..Guns Guns & More Guns

[Mel Gibson]

For those people, perhaps a can of mace would be a viable alternative.

[Blue Frost]

Speaking of handguns
I do agree people need training if they carry them.

And not just the training to get their ccw but continuous training. And the training should include all the LEGAL aspects of concealed carry.

Everyone who carries must know what is or is not a legal shoot and what the legal ramifications are or will be in the aftermath of a shoot.

Concealed carry is a huge responsibility that needs careful consideration by every applicant. There are moral and psychological elements that need to be considered before you strap on that weapon as well. And you have to be damn sure that you are ready to deal with the reality of carrying a gun for protection.

Many people who "think" they want a ccw realize after getting one that they are not ready or equipped for the responsibility of carrying...Unfortunately sometimes that realization comes too late.

I can see a lot of stupid monkeys shooting themselves in the butts, and dropping weapons for not buying a proper holster.
Also the way people are untrained they will pull a gun without thinking, or in anger posturing, and someone like me will pull mine, and shoot them in the face.
You only pull a gun if ready to use it, or need be, just because you are mad at someone dosn't justify pulling a gun.
I can see your points, that's why i think training needs to be a first step in gun ownership. Even me, I have had guns 40+ years, and i would like some proper training even though I think I'm doing it all right.

[Blue Frost]

For those people, perhaps a can of mace would be a viable alternative.

A taser would be a good option.

Shock the monkey

[Renee]

For those people, perhaps a can of mace would be a viable alternative.

Unfortunately in some of our more..."blue" Democratic states, i. e. CA, NJ, MA etc, carrying mace or pepper spray is just as forbidden as carrying a firearm.

Liberals and their totalitarian, prog/socialist, nitwit cousins are bound and determined to disarm and make every citizen of not just the US, but the entire world, a defenseless victim. That is one of the priorities of every fucking scumbag globalist on this planet. Unfortunately the US and of course Switzerland, are about the last bastions of resistance to civilian disarmament left in the civilized world.

Just look at your own country, which is about as close socially to the US as any other country on the planet....You as a law abiding citizen have no real right to own a firearm. Your "Charter of Rights" is not a list of unalienable rights. It provides you with no legal recourse should your legislators get a bug up their collective ass and make gun ownership in Canada illegal. That makes you just ONE mass tragedy,...one crazy fucker with a weapon, away from being made into a criminal with the stroke of a pen.

[Mel Gibson]

The US is the only Nation in the World that has a constitutional right regarding firearms. None others do. That said, I see California for instance, enact laws and restrictions that we don't even have up here (yet).

Often times we cannot choose the country we live in. There would be slim chance that the US would grant me (an average white male Canadian) citizenship unless through marriage, so we often make do with what we have to work with.

That said, this country has never been quite as knee-jerky as all the others have been regarding firearms, and one thing that we have historically done if rules are changed, is to Grandfather in the current owners under the old rules, and apply the new rules to the new guys.

While not an ideal scenario, no legal gun owner has ever had their guns taken away if they are in compliance with the law as far as I know.

If you owned a Tommy Gun when they were legal, you can still own that Tommy Gun now.

[Renee]

The US is the only Nation in the World that has a constitutional right regarding firearms. None others do. That said, I see California for instance, enact laws and restrictions that we don't even have up here (yet).

Often times we cannot choose the country we live in. There would be slim chance that the US would grant me (an average white male Canadian) citizenship unless through marriage, so we often make do with what we have to work with.

That said, this country has never been quite as knee-jerky as all the others have been regarding firearms, and one thing that we have historically done if rules are changed, is to Grandfather in the current owners under the old rules, and apply the new rules to the new guys.

While not an ideal scenario, no legal gun owner has ever had their guns taken away if they are in compliance with the law.

If you owned a Tommy Gun when they were legal, you can still own that Tommy Gun now.

Laws can and frequently do change so don't be so sure. You Commonwealth Nations seem to have a dangerous habit of placing too much trust in your governments.....Remember, Australians used to think the same way....Now in Oz you need a license for a fucking sling shot and for that license, you are at the mercy of the toltalitarian state.

Don't ever think it can't happen there. Because one thing is certain about liberals and their penchant for gun grabbing....When you comprise on things like so called "common sense" gun control, they see it not as an honorable agreement but as a foot in the door to further their agenda....Anti-gun fanatics are never satisfied with compromise. They are an all or nothing brood of hysterical, arrogant, authoritarian, bags of dog shit, who lack all reason or concern for anyone or anything other than their own contrived ideological nonsense.

[Mel Gibson]

I don't think we'd ever become as bad as UK or OZ.

Hell, I don't think even our left wing lunatics want knives and long guns restricted! Handguns, perhaps...

[Blue Frost]

Your fearless leader just wants straws banned right believe in him, he don't want the guns also.

[Mel Gibson]

His time is near! Next leader is gun friendly.

But to be honest, Trudy didn't change a whole hell of a lot regarding gun ownership.

None of our leaders DARE take away what little freedoms we still have. They know we'll come after them with hockey sticks if they do...

[Blue Frost]

I can see you all now, crying just like the Brits did when they lined up to to destroy their country.
Look what happen after, you have Londanastan.

[Renee]

His time is near! Next leader is gun friendly.

But to be honest, Trudy didn't change a whole hell of a lot regarding gun ownership.

None of our leaders DARE take away what little freedoms we still have. They know we'll come after them with hockey sticks if they do...

Yeah they won't dare take them away...

More like they will just tax them until you can't afford them anymore. But they will still be there...just out of financial reach...

Pretty slick...eh?

[Mel Gibson]

That would most likely be the 'Canadian Solution' to be honest...

[Mel Gibson]

Studying up a bit on US gun laws, since I'm not so familiar with all the specifics, but is there any truth to this claim?

It is more specifically related to the ruling below, which does in fact reinforce the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but could this ever be interpreted as only applying to your own home and property?

I guess more specifically what I'm getting at, is it possible to Federally restrict guns to private property only? I understand that individual States can already somewhat do this, and they do. They can control concealed carry, and even open carry if I'm not mistaken, correct? They certainly do have the power to enact 'gun free zones'.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[Blue Frost]

Just one example fro a case of protecting a home, there is other cases where they try to take guns by twisting the founders ideas.
That case I remember, they tried hard to build a case to have a reason to take guns from non owners in future cases, just like the militia only cases.

[Mel Gibson]

So theoretically it would be possible for the US government to implement laws that state your right to keep and bear arms could only apply if you were on your own private property?

[Mel Gibson]

there is other cases where they try to take guns by twisting the founders ideas.

An interesting case happened here in Alberta. A massive flood hit High River, and people had to leave their homes, fast. Since many people store their guns in the basement, some quickly brought their guns up to the highest floor, just throwing them on the bed or whatever, to keep them dry in the flood.

In an emergency case like this, the RCMP were permitted to enter homes warrantless and by force to ensure no individuals were left stranded in them in a dangerous situation. In a case of natural disaster, this makes sense that they can do a warrantless home 'safety check'.

However, they discovered all these guns, many of which were just laying around, contrary to our storage laws. They temporarily seized them, and did give them all back, but the damage was done.

This was the final report on that:



Part V: Conclusion

In the end, what should have been a story about heroic actions of countless front-line responders, including many RCMP members, turned out to be something far different for the RCMP.

The RCMP was evidently surprised and responded in a reactive manner to the anger of many High River residents over RCMP members having entered their homes and then seized firearms therefrom. Yet, the community's reaction was somewhat predictable, given that the sanctity of one's home from state interference is a deeply rooted legal principle. This principle was outlined eloquently by British statesman William Pitt in a speech to the House of Commons in 1763:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

[Blue Frost]

So theoretically it would be possible for the US government to implement laws that state your right to keep and bear arms could only apply if you were on your own private property?

No, that would infringe on the right to have guns for protection since it does not specify where, and how.
Also for the militia part , you can't muster one if just at someones house unless on social media platforms.

[Blue Frost]

there is other cases where they try to take guns by twisting the founders ideas.

An interesting case happened here in Alberta. A massive flood hit High River, and people had to leave their homes, fast. Since many people store their guns in the basement, some quickly brought their guns up to the highest floor, just throwing them on the bed or whatever, to keep them dry in the flood.

In an emergency case like this, the RCMP were permitted to enter homes warrantless and by force to ensure no individuals were left stranded in them in a dangerous situation. In a case of natural disaster, this makes sense that they can do a warrantless home 'safety check'.

However, they discovered all these guns, many of which were just laying around, contrary to our storage laws. They temporarily seized them, and did give them all back, but the damage was done.

This was the final report on that:



Part V: Conclusion

In the end, what should have been a story about heroic actions of countless front-line responders, including many RCMP members, turned out to be something far different for the RCMP.

The RCMP was evidently surprised and responded in a reactive manner to the anger of many High River residents over RCMP members having entered their homes and then seized firearms therefrom. Yet, the community's reaction was somewhat predictable, given that the sanctity of one's home from state interference is a deeply rooted legal principle. This principle was outlined eloquently by British statesman William Pitt in a speech to the House of Commons in 1763:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

Police illegally did the same here in Louisiana, they confiscated guns door to door. It was to protect looters you know, that special part of the population, kind of like Politicians.

[Mel Gibson]

Police illegally did the same here in Louisiana, they confiscated guns door to door. It was to protect looters you know, that special part of the population, kind of like Politicians.

So they did that there too!

[Mel Gibson]

No, that would infringe on the right to have guns for protection since it does not specify where, and how.
Also for the militia part , you can't muster one if just at someones house unless on social media platforms.

States do have the authority to ban guns in public though, right? I mean, not everywhere permits open carry, or concealed carry, and they have the right to implement gun-free zones too, correct?