"Canada Bans Assault Weapons; People 'Deserve More Than Thoughts and Prayers' ”

[oldbadger]

It was repealed was due economic and revenue losses.

But the Constitution was changed by an Amendment which affected people's freedom and rights.

Firearms in the US is a constitutional issue regarding interpretation of "infringed". For one holding an absolute interpretation the government has already lost legitimacy.

Government policies tend to change with the times. Ours have in the UK.

Depending on the point of view those in service are traitors.

The vote alters the Government. The governments instructs the police, sheriffs, militia, service wo/men etc...... They obey their government.

If people start shooting the above because of a point of view then the provisions of your Constitution will surely stop them...... that would be a good job for the Militia.

His was a member of a militant political group that used violence against the State and civilians. However the point was more about the government of SA regarding if your or I as individuals believe it is legitimate. It is the freedom fighter or terrorist issue.

Ah.....! But the National Party's white-only government established apartheid, a system of racial segregation that privileged whites, [/QUOTE]
There was NO DEMOCRACY! The people did not have a vote. You do.

 

[Shad]

But the Constitution was changed by an Amendment which affected people's freedom and rights.

Sure. My point was that people didn't repeal it due to a change in the moral claims of Prohibition but money

Government policies tend to change with the times. Ours have in the UK.

My point was to compare Prohibition to Firearms. Pro-gun are not arguing about lost revenue but interpretation.

The vote alters the Government. The governments instructs the police, sheriffs, militia, service wo/men etc...... They obey their government.

I was just following orders is not a defense. Government is not God. Government officials are not robots. Repealing major rights in the Constitution is the grounds for rebellion as government in the US does not create rights.

Superior orders - Wikipedia

If people start shooting the above because of a point of view then the provisions of your Constitution will surely stop them...... that would be a good job for the Militia.

I am not American. See the above

Ah.....! But the National Party's white-only government established apartheid, a system of racial segregation that privileged whites,
There was NO DEMOCRACY! The people did not have a vote. You do.

My point was about perspective. See how being seen as a terrorist changes?

The people do not vote on Amendments. The majority does not determine rights no more than a minority does. Look up tyranny of the majority. Also officials swear to uphold the Constitution. Repealing 2a would be seen as dereliction of duty and that oath by many.

 

[McBell]

Well, I don't take you too seriously, to be honest.

No worries mate.
If you ever decide to have an actual discussion on this topic...
But I wont be holding my breath.


Have a nice day

 

[oldbadger]

Sure. My point was that people didn't repeal it due to a change in the moral claims of Prohibition but money

My point was to compare Prohibition to Firearms. Pro-gun are not arguing about lost revenue but interpretation.

And my point was that US Amendments can change the laws, and there could be yet more Amendments about common sense gun controls, if that would be necessary.

I was just following orders is not a defense. Government is not God. Government officials are not robots. Repealing major rights in the Constitution is the grounds for rebellion as government in the US does not create rights.

God did not feature in the Constitution, I believe.
And if you think that government servants are criminals for following orders that a section of the people are mad about..... OMG!
The officials convicted at Nuremberg were mass murderers!
There's no comparison.

I am not American. See the above

I thought you are Canadian, but changed my mind on this thread. OK..... Canadian?

My point was about perspective. See how being seen as a terrorist changes?

Just a second. Nelson Mandela would have been executed if he had been convicted of murder. He was not!

The people do not vote on Amendments. The majority does not determine rights no more than a minority does. Look up tyranny of the majority. Also officials swear to uphold the Constitution. Repealing 2a would be seen as dereliction of duty and that oath by many.

Yes the people do. They can vote for a candidate who promises that their party will push for an Amendment.

 

[oldbadger]

No worries mate.
If you ever decide to have an actual discussion on this topic...
But I wont be holding my breath.


Have a nice day

Rubbish! You don't take me seriously..... you said so...... first. *shaking head*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Banning things simply does not work.
They tried to ban alcohol, which is not specifically protected by an amendment and look where that went...

The issue with alcohol is that anyone can make it at home from staple food. The effort and specialized skill needed to build a backyard forge, machine shop, and gunpowder works is beyond most people.

 

[McBell]

The issue with alcohol is that anyone can make it at home from staple food. The effort and specialized skill needed to build a backyard forge, machine shop, and gunpowder works is beyond most people.

Unlike alcohol, fire arms are not consumed.
What need is there to make new ones?
I mean honestly, there are enough firearms int he USA alone that it would take a rather long time for them to disappear.

Might argue that ammo is consumed, but like alcohol, you can reload the empty shells fairly easily.
I mean, it has to be easy.
I do it myself.

 

[Shad]

And my point was that US Amendments can change the laws, and there could be yet more Amendments about common sense gun controls, if that would be necessary.

An Amendment can not repeal nor revoke an existing amendment.

God did not feature in the Constitution, I believe.

Government didn't create rights in the Constitution either. Hence people look at the declaration of independence.

And if you think that government servants are criminals for following orders that a section of the people are mad about..... OMG!

I didn't say that. Strawman. I said depending on the law being enforced. For example the Southern States denied the vote to Blacks while Northern States did not. Ergo State officials are actively suppression a portion of the population based on ideology and revenge. Ergo those officials are jack boots.

The officials convicted at Nuremberg were mass murderers!
There's no comparison.

Try reading son. Many of them claimed they were only following orders. That was my point. Only following orders is not a defense.

I thought you are Canadian, but changed my mind on this thread. OK..... Canadian?

I am Canadian

Just a second. Nelson Mandela would have been executed if he had been convicted of murder. He was not!

I said terrorist not murder. Your distortion is noted.

Yes the people do. They can vote for a candidate who promises that their party will push for an Amendment.

Candidate, singular. I guess you do not understand how the Amendment system works. Voting for a singular person is not the same as voting for an Amendment

 

[oldbadger]

An Amendment can not repeal nor revoke an existing amendment.

Government didn't create rights in the Constitution either. Hence people look at the declaration of independence.

Candidate, singular. I guess you do not understand how the Amendment system works. Voting for a singular person is not the same as voting for an Amendment

All very well......
But the USA has introduced some gun controls by legislation. So I guess it could do so again.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 .................licensed gun dealers and established restrictions on particular types of firearms

 

[Shad]

All very well......
But the USA has introduced some gun controls by legislation. So I guess it could do so again.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 .................licensed gun dealers and established restrictions on particular types of firearms

Sure. It still have major issues regarding "infringe" in the 2a

 

[oldbadger]

Sure. It still have major issues regarding "infringe" in the 2a

Time will tell for any possible new legislation on the US, who knows?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unlike alcohol, fire arms are not consumed.
What need is there to make new ones?

Not much, AFAICT.

I mean honestly, there are enough firearms int he USA alone that it would take a rather long time for them to disappear.

Sure, but this thread is about Canada.

 

[McBell]

Not much, AFAICT.


Sure, but this thread is about Canada.

Here in the next ten years we will be able to see see if this current ban has any effect...