Gunsmoke: USA

2011, Society  -   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

Leave a Reply to cliff o ciardha Cancel reply

  1. 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.

  2. 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..

    1. 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.

    2. right...fair enough.

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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).

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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!

    9. 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?

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

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

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

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

    19. 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.

    20. 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!

    21. 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...

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

    1. 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? .

    2. 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!

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

    4. 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?

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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?

    9. 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?"

    10. 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!

    11. 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.

    12. 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!

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

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

    17. 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!

    18. 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.

    19. 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!

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

    21. 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

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

    23. 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.

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

    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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?

    31. 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.

    32. 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?

    33. 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?

    34. 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?

    35. 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?

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

    37. 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!

    38. 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.

    39. 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!

    40. 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?

    41. 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.

    42. 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.

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

    44. And what makes you think that you do?

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

    46. 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.

    47. 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.

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

    49. 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.

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

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

    52. 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?

    53. 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!

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

    55. 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?

    56. 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?

    57. 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?

    58. 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.

    59. 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!

    60. 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.

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

    62. see below.

    63. 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.

    64. 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.

    65. 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?

    66. 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.

    67. 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.

    68. Again, it's the type of retroactivity involved.

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

    69. 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.

    70. 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.

    71. 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.

    72. 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.

    73. 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.

    74. 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.

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

    76. 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.

    77. 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!

    78. 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?

    79. 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.

    80. I was being sardonic....

    81. 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.

    82. no rebuttal necessary.

    83. 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.

    84. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

    1. @Achems_Razor,

      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.

    2. 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

  7. 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

    1. {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

    2. {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.

    3. 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.

  8. 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.

    1. 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

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

    3. 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

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

    5. @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?

    6. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    1. hernandayoleary
      " 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.

    2. 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

    3. "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.

    4. 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.

    5. hernandayoleary
      " 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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

  11. 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.

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

    2. 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?


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

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


  12. 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.

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

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

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

    5. 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

    6. ... its not a right

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. Long winded but you make perfect sense.

    10. " 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.

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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

    1. 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.

    2. Considering our government, the cynicism is deserved.

    3. 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.

    4. "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.

    5. 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.

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Being defeatist does not imply not being outspoken.

  19. 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?

  20. 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?

    1. "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?

    2. 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.

    3. (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

    4. 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"

    5. 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.

    6. DG550
      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.

    7. 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 ?

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

  22. 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

  23. 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.

    1. So what do you suggest?

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

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

    6. "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?

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

    8. 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

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

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

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

    12. 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 :)

  24. 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"

  25. 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.

  26. 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

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

    2. 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.

    3. So what are you suggesting?

    4. 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."

    5. 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.

  27. 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!

  28. 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

  29. 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.

    1. Right, that is what I was getting at.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. Nwttp
      "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

    13. Just went completely over your head huh?

    14. Nwttp
      "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?

    15. 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.

    16. 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."

      This guy gets it. Young buck

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

    18. Nwttp
      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.

    19. 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.

    20. Nwttp
      "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

    21. 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.

    22. 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.

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

    24. "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.

    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

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

    29. @ 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.

    30. "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

    31. 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.

    32. 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.?

    33. 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.

    34. 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.

    35. 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.

    36. @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.

    37. @DigiWongaDude
      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.

    38. @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.]

    39. 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]

    40. @ 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.

    41. 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.

    42. "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.

    43. 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.

    44. 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.

    45. @ 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]

    46. 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.

    47. 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.

    48. 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.

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

    50. "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.

    51. 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.

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

    1. 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.

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

    3. @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.

    4. 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.

    5. @ 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)

    6. 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. 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!

    8. @oQ,

      "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.

    9. 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!


    10. @oQ,

      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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

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

    14. 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.