface to air missiles protecting their homes who insist that people like me and you should not be able to have guns. People like Obama who are exempt from gun ownership and ccw in laws in washington dc

    A point often made is it'd be difficult to overthrow the government using guns. Well this is not necessarily a bad thing, you don't want it to be so easy to overthrow a government you get constant instability just because people disagree on minor issues, but you don't want to have a situation where there is gun control and you cannot overthrow the government because there is not an easy availability of guns, rockets and missiles for the general populous. I believe any weapon who a reasonably trained individual could reasonably contain to a structure should be permitted, provided one can store it in a relatively safe manner if reasonable precauions are taken. Ie. one should not be able to own a nuclear missile with fallout and all, or a chem weapon that will clearly kill more than the intended target, but a missile or rocket or bomb whose blast could be contained reasonable to a structure. Ie. this would not allow one to own cluster bombs but things like a small to medium sized missile that can take down a building or anti tank gun/missile should be fine.

    Any system that permits the government to control all the bombs, missiles, guns and other weapons is going to ripe for government Tyranny. Especially in any European or predominantly European descendant country where in the last 500 years virtually all have been under government tyranny and dictatorships for the overwhelming majority of their histories. When the government is afraid of the people it is liberty, when the people are afraid of the government it is tyranny.

    When I look at how after Australia banned guns, and there is a nice Australia 6 minute documentary on it, how old people were being robbed and beating and killed by criminals increasingly, I felt really bad for them. They cannot defend themselves with bats because the criminals over power them. A big 6'4 australian wog can just take the bat out a little old mans hand and beat him up.

  156. brianrose87

    So lets put this in perspective. You are reasoning that the only thing stopping our government from "democide" is our gun laws? As if our government sits in their chambers and says "We could really get something done if only we could kill of 1/3 of the population.... but they have guns!".

    Its specious reasoning to the root. For example, was the 13th Amendment passed because the government feared the retaliation of armed black people? No, it was passed because our Constitution sets the guiding principles and means of election allowing for reason to reign over prejudice.

    For example, the Netherlands is a wealthier and happier country per capita than the U.S. They can't own guns. They're government must really be taking their time turning into a dictatorship and murdering its own people.

    Maybe, just maybe, the freedom of a people has more to do with how the people that run governments come into power. Maybe it has more to do with having a strong legal framework for electing representatives, and having checks and balances to prevent the accruement of power to any one individual. Maybe gun laws have very little to do with the fact that the U.S. hasn't experienced "democide". Maybe...

  157. DigiWongaDude

    @ hernandayoleary: All the while violence is met with violence, nothing will be resolved, and the U.S. Reservoir Dogs stand-off of a gun in everyone's face is a tic-tocin' time bomb of shakey, trigger-finger anxiety. That's no way to live or die, and there are alternatives choices.

    So, this is precisely where our views part company. Your views are not lost on me, just your arguments (and vica versa no doubt)...but enjoyable reading nonetheless.

  158. hernandayoleary

    Violence is not a solution to violence you are right on that point, but being a victim =raped, beaten, robbed and murder by criminals or govt isn't a solution either.

  159. over the edge

    correlation does not equal causation. and again in most cases you are comparing countries with longer histories and pre existing hatreds and biases to a relatively young country with more space. even after the separation from England the government still oppressed and killed many of it's citizens as well as people in other countries. your recent history has the government killing,torturing and oppressing people in over there instead of over here (or is that okay with you). they jail US citizens without trial,lie to their citizens to go to war, spy on their own, and so on. how has your guns stopped that? is that not tyranny? rounding up citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in camps. relocating natives against their will, treating many as second class citizens are these not tyrannical? civil rights and social change in your country were gained by mostly peaceful actions and your right to bear arms did not achieve these things. you live in one of the more free countries but many of those freedoms did not come at the end of a barrel. they came through educating and informing then mobilizing the public.

  160. hernandayoleary

    My argument has never been correlation = causation, my argument has been a series of events cause causation. You asked for proof, I showed you other countries then you come back and say correlation doesn't equal causation. This is caused circular reasoning, I already said the causation.

    So countries like Brazil, Mexico, cuba, Nigeria, Indonesia and Germany, Russia have longer histories than America and somehow that causes them to be more violent. Most of the countries on that list are younger than America. Save for probably England. I am not even comparing all the ancient mass murderers in europe like vlad the impaler or charlamagne in ancient france.

    Does the US jail foreign terrorist without trial yes, US citizens, you'd have to refer me to examples of this. and so does Syria at the request of the Canadians and canada ensures they get tortured, do they lie to their citizens, what country doesn't, at least america knows its in iraq. I have never alleged America was perfect. Mind you these are not without good reason. Terrorist killed 3,000 people in 1 day. Not to mention these things like illegal detentions, and illegal spying are unlawful and unconstitutional. You are right that since 9/11 civil rights have been eroding in america. You compare that to britain where they are filming everyone and jumping on people and shooting them down in broad light for no reason on a crowd subway train it is not the most extreme. But I believe it is still very bad.

    As for japanese, well we were at war with them and it'd be a gross oversight to allow them to roam around free when there was no way to ensure their protection and experts at the time were telling us that they were spying for the Japanese invasion. Had an invasion taken place they likely would all be killed so their is an argument it could have protected them, particularly from the brutal mob lynching they would likely have endured anyways. I have no doubt the same KKK who terroriszed black people during this period would have no issue killin Japanese who aren't white and who they actually have a good reason to kill and will face sympathetic police, judges, juries who'd be all white. I do not agree with it but we were not rounding up Japanese and killing them either. They were treated humanely, these were not death camps and they were let out when the war was over. It was not good, but it was not bad compared to what russians did to german-russians in russia in ww2. It certainly was not democratic. Canada did the same and I do not blame them. As well there were incidents of Japanese-americans in Hawaii helping the enemy so it did no favours to the community and raised questions of loyalty. Anyhow, the Japanese americans were paid and willingly accepted payment for there suffering so in my eyes have no leg to stand on if they are going to complain. If I break your dish, and pay you an amount and you agree to accept it, you lose the right to complain about your dish, I pay you, you accepted, its over. Never mind that diplomatic cables revealed that Japan had a network of spies who were allegedly trying to gain japanese supporters for an invasion. When you consider that it could have cost the war, because to prosecute individuals would mean publicising the codes that prove z person is a spy because of full disclosure laws and holding someone without trial did not exist back then, relocation was the only alternative. All the top experts at the time basically agreed that it was the right thing to do, although in hindsight it was not. Throw in that some Japanese Americans were still loyal to the Emperor of Japan and there you go. Its not justified, in the fog of war it did seem justified at the time, the camps were closed before the war ended and they were paid and got an apology, more than 99% of gov't ever do. almost no other nation who wins a war pays reparations to the enemy. None come to mind but canada.

    I agree the treatment of natives was unfair, to be technical however they were for the most part viewed as different nations and not technically americans so these were often cases wars. And many of those Indians had no problem scalping a white man, invading villages of white settlers who were stealing their land and killing and raping and that went both ways. But their treatment was still very poor. The question of government tyranny is interesting in regards to natives. Because on the one hand, even when the gov't tries to help indians they still seem to ruin their communities, just look at today. As well its not clear of the oppression reigned down upon them came from a federal level or came from previously mentioned settlers who were just racist and hated indians. In the most egregious cases, the indians who were americans were usually stripped of their guns and weaponry before they were relocated. you also must understand that the native way of life was simply incompatible with permanent settlement that europeans build. Indians who accepted the white man ways did not face any government scrutiny, but the way of riding around on horses, not going to school, shooting wild animals and living in a teepee where ever you want simply is not compatible with America nor any other civilized society.

    Our freedoms come from the barrel of the gun, if white men with guns didn't go to japan to kill tokugawa, then those japanese still be in interment camp

  161. Giacomo della Svezia

    I cannot entirely agree: in constitutions, that were created as a result of the Enlightenment, our rights (or freedoms) are very specifically mentioned: freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. These are not prohibitions but the contrary. No romantic optimism there, but plain fact.
    The laws that you refer to are indeed meant to prohibit certain behaviour, but most of these things are in some way harmful. And yes, I agree that what's not prohibited by law is automatically allowed until a new law puts an end to it (hopefully because it is harmful and should be prohibited, but there's no real guarantee).
    I do have a problem with the fact that many parliaments can make laws that are in contradiction with the constitution they ought to keep in mind.

  162. Giacomo della Svezia

    I see your point on the difficulty of taking away the right to own guns. Well, I guess a 2/3 majority is needed to change that, and that's not to be expected in some lifetimes. :-(

    [And I agree on the objection to guns]

  163. hernandayoleary

    `Intuitively, causation seems to require not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence. Suppose that a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one thinks of the counterfactual – the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects```
    From your article.

    So suppose instead of student and test we have government tyranny and an armed populous. To prove it, by your standard I merely have to demonstrate that if the USA did not have guns and a widely armed populous it would be under government tyranny at some point in time. So if we go back to the american revolutionary war, and assume americans had no guns, no militias, no arms, no widely armed populous (ie the counterfactual), america would have lost the war, and still have been under the English dictatorship at the time. And there is your proof of causation not correlation ok.

    That can extend to ww2 japan, mexican american wars, ww1, pirates in the carribean, the french, the spaniards and dutch and so on. Without guns America would be anything from a Japanese to a German ww2 colony or colony of USSR or Mexico or whoever would be the last dictatorship to take over America. for all we know it may have been ended up being ruled by natives.

    ``nice try editing the original list i also stated that population density and historical biases come into play. but you also have to edit my statement to make your assumptions fit nice try.``
    The original list was quiet lengthy, I never claimed it was the entirity of the list, the post is still there, the list had somehting like 30 countries on it. How did I edit your statement, this is one of the few times I even quoted you.

    So historical biases and population density, care to expand. Mexico has the closes history to America and probably Brazil would be closest in population density from the list or possible russia maybe.

    ``"As for japanese, well we were at war with them and it'd be a gross oversight to allow them to roam around free"``[me] no you were not. you were at war with a country not the people who left and choose to become American. the fact that you try to justify that is sickening. and again because they were treated humanely and it might have saved some is not justification for the action. the fact that other countries did the same or worse is not justification. again why didn't your guns save them from this? you go no to state that SOME did help the Japanese. that is not a good reason to lock up ALL of them``

    Yeah we were at war with Japan whose people are called the Japanese people. A large portion I think as much of 40% of the Japanese in interment camps were not even US citizens yet, never mind the ones with dual citizenship who had not given up their japanese passports, we don't know who they were loyal to. We know america now for the most part but we couldn't assume. So it is not in your view justified to relocate a people who are liklely to be killed, lynched, and beaten by the general populous for their own protection? I am not saying it is good, there was limited information, fog of war, and the limited information did not reflect well on the Japanese community. What if the Japanese invaded, this is not a hypothetical, back then it was more of a when the Japanese invade what will Japanese Americans do. Diplomatic cables showing spy networks, loyalty to the Japanese empreror, high rate of non citizens, did not work in their favour. And if Japan successfully took hawaii where japs made up 30% of the population, then likely most of them would die on the re-invasion by the us. Had the US attemtped to charge individuals, then they;d have to disclose the secret diplomatic cables and codes and would have likely lost Hawaii and experience an invasion of the west coast mainland. The Japanese sneak attack would not have been thrwarted at Midway and the war would have dragged on for much longer as US would not be able to get close enough to drop the nuke on Japan and they can't nuke hawaii.

  164. robertallen1

    You failed to mention that these innocent people (the Americans of Japanese ancestry) were also disenfranchised of their property (homes and businesses) and incarcerated WITHOUT DUE PROCESS--through no fault of their own. Hence, they were denied their constitutional rights, not because of any nefarious acts on their part, but merely because of their lineage. This is despicable and flies in the face of what this country supposedly stands for--i.e., the Constitution was placed in hold. DON'T EVEN TRY TO THINK OF JUSTIFYING IT!

    Yet, despite this, there were those like the late Senator Inouye. However, had I been a Japanese-American at the time and my family and I suffered from this heinous treatment, I would have immediately gone over to the other side.

  165. hernandayoleary

    Actually there were I guess you could call it 2 things.
    1. Some Japanese were sent into interment camps
    2. However others were in what fell into military exclusions zones were no one was allowed in, and in some cases the zones allowed no one, and in other it was only no japanese.
    3. Technically they were not disenfrancahised because they were allowed back to their property after 44, when it was repealed because America was clearly going to win the war.
    4. It is with hindsight we view this and all the facts we can make certain statements like it was unreasonable, in light of the facts we have NOW, but the people back then did not have those facts, the facts back then were different, they showed impending Japanese invasion and Japanese American collaborators, spy networks spying on us airfields, ship yards, engaging covert sabotage to industrial plants. If the cops think a bank robber is in a car, I've seen them stop hundreds of cars and search them all for the criminal - with controversy. And that is nowhere near the level of an invasion to murder American citizens.
    5. Had the American not done that and the Japs invaded, and hundreds of thousands of japs-americans die, they'd blame the government for not evacuating them along with most hawaiians. essentially you are saying its ok to make hundreds of thousands of people if not millions of people die so as to not inconveience a minority. As long as the government pays you for your property, English common law says they can take it. Japanese were paid, so there is no issue.
    6. See and your last statement is why they had to do what they did. That is what the experts said.
    7. Unlike the indians , mexicans and the blacks and other oppressed groups, they got an apology and money, I have zero remorse for them. While I am sure they would have wanted other things, there condition was not bad (better in most cases than what is would have been on the outside - in fact most japanese couldn't even go back to places where they came from because lynching and murder of japanese was very high and the cops were not prosecuting the murder)
    8. a large % upwards of 40% had no american citizenship, and thats not counting the dual citizens, whose loyalty could not be ascertained. Japanese citizens were required to essentially be loyal to the emperor so they are not all are blameless. Many did nothing wrong, but if the choice is putting a minority to live away from where the country they sworn loyalty to who is invading inland instead of where they are and it saves millions of lives by causing them inconvenience and are a paid and apoligzed too, I just don't see what there is to complain about. Plenty of americans were sleeping on the street, and America was still in the great depression until near the end of ww2, at japanese internment - its not like there were jobs for them anyways they'd just have sat at home in soup kitchen lines

  166. DG550

    (including the assault rifle)

    I don't believe that is true.
    Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. It’s one of the most popular types of sporting rifles in the country

  167. over the edge

    i am not sure exactly sure you are claiming is not true. was it that he used the ar-15 or that he took the guns from his first victim?
    edit sorry i posted before i saw your edit.
    the ar-15 is an assault weapon you cannot really be denying this. the fact that it is used for "sport" in some cases does not change the fact. it was and is still designed to kill people. that is why the military version is/was used around the world. please do not get technical and claim that it only fires one round per trigger pull as arguing semantics serves no purpose. but if it makes you happy i will call it an "assault weapon"

  168. robertallen1

    "Many did nothing wrong, but if the choice is putting a minority to live away from where the country they sworn loyalty to who is invading inland instead of where they are and it saves millions of lives by causing them inconvenience and are a paid and apoligzed too, I just don't see what there is to complain about." [Overlooking the garbled sentence] Oh, you don't, do? Suppose you were one of the 62% Americans of Japanese lineage whose property, freedom and all associated rights under the Constitution were suddenly wrenched from you WITHOUT DUE PROCESS and after spending a few years in an internment camp, you were released with only $25 and a train ticket courtesy of the government which deprived you of your freedom and property through no fault of your own and to add further insult, you were either partially compensated for the loss of your property or not at all--and all this justified in the name of the so-called majority, a gaggle of hypotheticals and a pissant comparison with the police stopping hundreds of cars to catch one criminal, I wonder how you would react.

    IFor your information, it took until 1948 or three years after the end of the war to pass the American-Japanese Claims Act, by which time the 1939-1942 IRS tax records had been destroyed. Out of 26,568 claims filed for $148 million, only $37 million was paid. In addition, those who owned farms either had to find someone to tend to them, sell them at great loss or lose them altogether. So don't lie about these innocent people being compensated ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Not only are you lying with respect to the compensation received by these victims, but you are justifying penalization of the innocent which makes you completely despicable.

  169. DG550

    Not being an expert, i did some research and according to the evidence found the conclusions were it is a sporting rifle that requires the trigger to be squeezed for each bullet. An assault weapon can fire multiple bullets per squeeze according to the article i read. I believe the AR15 can be bought in sporting goods stores, an assault rifle, i have no idea where one can be purchased.

  170. bubascary

    I would just like to correct you on a couple points, I am Australian and the information you are giving is incorrect. The murder/suicide rates have fallen dramatically since gun laws were introduced. I will state that the information I am quoting is from the Australian Bureau of Stats, that is not affliated with any gun clubs or anti gun party's. You can see the stat's for yourself

    We were never allowed to carry a weapon on us, only to and from clubs. Weapons always had to be locked up, so I am unsure how this would help "defend" yourself in a situation.

    Could you please add the link for the 6 minute video you mentioned.

  171. over the edge

    i agree and previously edited my post to reflect that. no insult intended but "assault rifle" (my bad) or "assault weapon" aside these weapons are primarily designed to kill others. the AR15 started as a military design.

  172. DG550

    Thanks,i did not take it as insulting. It is interesting during the reporting of these "incidents" the wording used. I, in my limited knowledge, think that there is no difference between the weapons used. Are they not all semi-automatics ? If only pistols were used would the wording change ?

  173. brianrose87

    Spend a few years in an involuntary internment camp and get 10-20k 30 years later? Sign me up!

    I can't imagine anything bad could happen to a house when it is left vacant for several years. Surely my possessions and furnishings will be exactly where I left them, and no damage due to storms, vandals, wear and tear, etc. will accumulate.

    Thank you hernandayoleary for making me realize that involuntary internment is really more like a paid vacation. Why can't we all do this?

  174. DG550

    I think that the use of the term "assault weapon" is used to incite the anti-gun lobby. My thoughts are, if you have to squeeze the trigger of a pistol or AR15 to release the bullet, there is little difference in the weapons. I am neither for or against guns by the way. I do accept that it is part of the way of life in the US.

  175. DigiWongaDude

    @oQ OMG, you own your own UFO?! (Better than guns by a long shot)
    Take me for a spin in your UFO? ...pfff if that isn't a line from a song it bloomin well should be! I just checked, it ISN'T !! :-0

    "Take me for a spin in your UFO" © DIGIWONGADUDE SONG LYRICS :-)

    Hope your festive fun is going superbly.

  176. robertallen1

    Attempting to justify abrogating the rights of American citizens (that is ALL American citizens) guaranteed under the Constitution makes you an abomination.

  177. hernandayoleary

    A few year sarted in 41 ended in 44.
    10-20k in a time when most people didn't earn s*it because there were no jobs. 2k was the average yearly income of an American during this period. 20k would be equivalent of giving them $608 usd adjusted for inflation. I feel no sorrow for the fact that they were justly compensated.

    Even if anything bad happened, with all the money they could go buy a new house. And since Japan did not invade at worse they'd have to repaint their house, and any damage would be covered by insurance.

    In this case involuntary internment was basically a paid vacation away from a war zone that had no jobs anyways

  178. oQ

    If i had my own, it would be an IFO. The only time i have seen a UFO was on the island of Taquile in Peru. At the time only 12 or 15 tourists were allowed to land on the island per day, the reason being there were no hotel and there were only 15 or so guest beds located at people's house. One home had a very large kitchen and was the host for the meal every night.
    We were all gathered there on a full moon night (i had intended to go on the full moon as i had heard how magical the place was then). At one point i stepped outside to see if the moon was up, saw it briefly and instantly ran inside to tell the group. Well when i got outside the moon was up alright but much lower in the sky and at the opposite side than i had just (thought) i had seen it. What had i seen in the sky on a island with no electicity?
    So i told the group about my surprise and after watching the sky for a while we all went back in and started talking with the many locals who had gathered by then among us about UFOs. I'll always remember what one man said: To you UFOs are unbelievable, us, we see them all the time, what is unbelievable to us is all the electronic gadgets you live with every day.
    Was that BIG light in the sky a UFO? Depends what a UFO is, unidentified it has remained to this day in my mind.
    edit: the festive is going well although nothing crazy. Tonight i spend New Year's eve with my little man Q, my grand son...just him and i, together welcoming 2013.

  179. Clyde Barrow

    How can you possibly say that being imprisoned was "like a paid vacation", when the conditions & "Americanizing" them were unspeakably terrible. You Sir, either are a young individual who has been fed disinformation when it comes to this subject, or are knowingly commenting on something that you know NOTHING about. Good Day.

  180. DigiWongaDude

    @ oQ What a cool mystery! I'm spending mine with a bottle of beer (or 2) in my customised wooden shed with built it quadrophonic sound, and a proper comfy chair. It's still under construction, but every grown up boy's dream, I love it!

    Early next year I plan to broadcast a web show from it, but it's not next year's reflection time with some proper cool music and suds.

    All the best for 2013 to you and yours,
    Digi (my 200th TDF Post! Yee-ha)

  181. Achems_Razor

    Have to work tonight, so a note now to wish Vlatko, the mods, and all the TDF community a happy healthy and prosperous NEW YEAR.

  182. Vlatko


    The same to you my long time virtual friend. I also wish to @Epicurus, @over the edge and to the TDF community a happy new year.

  183. over the edge

    Vlatko, Achems_Razor, Epicurus and everyone else . have a happy new year. hopefully we can all say we know a little more now then we did at the beginning of 2012. and for me TDF certainly played a part in that knowledge

  184. hernandayoleary

    My grandpa was neck deep in japanese blood while people were getting their heads blown off, if those Japanese Americans were not in the internment camps alot of them would be dead, would have been neck deep in the same blood and most men would choose internment over to get killed or see the things he saw. You ask the pilot whose plane is being shot down or the guy who fought on midway island where'd he rather be on vacation in utah in an internment camp or swimming in the pacific for 36 hours waiting to be rescued watching his best friend beaing eaten by sharks and shot to death.

    You are a keyboard warrior. Think internment camp was not **** compared to what most other people in ww2 went through. It was a vacation.

  185. RonPaulvoter

    " A few people could be injured or killed in such a circumstance of vehicular accidents or homicide. Driving is a big responsibility & a privilege not a right."

    No, sorry...what you said is not what you mean. Driving is a commercial action.

    What is DRIVER?

    One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not astreet railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

    Read more: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black's Law Dictionary)

    If I am in my personal automobile, not conducting business for hire, I am traveling... I would only be required to have a license if I am conducting business on the public roads...

    So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived
    of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

    "... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

    State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
    Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
    Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
    Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

    Which means if you use the roads for commercial are required to have a license. If you volunteer to get a license, that is your choice. If you will be required to follow of the regulations of driving. You also may exercise your right to travel safe and responsibly.

    Disagree? I encourage to do more research to prove me wrong.

  186. robertallen1

    You might want to read what Kenneth Culp Davis in his book on administrative law has to saw about the doctrine of privilege.

  187. robertallen1

    No one cares about your anecdotes and hypotheticals. The issue here is the Constitutional rights of ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS!

    Your repeated attempts to justify their abridgment during WWII reveal a despicable lack of respect for our Constitution.

  188. Imightberiding

    Your ignorance of Canadian law is stunning. Do you not recall the re-writing of the BNA? Canada's autonomy & independence from Britain? Your arrogance would be humorous if it weren't so blatantly frightening.

    It is very telling by the amount of words you have typed in this comment thread for this one topic. It 's always unfortunate that those who insist on having the most to say are often those who know the least of what they say. Less talk, more listen. Makes you knowledgeable & wise.

  189. hernandayoleary

    The supreme court agrees with me that it was justified. and many of them were not even Americans.

  190. hernandayoleary

    No your ignorance is stunning ignoring your own constitution where your queens is a dictator with all kinds of broad reaching powers.

    Your ignorance is quiet deep its laughable

  191. robertallen1

    From Wikipedia, "Japanese/American Internment":

    "Among the cases which reached the Supreme Court were Yasui v. United States (1943), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), ex parte Endo (1944), and Korematsu v. United States (1944). Although In Yasui and Hirabayashi the court upheld the constitutionality of curfews based on Japanese ancestry,; in Korematsu the court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion order. In Endo, the court accepted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ruled that the WRA had no authority to subject a citizen whose loyalty was acknowledged to its procedures.

    "Korematsu's and Hirabayashi's convictions were vacated in a series of coram nobis cases in the early 1980s. In the coram nobis cases, federal district and appellate courts ruled that newly uncovered evidence revealed an unfairness which, had it been known at the time, would likely have changed the Supreme Court's decisions in the Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Korematsu cases. These new court decisions rested on a series of documents recovered from the National Archives showing that the government had altered, suppressed and withheld important and relevant information from the Supreme Court, including the Final Report by General DeWitt justifying the internment program. The Army had destroyed documents in an effort to hide the fact that alterations had been made to the report. The coram nobis cases vacated the convictions of Korematsu and Hirabayashi (Yasui died before his case was heard, rendering it moot), and are regarded as one of the impetuses for the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

    "The rulings of the US Supreme Court in the Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases, specifically in its expansive interpretation of government powers in wartime, have yet to be overturned. They are still the law of the land because a lower court cannot overturn a ruling by the US Supreme Court. The coram nobis cases totally undermined the factual underpinnings of the 1944 cases, leaving the original decisions without much logical basis. Nonetheless, in light of the fact that these 1944 decisions are still on the books, a number of legal scholars have expressed the opinion that the original Korematsu and Hirabayashi decisions have taken on renewed relevance in the context of the War on Terror."

    "Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark, who represented the US Department of Justice in the 'relocation,' writes in the epilogue to the 1992 book Executive Order 9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans:

    'The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066.'"

    So stating that the Supreme Court agrees with you and failing to provide ALL the information make you a despicable lair.

  192. hernandayoleary

    I am a liar yet your own quote admits that the case was never overturned and thus still forms part of case law.
    ""The rulings of the US Supreme Court in the Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases, specifically in its expansive interpretation of government powers in wartime, have yet to be overturned. They are still the law of the land because a lower court cannot overturn a ruling by the US Supreme Court."
    "Nonetheless, in light of the fact that these 1944 decisions are still on the books..."

    All it shows is that I was accurate, the supreme court has never overturned its decision, the only people who legally can, its still the law of the land. The Japanese could not be trusted based upon the information we had at the time.

  193. robertallen1

    As already outlined, these cases occupy no standing in modern jurisprudence. The only way for the current Supreme Court to repeal them is for it to be confronted with similar cases which seems highly unlikely as we are not formally at war with any country. Thus, these cases remain on the books just as the so-called "dumb laws" in various states, but are of no force and effect. Asserting that these cases are the law of the land and that the Supreme Court (and by your use of the present tense, you seem to imply the current Supreme Court) agrees with you amounts to pernicious distortion.

    So "the Japanese could not be trusted based upon the information we had at the time." All of them? All 62% of the Japanese-American internees who were American citizens and a number of whom had resided in this country for several generations? What about the 100th Infantry Battalion of which 21 members received the Medal of Honor? What about the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion? What about the 6,000 Japanese-Americans who served in military intelligence? And as for the "information we had at the time," to quote again, "these new court decisions [in the 1980's] rested on a series of documents recovered from the National Archives showing that the government had altered, suppressed and withheld important and relevant information from the Supreme Court, including the Final Report by General DeWitt justifying the internment program. The Army had destroyed documents in an effort to hide the fact that alterations had been made to the report."

    I don't know which is more despicable the internment of innocent people without due process or your tortured justification of the practice. One way or the other, you clearly have no respect for the Constitution.

  194. brutusaurio

    The initial idea of why one person should or can carry a gun, is really good: to defense yourself and your family from the government and other people. I don't know much about guns in the States, but I really believe that a better gun control would lower the gun murder rate in the US. My impression is that there is hardly any gun control in the States.

  195. hernandayoleary

    Listen in American society when the Supreme court chooses not to change something its because they feel they made the right decision. They can overturn a case based upon new evidence but chose not to, therefore the law stands and is law of the land.

    Most of those 62% had dual citizenships. First you claim that the National archives had these documents, then you claim they are destroyed to hide it, dp they have them or are they destroyed, make up ur mind.
    I have no respect for a bunch of whiners. The place was a damn warzone and had the japs invaded all hawaiians would be dead, they were lucky to be relocated.

    Would u prefer they have a sham trial like the rest of americans do, they could have tried all those japs and they would all be found guilty by racist all white juries. No one was going to say not guilty to any jap accused of anything in ww2. The american gov't made the best choice for them and you ignore that milton eisenhower reports many of those japs willing and happily reported to interment camps b/c they did not want to be killed by jap invasion

  196. robertallen1

    You obviously know nothing about the legal system. The only way the Supreme Court can overturn another Supreme Case decision is when a case is brought before it. It cannot do so on its own volition.

    You obviously know nothing about the legal system. Although they are still on the books, the two cases referred to earlier are de facto no longer the law of the land as they are moot and claiming that they still hold is a gross distortion.

    You obviously know nothing about the legal system. There is no way to certify all Japanese-Americans as a class, so a "sham trial" was/is out of the question.

    "The american [sic] gov't made the best choice for them . . . " Did it ever occur to you that the American government had no business making this choice in the first place--and no this country was not a war zone--how many times was it attacked? Quoting from Milton Eisenhower who was no more than a government stooge is hardly convincing, accurate or believable. And speaking of believable, what source other than Milton Eisenhower backs up the statement "many of those japs willing and happily reported to interment camps b/c they did not want to be killed by jap invasion."

    As you have not responded to it, I reiterate the following from my previous post. So "the Japanese could not be trusted based upon the information we had at the time." What about the 100th Infantry Battalion of which 21 members received the Medal of Honor? What about the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion? What about the 6,000 Japanese-Americans who served in military intelligence?

    I have no respect for those like you who rationalize what happened to innocent Japanese-Americans during WWII and attempt to justify what were clearly infamous abridgements of Consitutional rights.

  197. DigiWongaDude

    {news as an ammendment to my own post}

    "A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.

    United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon wrote in her finding this week that the Obama administration was largely in the right by rejecting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for materials pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute three US citizens" - RT. com

  198. DigiWongaDude

    {and 1 more news report, also today, ammending my original post}

    "Only one month into the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations last year, plans were formulated to identify key figures in the movement and execute them with a coordinated assault using sniper rifles, new documents reveal." - RT. com (via a report in the UK Guardian by Naomi Wolf)

    STOMP STOMP STOMP...for eternity.

  199. robertallen1

    So all the administration has to do is claim national security and so much for the citizens' right to know. How despicable, especially in light of not only this adminstration but several others as well.

  200. stace FerGodIt

    oleary, seriously, why envy canada so much?
    one thing you've made clear, leave it to an american to totally botch and destroy the meaning of anything they try and comprehend.
    it'd be a lot less painless to watch if you'd just come up here and see how things actually work, rather than see you stumble thru law you clearly do not understand.

  201. a_no_n

    Rifles, i get. Shotguns, i understand totally...even handguns at a pinch. but can somebody please explain to me why a private citizen would possibly need a fully automatic assault weapon? besides other people, what could those weapons possibly be used on?

  202. robertallen1

    I have no idea. However, in light of the constitutional guarantee against ex post factor laws, if we ban them and large-capacity clips, what do we do about those which have been purchased legally? .

  203. a_no_n

    After the dunblane massacre in the UK, we put out a blanket ban on all handguns, those people with them were given a chance to hand them in, after which point, anyone caught with one was breaking the law and looking at serious jail time...the UK hasn't had another school shooting since!

  204. robertallen1

    Again, here we don't have ex post facto laws. Second, were the people compensated for their weapons?

  205. a_no_n

    What you constantly refer to as "post facto news" the rest of us call "learning from your mistakes".
    And Yeah they were compensated, by not having any more children slain needlessly in schools by psychopaths!
    the sheer unthinking selfishness of the people arguing against gun reform in the states never fails to astound me.
    "Children may have died...but what about ME...what can I get from it".
    how do you look at yourself in the mirror after asking a question like that?

  206. robertallen1

    I meant monetary compensation to which they are certainly entitled, as they purchased both the weapons and ammunition legally.

  207. a_no_n

    I know that's what you meant, that's why i'm so they weren't. nobody cared enough to make a fuss in light of what had happened...we had this thing back then called perspective.

  208. robertallen1

    Once again, in this country ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution.

    Second, why should I as a gun owner be penalized for something in which I had no part?

  209. a_no_n

    again...take your little buzz word, 'post facto' and replace it with the words "learning from your mistakes".
    Methinks the constitution needs amending again!
    Because any law that says learning from your mistakes is illegal, is not a sane or just law, it may have been 200 years ago when America was young and needed to solidify the concept of American on it's land and it's people, but today, it's totally unnessescary!
    why do you want a fully automatic weapon? Other than mowing down large numbers of people, robbing banks, and doing drive by shootings what possible purpose does it serve?
    Home protection? doubtful...who in their right mind is going to spray thirty 7.75mm rounds around their'd demolish the place!
    If you want to own a gun, nobody wants to restrict your ability to get a rifle, or a shotgun, feel free.
    Yes you'd be being penalised, but the question still stands, what on earth were you planning on doing with the thing anyway?
    Does everyone else not have a right to get through the day without the fear of some lunatic gunning them down?

  210. robertallen1

    Personally, I can see no use for such a weapon. However, if I had purchased one legally, I would demand compensation if I were forced to give it up through no fault of my own. Also, are you suggesting that the phrase "ex post facto" in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution be replaced with "learning from your mistakes?"

  211. a_no_n

    no, i'm suggesting that it be gotten rid of altogether, because a law which binds you to carry on regardless in the face of overwhealming evidence and common sense, is like a self destruct button for society!
    But of course...then i went and looked at what those articles actually imply...and it's not what you suggest at all!
    What those articles mean is that people cannot be prosecuted for a past crime, if that crime was lawful at the time...So basically you're misrepresenting your own constitution for the sake of making a point that doesn't even really effect you. Some might suggest that's a pretty cheap thing to do.

    so what this would mean is that Nobody would go to jail or get a mark against their name for owning an assult rifle if they were handed in when a law was passed making them illiegal...Only if they purposefully held onto them after the law was passed wouyld they be in trouble(thereby breaking a new law).

    So yeah...still want to discuss de facto laws?
    Personally i think assault weapons are like political power...the people who really want them are probably the ones who should be kept the furthest away.

    Do you think people who get their drugs confiscated should be reimbursed too?
    Perhaps it's about time Americans started learning that not all bad investmants should be compensated for...christ above, talk about entitled attitude!

  212. robertallen1

    You don't read well. I wrote "through no fault of their own." Obviously this omits possession of illegal drugs--and what compensation for bad investments (ostensibly made in good faith) has to do with all this is beyond me.

    You seem to feel that these horrific events justify elimination or alteration of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. In this country, we do not have retroactive criminal sanctions which means that a law which might work in your country might not work here.

  213. Gina Rowe

    Just having watched this documentary, I am depressed to understand that the gun problem in the US is impossible to eradicate. Well worth a look for anyone ... like me in this regard.

  214. a_no_n

    but again, you're misrepresenting what "post facto laws mean".

    If assault rifles were made illiegal, you would be given a chance to hand them in, and not face prosecution, which seems fair enough...However you would be prosecuted if you held onto that assault rifle knowing it was now illiegal to do so...You'd be breaking a new law, so talking about Post facto is pretty much just distraction tactics. This is twice i've corrected you on this matter now, can you please stop misrepresenting it!

  215. robertallen1

    You are the wrong who's wrong. If you purchased an assault rifle when it was legal to do so and the law changed making it illegal, you cannot be prosecuted in this country for possession of an assault rifle and no one can force you to turn yours in. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

  216. a_no_n

    So you're going to just ignore what i say and keep pushing this fantasy understanding of what de-facto means eh?
    Thankfully ignorance is no excuse for not obeying the law, so you wouldfn't be able to get far with that tripe in court should America ever find it's common sense.

  217. robertallen1

    It's you who needs to read up on EX POST FACTO (get it right) means. If you think I'm wrong, you indicate how.

  218. a_no_n

    I have, and again, I have...twice. You've just chosen to ignore it.

  219. robertallen1

    No matter how you describe it, it's still ex post facto and if it pertained to property purchased legally before the enactment of the statute, the Supreme Court OF THE UNITED STATES would probably regard it as such and invalidate at least the offending portion of it. Also, no one should be required to give up his property WITHOUT PROPER COMPENSATION.

    Furthermore, it is wrong to penalize the majority for the acts of a tiny minority. Your idea might work in your country, but not in ours and as such IT STINKS!

  220. a_no_n

    It's not...Because how would you ever pass a law if that were the case?
    And yes, the idea did work in our contry, as i said, no more school shootings. Apparantly that isn't important to you, perhaps if one of your children is ever gunned down in school you might see just how r*tarded your argument is...Until then i imagine you'll continue to value the price of an assault rifle over the life of a child.

  221. Guest

    I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like living with people who think the way you wonder you're all gunning each other down in the streets!

  222. robertallen1

    Well, I'm not and that's all that matters.

  223. a_no_n

    Ok...Let's look at this another way, say I was some lonely leftist in his house wringing his hands surrounded by posters of Karl Marx and Stalin, and i decide one day to go and buy some petrol, motor oil, old towels and glass bottles, I make up a huge rack load of molotov cocktails, for reasons that are nobody elses business. Since i'm a shifty godless lefty the cops know there's something up with me so they come round, and take away my wine cellar of molotov cocktails, and I in turn present them with a bill for the cost of all the legaly bought items i made my little collection of weapons with...wouldn't that be quite absurd, Outrageous infact. I could hurt a lot of people with those petrol bombs, but I bought them perfectly legally, and did nothing wrong with them.

    Or perhaps i'm a simple horticulturalist who has all of his hydroponic gear taken away because he also has a collection of 'decorative' cannabis seeds, all items were bought legally so surely I should be reimbursed?

  224. robertallen1

    No it wouldn't. Before commenting further, I suggest that you read up on ex post facto, starting with Wikipedia. There are plenty of works on it.

  225. a_no_n

    i have...It was the first thing i did!
    How about, rather than avoiding the questions, you explain for once!
    where am I going wrong...because normally when people go 'NO that's wrong' and leave it at that, it's because they haven't got a damned thing to say and they're backed into the proverbial corner!

    Now please tell me why the molotov cocktail example i provided is nothing like the assault rifle situation you're arguing for...because as far as i can see it they are both exactly the same argument!

  226. a_no_n

    i fear that's your attitude toward everything...i'm ok so the rest of the world can go hang.
    and the problem with that is that there's 7,999,999,999 other people who need to be taken into consideration

  227. a_no_n

    Americas gun right laws come from the founding of the country, when it didn't have a standing army and had to rely on militia groups for it's military.
    That is a fact.
    Fast forward 200 years and that law had been abused and twisted into a law which supports the right of any lunatic to buy the kind of hardware you wouldn't normally see outside of a combat situation.
    They say it's because Americans need to protect themselves from the government...This attitude only goes to ensure that the most paranoid people in the country are also the heaviest armed. which leads to regular needless tradgedy.
    America shouldn't have to give up it's guns. It has a vibrant industry which serves the entire nation, and has areas of wilderness where a gun would undoubtedly be useful.
    But assault rifles have a single purpose, to kill as many people as possible in the shortest ammount of time. Outside of combat the only uses rapid fire weapons have is in bank robberies, school shootings, and drive bys.
    Nobody in a supposedly civillised nation needs to put down thirty rounds in a few seconds...Those are my opinions.

    But once again, as with all issues in America, it has been driven to the extremes, and only the extremes...Americas bipartisan culture has no room for common sense or middle ground...Until the middle ground becomes politically viable, then every issue in the modern world is going to be a polarising mess like this is becoming, where on one side you've got people blindly shouting no guns for anyone, dispite the continent they live on. and on the other side, you have people who would seriously consider arming teachers as a solution for a problem, rather than legislate on assault weaponry..

  228. robertallen1

    I should not be penalized for the actions of a few nut cases.

  229. robertallen1

    In one case, the Molotov cocktail, I am committing an illegal act; in the other I am engaging in a legal act, i.e., owning/purchasing an assault rifle. If the law changes to make owning/purchasing an assault rifle illegal, I cannot be prosecuted for owning/purchasing one prior to the enactment of the law nor can I forced to give mine up.

    You probably don't see the difference, but that's the law, at least herein the states.

  230. robertallen1

    I who have done nothing wrong should not have to suffer because of the actions of a few nut cases. Suppose someone wantonly kills a number of people with a 10" inch knife. Why should I who own one but have not misused it be forced to turn it in--AND ESPECIALLY FOR NO COMPENSATION?

  231. robertallen1

    You're right. There's no constructive use for assault rifles with thirty-round clips and I have no problem banning them for private use; however, if they are banned, don't penalize those who purchased them when it was legal to do so.

  232. a_no_n

    right...fair enough.

  233. a_no_n

    it boggles my mind that the compensation thing is the most important issue for you.

    The fundamental difference is you're not going to be able to walk into a school with a 10" knife and be able to kill 29 kids and a teacher with it!

  234. a_no_n

    yup, and oddly enough, it's the less lethal thing that's illiegal...boggles the mind really.

  235. a_no_n

    the children of Sandy Hook would probably have the same sentiments if they were still alive. They had the actions of one nutter forced on them, and he was able to force himself on them because he had an automatic weapon...if he had a 10" knife he would have probably been stopped at the gate!
    Unfortunately taking responsibility for stuff as a whole is part and parcel of these experiments we call adult life and civilised society.
    You can't just pick and choose at it as it suits you...If you want weapons, you need to have a responsible policy regulating them...and a few potential future murderers being left a grand out of pocket doesn't really pull at my heartstrings the way a line of tiny graves does.

  236. robertallen1

    I take no responsibility for the actions of others, only for my own.

  237. robertallen1

    That's what's ex post facto is all about.

  238. robertallen1

    So suppose I kill only 10. What difference does it make. The carnage is still there.

  239. perfectarc

    I believe that Americans are entitled to as many muzzle loading assault rifles that their little hearts desire. Otherwise, THe 2nd amendment is an anachronism. And, I'm sick of reading about dead children in the newspaper because some illiterate 2nd amendment zealot buys an assault rifle whereby her son shoots her in the face 4 times before killing 20 little children.

  240. robertallen1

    I don't recall having discussed the Second Amendment; but one way or the other, if you feel it should be eliminated, either write to your congressman or to call for a constitutional convention, the first in history.

  241. perfectarc

    Well, what if you were out hunting wild bore with Honey Boo Boo .... and you were set upon by a huge group of man eating venomous wild bore? You'd want to be able to defend yourself or get slaughered yourself, right?

  242. robertallen1

    Just what is a man-eating venomous wild bore? Someone who puts you to sleep by reading you a few lines from a monograph on economics or sociology and then injects you with poison before making a meal out of you? I guess the only defense against such a heinous creature is a short of mace.

  243. perfectarc

    Actually they're called Amendments, and there have been 27 of them so far. Can you believe that women can vote now? and slavery has been abolished? and that alcohol was made both illegal and legal again, all by amendments to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism, Madison, Jefferson and the rest of the old boys club from 24o years ago never envisioned the weapons technology of today that is in the hands of the American public. And, I'm sure they would be aghast at the site of all the bloodshed it has caused particularly in the deaths of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. grow up.

  244. perfectarc

    see below.

  245. robertallen1

    Ex post facto laws which are what the post was about are prohibited under Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution, not some amendment; hence, your reply is non-responsive. Now, once again, if you feel the Second Amendment should be repealed, either write to your congressman or call for the first constitutional convention in history rather than hypothesizing about our forefathers.

  246. perfectarc

    so that the rest of don't have to worry about having our loved ones slaughtered at a public venue, university or school?

  247. perfectarc

    For the sake of argument, If Nancy Lanza were to have survived would she have been criminally negligent in the deaths of the 27 murdered by her son Adam at Sandy Hook in that she was the legal owner of the weapons? Where does responsibility begin, and where does it end? Some would say that you and the NRA have blood on your hands for defending the sales of assault weapons that have been used now in tragedy after tragety, or even handguns for that matter. So, in biblical terms, are you not your brother's keeper? .......... I am far from a religious man, but you are responsible Robert.

  248. perfectarc

    It's called stare decisis Robert which is why the religious zealots and anti abortion loonies keep trying to bring cases into Federal courts, to challenge existing legal doctrine.

  249. robertallen1

    Whether you say so or not, whether you like it or not, I am responsible only for my own actions, not for the actions of others. In short, I am not my brother's keeper and saying that I am renders you despicable.

    And get this straight, I see no purpose in owning assault rifles or high-capacity clips and support legislation banning private ownership of same, but not ex post facto. Handguns are another matter, especially after reading about the home invasion in Georgia. The perp deserved everything he received, if not more.

  250. robertallen1

    One way or the other, if I've done no wrong, I should not be penalized.

  251. robertallen1

    Stare decisis is not applicable to cases involving Japanese-American detainees in World War II as those cases have been for the most part judicially ignored--so don't try engaging in legal discourse with me. Again, your post is non-responsive.

  252. perfectarc

    it's not a matter of appeal Robert, it's a matter of interpretation where an amendment to the Constitution 240 years ago becomes anachronistic. Madison et al never could have envisioned today's weapons technology. I studied Law and I don't recall "ex post facto" as an expression in the way that you are trying to interpret these so called legal tenets. I understand res judicata, stare decisis and other similar terms but not sure where you are going with this ex post facto thing. As I am sure that you know as a legal scholar our laws are based on precedent. Constitutionally. necessary and proper come into play as times change, as in the case of weapons technology. Nobody wants to "grab" your guns Robert, to used the current NRA colloquialism, but even you have to admit that the weapons technology available in most states places the public in danger as evinced by the recent examples where AR-15 quasi- or actual military types of weapons are used in at least four tragedies. Seriously, do you really need a weapon with a muzzle velocity of 3, 200 ft/second?

  253. perfectarc

    I was being sardonic....

  254. perfectarc

    I have written all of my representatives and thankfully I live in a state that already has an AWB on the books. So happy to not live in Louisiana or Mississippi.

  255. perfectarc

    I disagree and so does most of AMerica we will see in coming months. Too much blood has been shed since Bush allowed the AWB to expire. And for what it's worth, most of the guns recovered in gang shootings or drug raids in small cities near where I live, 85% in fact, are stolen from southern homes where they enter the nefarious black market.

  256. robertallen1

    I stated my position on those types of weapons. So in case you didn't catch it, here it is again: they should be banned from private ownership, but not ex post facto., i.e., if they are banned, those who purchased them when it was legal to do so cannot be criminalized or penalized. If you understand res judicata (which has nothing to do with the present matter), stare decisis (which also has nothing to do witht the present matter), you should understand ex post facto.

    Once again, if you feel the Second Amendment should be repealed, either write to your congressman or call for the first constitutional convention in history rather than puling over it and hypothesizing about our forefathers.

    P.S. I own no firearms.

  257. perfectarc

    and I agree, legally purchased weapons will not be confiscated and current legal owners will not be forced to surrender them so there si no need to worry about your precious guns Robert. While confiscation and surrender did work in the UK, it's just not the American way as we continue our tally well over the 300 million mark now. What a country we live in. The case in Australia tells a story of where after a decade the types of gun violence that we are currently experiencing here in America declined by 59%. So, while it will take time after the forthcoming AWB, there is hope. What would Madison say of a America if 312 million if he had a time machine? I'd like to think that the Bill of Rights would have been penned differently.

  258. robertallen1

    Who the hell do you think you are to be speaking for America and to lay a guilt trip on me? You really are despicable.

  259. robertallen1

    People have a right to protect their homes and families; yet, it's inconceivable how assault rifles with high-capacity magazines could be needed to accomplish this, but handguns do the trick, as demonstrated by yesterday's incident in Georgia. So, I am in favor of banning private ownership of assault weapons and the like as long as there is no ex post facto.

    The question is to what extent will such a ban curtail the incidents of the last few years or prevent another Howard Uhruh or Charles Whitman. To what extent will such prevent an incident similar to the one which occurred today at Taft High School?

  260. perfectarc

    I disagree as I think about this more this morning. If a legislature wished to create a law that became retroactive, it will. And in fact it happens all the time, especially where negotiations are involved in budgetary processes. Either way, I'm sure that this is not a cause of concern for gun zealots because most occupants of seats in any legislature don't have any backbone anyway.

  261. perfectarc

    Well I do own firearms Robert. Sporting arms, but nonetheless still firearms. And again, in the unlikely event that a legislature wishes to confiscate certain types of firearms, it will. I don't think that there is a legal precedent otherwise of yet, and it would become a very nasty legal battle I'm sure ending in SCOTUS, but there is nothing stopping any legislature from enacting retroactive laws. as previously stated, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future, especially involving budgets.

  262. robertallen1

    Ex post facto laws pertain to criminalization, not to budgetary processes. Read up on them before posting further.

  263. robertallen1

    Again, it's the type of retroactivity involved.

    Again, you need to read up on ex post facto before posting your nonsense.

  264. perfectarc

    Well, it's been a few years since I sat in a law class but I believe that the types of retroactive laws the founders were talking about in Article 1 referred to criminal actions, not civil actions. Accordingly, while unlikely, legislatures can enact legislation that will enable municipalities to seize weapons, particularly if they are viewed as hazardous and a threat to public safety as assault weapons have certainly proven to be of late. So Robert, nonsense or not, it appears to me that you are attempting to present yourself as some sort of authority, but in reality, it is you that is posting nonsense in that you don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, this ex post facto diatribe that you have repeatedly posted here is nothing more than meaningless drivel.

  265. robertallen1

    From 12 hours back, "Ex post facto laws pertain to criminalization, not to budgetary processes." So why don't you learn how to read?

    Unless the ban against ex post facto laws is removed from the constitution (highly unlikely), legislatures cannot criminalize legal acts committed before passage of a law making such acts illegal such as possession of assault rifles and purchase of high-capacity clips, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON. This is the very nature of ex post facto, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!

    Now, don't you try to tell me I'm wrong until you are ready to prove it.

  266. perfectarc

    I can read Robert, you're not a legal authority, you don't know what you're talking about. THe clause that you are misunderstanding in Article 1 specifically relates to criminal laws, not civil laws. Civil laws, particularly budgetary proceedings, are retroactively enacted all the time by all legislatures throughout the US on local, state, and Federal levels. If legislatures wanted to confiscate guns or mandate the surrender of certain types of weapons, they have the power. It's unlikely, but the do have the power.

  267. robertallen1

    It's obvious that you can't read. I wrote, "Ex post facto laws pertain to CRIMINALIZATION, not to BUDGETARY PROCESSES." (emphasis added just for you) An ex post facto law criminalizes conduct which was legal when originally performed. Equating ex post facto with mere retroactivity shows basically how ignorant of the subject you are.

    If a law is passed making it a CRIMINAL offense to possess an assault rifle, a person cannot be charged with a criminal offense if he purchased one when it was legal to do so. Furthermore, legislatures CANNOT MANDATE THE SURRENDER OF CERTAIN TYPES OF WEAPONS PURCHASED WHEN IT WAS LEGAL TO DO SO, for criminally charging someone who did not comply would be a violation of ex post facto WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, WHETHER YOU ADMIT IT OR NOT. In other words, those who legally purchased assault rifles, etc. when it was legal to do so would have to be allowed to keep them, again WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT OR WHETHER YOU ADMIT IT OR NOT.

    I suggest that you read up on ex post facto before you write any further pieces of blatant ignorance.

  268. a_no_n

    Ok...first of all, i know you're being facetious, but in all seriousness Why wouldn't a bolt rifle or a shotgun suffice?
    Can you not shoot straight? Do you need thirty rounds in a few seconds?
    And it's spelled Boar...a Bore is what you are.

  269. a_no_n

    With an attitude like that, why bother with anything?

    Oh things are pretty bad, so we might as well not do anything to make it better...On most other issues you seem to be quite sane and well thought out...why when it comes to guns are you such an unthinking zealot?

  270. a_no_n

    that particular part is yes...But as for the rest of it, i honestly don't think you have it right...otherwise how did things like Sarahs law get passed...If de facto worked the way you said it does, Sarahs law would never have gotten through.

  271. a_no_n

    and that's the get-out-clause excuse is it?
    You're just going to pretend it doesn't effect you.
    If you want to own a gun, surely you have to accept some sort of responsibility for the culture at large...otherwise what right do you have to own a gun? You're clearly not mature enough to handle one responsibly.
    It sounds like you want every part of gun ownership EXCEPT the responsibility...i thoughty attitudes like that only existed in Bank boardrooms.
    And to me this irresponsible attitude only highlights exactly why assault rifles should be taken away...specifically from the people who want them.

  272. perfectarc

    I can read BOB. I disagree with you because I've had others who are practicing legal experts in this field read your comments and we all agree that you are WRONG and don't know what you are talking about even though you try to present yourself as some sort of legal authority. Legislatures CAN enact laws requiring the surrender of weapons deemed a threat to society, and this ex post facto bulls*it that your trying to convince us of is not applicable. YOU ARE WRONG BOB.

  273. perfectarc

    no rebuttal necessary.

  274. robertallen1

    I have stated several times that there is no reason to possess assault rifles, high-capacity clips, etc. and that if I am in favor of laws against private ownership of these, ONLY NOT EX POST FACTO. What about this don't you understand?

  275. robertallen1

    If you mean California Proposition 4 in 2008, pertaining to the waiting period abortion, it was defeated and further more had nothing to do with ex post facto (not de facto--get the term right).

  276. robertallen1

    Who the hell do you think you are dictating to me what my responsibility as a gun owner should be? If I purchase a gun, my only responsibility is to act responsibly AS AN INDIVIDUAL--that's it. I don't have to care about the "culture at large," whatever that is.

    Now, once again, I'm in favor of banning assault rifles, etc.; however, those who purchased them when it was legal to do so, i.e., prior to the passing of such a law, must be allowed to keep them, as to prohibit them from doing so would be unconstitutional--i.e., EX POST FACTO. What about that do you not understand?

  277. a_no_n

    I'm another human being with every right to an opinion...For someone who'se quoting the constitution every five minutes you were sure quick to forget the whole freedom of speech thing!
    Who the hell do you think you are enforcing your views on me? Who are you to say that my opinion isn't valid? are you meant to be from America or Communist China?

  278. a_no_n

    Meh i don't really care can't argue any sort of moral stance on the whole thing...literally all you've got is a quote from an outdated sheet of paper that couldn't possibly have comprehended modern life! It's the one tool in your tool box, and to be honest i'm getting bored with it being waved in my face as if it somehow justifies everything.

  279. robertallen1

    It's amazing how ignorant of the Constitution you are. Freedom of speech applies only to government actions not to private companies or private correspondence.

    To repeat, who the hell do you think you are dictating to me what my responsibility as a gun owner should be?

  280. robertallen1

    The Constitution might be outdated in some ways, but at least our forefathers provided a mechanism for its change. Considering your views on the validity of the U.S. Constitution and its attendant legal system, I am happy that you are not an American citizen.

  281. a_no_n

    believe me nothing makes me happier either! America seems quite horrific to me in a lot of respects.
    I suppose it's easier for me to question it, it isn't a central core of my culture, so i can be a bit more flippant with it.
    Americas legal system is a joke! It's a laughing stock, it's one of the cruelest systems in the western world, bordering on barbaric, you basicly reinvented the slave trade with your prison population. It has some of the most draconian laws in the west, and oddly enough, some of the worst social problems as well...most people outside America see a link there!

  282. a_no_n

    oh dear oh now you're just going to throw all of your teddies out the pram and have a little tantrum are you?
    lol "Who the hell are you", how up your own backside are you? Do you think you're something special? Do you think i care one iota if i've offended you? I don't....If anything i'm glad because i find a lot of things about you offensive (but note i haven't been brazen/facistic enough to try and deny you your right to say it.)

    If you're not mature enough to deal with having your opinions questioned, should you really be airing them on the internet?

  283. robertallen1

    Question whatever you want, but don't you dare dictate to me what my responsibilities/priorities should be.

  284. robertallen1

    I agree that America's legal system is a joke, but perhaps not in quite the way that you see it. I can't say for certain because I haven't heard your opinions. Now, just how has the slave trade been reinvented with our prison population? And which of our laws are draconian?

  285. a_no_n

    the three strike law is what does it. The USA's insanely large prison population does a LOT of labour, the bag sewing, licence plate stamping etc...those prisoners aren't paid for that labour, so by all definition, they are slaves for the government that keeps them.
    i think the three strike law is the absolute worst, indeed it forms the crux of my argument.
    The way the US law deals with the mentally ill is also quite unpleasant and unhelpful to wider issues like the one we're discussing now.

  286. a_no_n

    i dare very much...especially now that the megalomaniac in you has come out to play!
    What givesd you the right to be able to do whatever you want without being questioned?
    Who do you think you are that you can make those demands...not even the Queen could legally make that demand of me!

  287. robertallen1

    In case you didn't know it, the voters of California recently passed Proposition 36 which modifies certain portions of the three-strikes law. I agree with it, in that the punishments for the crimes covered by it were excessive. However, for crimes such as violent felonies, the three strikes law is fine.

    As for labor in prison, it's a choice: either rot in a cell or do something--and by the way, compensation is up to the state or the federal goverrnment, depending on the type of prison it is. So you can't just make a blanket statement.

  288. robertallen1

    Where did I even mention doing whatever I wanted to without being questioned?

    Once again, who do you think you are telling me that I am responsible in any way for crimes I did not commit? Who are you to be telling me "If you want to own a gun, surely you have to accept some sort of responsibility for the culture at large," as if there's such a thing. Who do you think you are dictating to me what my responsibilities are?

    Why don't you get things right? By dictating to others what their obligations and responsibilities are or should be, It's you who's the megalomaniac.

  289. a_no_n

    i believe when the teddy came flying out of your crib past my head it was followed by the words "Who do you think you are to tell me my responsibilities".
    You've just been ranting and raving at me, telling me i've got no right, and even tried insisting that freedom of speech doesn't apply to me...and that was in reaction to my opinions on the responsibilities of gun least try and remember what you've already said!

  290. a_no_n

    Except most of the people in jail for life on the three strike system, are in there for posession of drugs...a non violent crime. And those people are forced to spend the rest of their lives in a cell doing menial tasks for zero recompence, with zero chance of reprive...sounds like slavery to me.

  291. robertallen1

    The First Amendment prohibits, among other things, THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Hence, freedom of speech is irrelevant in this context and bringing it up once again highlights your igorance of the Constitution.

    So I repeat, who the hell do you think to be telling me what my supposed responsibilities are?

  292. robertallen1

    Where did I state that the three strikes law should apply only to violent crimes? If a person is found with a large amount of illicit drugs, in all probability it's to sell them. So if he is sent to prison for his third offense, he can rot there for all I care.

  293. Al Scott

    This subject, is where I have to agree with the NRA and then realize that I am only a "partial" liberal.

    If you disarm the population, you better hope your government never goes rogue. I think there might be some historical precedent here, although, I may have dreamed it.

    I live in Canada. Lots of us have guns. few murders lotso guns and pot doesnt mean hard time in a feder...... Wait I am a liberal.

    Perhaps it's the pot.

  294. a_no_n

    utter hypocritical crap! Remember how narky you got when i tried generalising assault rifle owners? I buy weed in bulk because it's cheaper that way, but i certainly don't sell it.

    I see so now you're an authority on who is and isn't worthy of being out on the streets?
    I'm fully aware of how little you care about other people, you don't have to keep reminding me.
    So say someone was caught with an assult rifle three times after they were made illiegal.

  295. a_no_n

    and i told you i'm another human being with as much right to an opinion as you...if you are not mature enough to handle that, you shouldn't be commenting on the internet.

  296. robertallen1

    You do have a reading problem. I wrote "in all probability." Cannibis aside, if you are caught with a large amount of cocaine, heroin or metamphetamines, etc. three times in a row, you should rot in prison, the same thing with assault rifles, but only if purchased/obtained after the enactment of a law banning them.

  297. robertallen1

    You are the one who incorrectly brought up freedom of speech--and you can write what you want, but you have no business telling me or anyone else what our moral responsibilities are.

  298. a_no_n

    you really have no idea how this whole civilised society thing works do you?

  299. a_no_n

    oh i see so we're just cherrypicking what we want now are we?

  300. robertallen1

    What's the matter with that? As I stated earlier, I approved of California Proposition 36.

  301. robertallen1

    And what makes you think that you do?

  302. a_no_n

    i'm not the one telling people to shut up because i don't like what they're saying.

  303. robertallen1

    You do have trouble reading. This is about the fourth time you've misstated something of mine. Where did I tell you to shut up? I merely stated that you had no business dictating to me my moral obligations to which you irrelevantly brought in the concept of freedom of speech.

  304. a_no_n

    Dude, get bent...i've explained to you in three different ways've just chosen to ignore that.
    this is pointless...and between us we're actually making quite a good example of why the problem can't be solved...look at us both, look at what this has decended into. we've achieved nothing, and i'm done.

  305. robertallen1

    Once again, you have no business dictating to me my moral obligations and it's rather conceited of you to think so.

  306. a_no_n

    blah blah,'s the Alex Jones defence, you get fixeted on a little sub issue and use it to avoid arguing further about the issues...You've built up your indignation wall too tall for me to be bothered with trying to climb over...i think we've gone about as far as this argument will take us.

  307. Nwttp

    Probably because most intelligent people know freedom is more important than that. Hope you never drive a car because it CAN kill a child. Everyone's loves to be a hypocrite.

  308. Justin Lesniewski

    ... its not a right

  309. zazen

    i just watched another doc about that very issue, and they made a good point (see "molon labe").. without giving away the details, the jist of it is that "we the people" must ulitmately be prepared and able to do our duty as "a well regulated militia." you can't do that with a musket...

  310. zazen

    how is one 30 round magazine any different than three 10 round magazines...? and, there is a substantial difference between the military fully automatic version and the civilian semi-auto weapons.

  311. zazen

    about three posts earlier: "However, for crimes such as violent felonies, the three strikes law is fine. "

  312. zazen

    a private citizen does not purchase "fully automatic assault weapon" - only semi-automatic.. and, yes, there is a difference.. fully automatic means that one pull of the trigger will send rounds continuously until the weapon is empty; semi-automatic requires the shooter to pull the trigger for each and every shot.. please, engage brain before keyboard.

  313. a_no_n

    Actually i'll bet most intelligent people can see that laws written in the time of flintlock muskets had no bearing or intention to inflect on the modern age of assault rifles and portable rocket launchers.

    Most intelligent people would probably know better than to get sucked in by emotive language like "Freedom".

    What about my freedom to not get gunned down in the street by some paranoid sociopath? What about a child's freedom to go to school?

    i'm glad you mentioned's a really good example, cars can kill...that's why driving is regulated and heavily policed!

  314. a_no_n

    it's still thirty rounds coming as quickly as you can squeeze...but that's besides the point. you still haven't answered my question...Why?

  315. a_no_n

    it takes on average five seconds to reload a clip, five seconds where the people you're shooting at have a chance to get away, if you use more than ten rounds, you've stopped defending yourself and have begun attacking...because if you haven't put down an attacker with ten rounds, then you're not shooting back, you're just spraying wildly and the kind of person to spray wildly with a weapon is not the person who should be holding a gun.

    there's no difference between military and civillian to whoever the bullets are flying at!

Leave a comment / review: