So you are picking one model of one gun to represent something. A Glock is the preferred 9mm of many if not most police forces in Canada. I'm pretty sure they all have safeties. But you see that is the problem with the right. They will take some tiny piece of say a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and argue that is the truth of the matter of a very complex issue.
No. They don't....I carry one on a daily basis. They have built in "safety" measures but have no traditional manual safety release as I originally stated. That is not taking a "tiny piece" of anything, merely pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about. And more shocked, I could not be. I have and will continue to debate you on most every point because we are diametrically opposed on most every issue. But you stated something as fact that just isn't. So rather than admit to being wrong you continue to half heartedly press your incorrect idea with "I'm pretty sure." That's no way to debate. You're busted. It happens. Admit it and move on.
Yeah he is. I said it was ridiculous for the woman to say that her ownership of a defensive firearm was safe because her particular gun had a safety. In my experience all guns have a safety. He is trying to discredit that statement because some glocks don't have traditional safeties. What do you think the ratio of firearms that don't have safeties to those that do?
And the real issue here isn't whether all guns have safeties or not. The real issue is that if you are a parent in a home with a defensive gun, which by the very nature of a defensive gun, must be easily accessible, loaded or ammunition in close proximity without things like trigger locks. Or at least with the keys easily accessible. That creates a great danger to any child.
So it doesn't seem so "ridiculous" now does it? No revolver has a safety. No Glock has a traditional "safety." A large number of hunting rifles have no safety....one of the most popular deer hunting rifles ever produced, the Winchester Model 94 lever action .30-.30 had no safety. Most lever action rifles have no safety. I can see why you want to redirect the "real issue" though.
Because if foreign-born, muslim-loving, caliphate-establishing, communist socialist nut-hugging Barack Obama wanted to do something like that, he would have done so looooong ago. We're literally counting down the last few months of his presidency and you freakazoids are still flipping out about this ****. Really???? Get a grip folks, that **** ain't happening! Or what, Obama is gonna wait till the last few weeks of his presidency to round up 300+ millions guns throughout the country? I must ask the question: do you people actually think any of this stuff through or just get caught up with all the hype you read online?
Who said it would be him? These kinds of things don't happen overnight. Never in my lifetime did I think I'd see a self professed socialist garner any more than passing acknowledgment in a presidential election. But here we are. Incrementalsim....it's the alinsky way.
The Glock does have a safety, it just isn't a button or lever you slide to click off the safety. When you are holding the gun properly, the safety is off.
Thus my qualification of "traditional." The three safety features of Glocks do not fit that category.
So we have decided that some, but surely not most guns do not have safeties and the rape victim lady is certainly a responsible parent because she owns one of the ones that do and her child would have to figure out how to use that mechanism before blowing off their own or someone else's head with a loaded gun.
Got it.
Nice out / redirect attempt. All we've "decided" is that you refuse to admit when you're wrong. The rest is just speculation.
I've only ever held a couple of revolvers and only ever shot one. Didn't know they didn't have safeties.
Every gun I have ever had has had a safety, but, now, I wonder if the 30-30 lever action did. Didn't have it long and I was pretty young.
As above, there is no safety on any lever action that I know of. The safety feature is the half **** position of the hammer.
I've shot clay pigeons on the banks of the Colorado River with a shotgun, I've hunted deer, albeit with a bow & arrow. I've shot handguns and rifles doing target practice. I never once considered people could get their hands on these types of weapons without proper background checks. But no, 'Bama wants to take our guns, let's oppose anything - and everything - that is put forth as far as tightening gun control laws. It's my belief that some really good people, with good intentions, have been led by their noses by the NRA and far right-wing groups where they've completely lost their grip on common sense and reality. I hope these folks, good people, at least the conservatives I know personally, can come around and agree that certain limitations on gun rights is not a bad thing, in fact a neccessary step in limiting gun violence around the country.
I consider myself to be a "good person". I believe I have an extremely good grip on "common sense and reality." It's gotten me this far. Been gainfully employed at the same job for 30 years, raised two great kids, watching my first grandchild right now. Donate to charities regularly, empathize with the less fortunate, am thankful every day for my life and all my blessings. Yet I completely disagree with what you. How does that square? Are you saying I'm not a good person?
That kind of, should of, be happening already, without any type of directive from the president, no?
Yes. Yes it should. Why is it not?
I find this **** so funny. In a couple weekends I will be heading North for my annual sled trip. We will eat nothing but venison all weekend. I'd be the light weight gun owner and hunter. No one else there would own less than 5 or 6 guns and a couple of them basically live off wild meat all year. We will walk into a bar along the trail and most of the local originals will just leave cause we wreak redneck. But not one of these dudes will bleed like some of you about how Trudeau is going to take our guns and how the government is got these plans and how I'm gonna protect my own with my gun. Not one. And let me tell you Canada's conservatives are further left then your mos lliberal politicians. There is just no basis of fact in what you guys are talking about. There is a friggen registry here. Has been for decades. They are not coming for the guns.
Glad you're happy there. Let us handle our "****." The "****" I find funny is that of the three in this thread telling everyone else they're wrong, two don't live in America but are happy to instruct those of us that do as to how we should act, react, etc. to the matters of our governance.
I think the importance of the 2nd amendment in maintaining a free United States is grossly overstated. It has been a propaganda story for generations used by the gun lobby to sell more guns and used by politicians as a cry against big government. There is no tangible evidence that guns in the hands of people increase or decrease their ability to protest government. In the 20th century what is far more controlling have been freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech. Those freedoms are the first to be taken and controlled by a repressive government, not taking people's guns.
For over 100 years we have seen many democracies and countries with freedoms survive without gun ownership. Those countries are not teetering on the brink of dictatorships or government persecution.
For all those that think the right to bear arms was some great vision of our founding fathers, I have just remind you the founding fathers also decided that just as important was to include an amendment that prohibited quartering of soldiers in your house (amendment 3). That sounds REAL important in today's world. Thank god that law is in our founding documents. How could we ever survive without amendment 3?
I put the important of amendment 2 pretty close to the importance of amendment 3. You crazy right-wingers have been spooked and sold a story that somehow having assault rifles will save you from a tyrannical government or help you survive a zombie apocalypse when neither is even close to true. The fact thousands of innocent people die each year because of your stubbornness and obtuse thinking still doesn't bother or deter you.
That's sad.
I'll ask again since you dodged it the first time. If guns aren't in the hands of the people, what rights would you trust the government to protect "for" you?
A very serious question Del....what has government done for you that makes you feel so blissfully sure that they are the beneficent, gracious fathers that will always have your best interests at heart?
Also, there are other examples of amendments in the Bill of Rights that evolve over time (and are not taken blanket literally).
The primary of these is Amendment 8, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Earl Warren wrote in the majority that ""The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." While some lawyers and judges disagree with this interpretation it is far more prevalent and accepted today.
Why can't this same "evolving standards" test be applied to the right to bear arms based on the fact firearms are so different today than when written about in 1789?
Because two wrongs don't make a right. I don't believe the Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" Constitutional amendments to the point that they effectively change their intent or meaning....that's what constitutional conventions are for.
And many of those countries had plenty of guns too. What those countries didn't have was the right to assemble, a free press, checks and balances in a constitution, freedom of speech or protection from persecution based on religion.
Again, I fully agree you take away ALL the rights granted by the constitution away and we are in serious trouble. You take away just the right to bear arms? Not so much.
You are completely talking from a cynical point of view with conspiracies and depravity around every corner. Those cases are not the United States with a constitution that includes much more important protections than the right to have an assault weapon. You are just making **** up.
No ******* way. That should be clearly obvious to any sane person. The notion that the government / Obama is secretly planning to clamp down and take legally owned guns from people is a fantasy. It's about as silly willy as chasing rainbows and unicorns. People that try to convince you otherwise are paranoid, delusional and scared of their own shadows. That's my honest answer.
Ok the US governemnt decides to subjugate its people and murder those who will not bow down to their gay liberal and transgender tyranny. Its you and a band of others there to defend your liberty with Assault riffles and glocks. They have planes, tanks, artillery and soldiers who are highly trained killers. How is this gonna go anyway. "WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!"
So you're telling me those 8.5 million had ALL the other freedoms in our constitution, all the other checks and balances between church and state, all the checks and balances between legislative, executive and judicial branches? But because they didn't have the right to bear arms, that's what caused the 8.5 million to die?
Are you ******* nuts?
Oh... I forgot. You are nuts.
Again, please move to Oregon, set up camp with those crazies so you can all get swept away in one fell swoop, or better yet, try to "defend" yourself from those wicked federal agents that are after your guns, land, freedoms or whatever else you think and go down in a blaze of glory your children will be so proud to celebrate on your gravestone.
Please, just go. Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Those hillbillies in Oregon would LOVE to have you. You know you really want to.
Who's suggesting that you would need to leave yourself defenseless? Who's telling you that you can't own your guns? Why does this keep coming up, did you guys all the sudden get summons in the mail to turn your guns in? Or are you speculating on what would happen? That's a whole lot of speculating....that's all I'm saying.
The reason you feel that way is that you've bought into decades of propaganda - financed primarily by the NRA- that's been spinning that story. That doesn't make it real. I don't see a swelling of national sentiment that every law abiding citizen should line up and solemnly turn in their weapons. The notion that 'they're gonna come after our guns' is a disneyland fairytale. I think most everyone in the country understands the basic tenets of the 2nd amendment, and the tradition and history behind it.
The backlash against even mild adjustments to gun regulations - such as Obama's doing currently - is the culmination of years of fear mongering and scare tactics put out there by far right lobbyists. This perceived danger and fear then permeated Fox News, and it's been part of the right-wing conservative discourse ever since.
I ask again, show me one iota of evidence the federal goverment is planning to confiscate legally owned firearms, on any level, to any extent. It's pure hyperbole.
And I don't think those changes will makes this country any more a less democratic and it won't make anyone more or less free.
Just like I don't think people in Australia feel any more or less democratic or free than they did in 1995. That idea is laughable.
.
Do some research....some do.
And you have a delusional idea that owning a gun will magically prevent all that too.
I never once said everyone should turn in their guns. I think every home in the United States should own a simple shotgun. There is no better weapon to protect you from a home invasion, a "crazy" or a thief than a shotgun. Of course so do good security systems and high quality locks/doors/windows as well.
I am strictly talking to the crazy idea that the 2nd amendment really has some great impact on our freedom as a nation or it's importance as a deterrent from government persecution. I just don't believe that and think those that do are misguided and being used by political and business entities for their own use.
If you want to debate legal ways to protect your families, homes and property, let's discuss it like civil adults. Not pander back into the silly constitutional debate that somehow this is some god given right.
I am not a big fan of handguns or assault/semi-automatic rifles. I am fine with single-shot hunting rifles.
Again, let's discuss ways to reverse the arms race between criminals and civilians. That leads no where. Let's discuss ways to get illegal guns off the streets. Let's discuss greater penalties to people that sell guns nefariously or use illegal handguns or liabilities when your gun is not properly guarded. Let's discuss better safety features to prevent children from misfiring a gun.
Unfortunately, every single time this topic is raised the NRA and their legion of right-wing crazies gets up in arms like the government is coming for their shotguns and hunting rifles. It's turned into a joke to the point, I don't take ANY of you seriously. None. At this point, the only option is to ignore the NRA and the crazy gun-lovers completely and just get something done without you.
Again... you are DINOSAURS.... in another 10, 20, maybe 40 years common sense gun restrictions and reducing guns in our environment will be the norm. All your fist pounding and sky-is-falling rhetoric just proves you are at the end of your rope and in desperation mode.
The NRA and it's message is on the wrong side of history. That is so plain as day clear to any intelligent person that it astonishes me so many still are digging their heals on all things guns.
Some reading for you deniers.......600 pages to get ya started. Yeah I know it's the NRA, blah, blah..........but it's true. You just don't hear these things.
good luck with that. I think I will just live a regular life and hope that these things don't happen cause I really don't think they will.
