It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I just looked at your thread history, seems you have some serious issues with "conservatives" and Fox
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Actually yeah those laws..because you see it is rare that stuff happens here.
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Actually our guns laws make mass shootings a rarity. So your "good guys" stop mass shootings and crime..oh wait now they don't...yeah sounds like your current laws are working great..
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Actually yeah those laws..because you see it is rare that stuff happens here.
Ah, but it still happens. Rare or not, it happens.
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Actually our guns laws make mass shootings a rarity. So your "good guys" stop mass shootings and crime..oh wait now they don't...yeah sounds like your current laws are working great..
Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.
And unless you can show where your anti-gun laws have physically stopped such things, you are merely presenting BS as justification for a Govt to assert control over its citizens.
But, it is Canada. And I could give 2 F%*ks about Canada, Canada's laws or Canada's people. Not my problem.
In order for the Chicago gun ban or whatever it is to have worked..all cities ands states would have to be in on it.
Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35
Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.
originally posted by: macman
Hmmm, guess the laws in Canada can't stop criminals from committing crime either.
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: NavyDoc
I for one would like to see these stats.
As far as I have seen..they have slightly dropped ..but has had no big increase in violent crime.
Victims of violent crime (rate per 100,000)
Tough case to crack: the mystery of Britain's falling crime rate
Canada's crime rate continued downward trend in 2013
The Crime Severity Index (CSI) fell by nine per cent in 2013, a drop the report attributes to a similar decline in breaking and entering, and robbery.
Although this is disturbing..
Reports of some offences did go up last year, however, including extortion, child pornography, aggravated sexual assault, sexual violations against children and identity fraud.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: macman
Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.
Oh yeah!
What a cognitive dissonant lot the gun control crowd is.
They hate guns so much there go to response to bad guys with guns is to call the good guys with guns, and hide underneath desks.
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: NavyDoc
Canadian..
Guess what we don't live in constant fear the boogyman is around very corner out to get us.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Onslaught2996
Yeah, actually gun owners do stop crimes.
Like the guy stopped the gunman last week in your country. While your PM hid under his desk.
I never called no guy with a gun nor hid under any desk....so how does this represent the anti gun crowd?