As far as consequences go, as a voter I'm responsible partly for our gun control, which isn't a liberal as yours. I've always felt that I don't want persons walking around in my public space with firearms concealed or otherwise and definitely not AR15s.
A majority here thinks similarly so we live with consequences that some Americans and Canadians consider slavishly deferential, authoritarian and lacking freedom but they're our laws, rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise.
There is no reason to believe anything will change your way, as I've been saying since I joined the board.
Gee King, you sound so reasonable when you're being dishonest. But why would you think you can reinvent yourself when there is someone like me who won't let you get away with that crap anymore? It is a teeny bit refreshing to see you taking some responsibility for Canadian Gun Control laws which are the result of people like you supporting anti-gunners. But as a voter, you are 100% responsible for anti-gun outcomes, because none of us can know going into the voting booth whether our ballot will tip the election. And I thought you said you weren't going to bring politics into this Board anymore, but that was another lie too.
Of course, strict gun laws are no guarantee of safety. I keep asking your anti-2nd Amendment pal Jagermeister what kind of ownership and storage requirements we should impose on Tractor-Trailers and/or Muslims to prevent the type of mass homicide that killed 86 and injured 458 in Nice France on July 14, 2016. Like you, he pretends he doesn't even see those tough questions. Where there is the will to kill, deranged murderers will find a way. As 3D Printing becomescheaper and more widespread, banned guns and weapons will find their way into the wrong hands, especially in places like Australia and Canada where they are tougher to acquire by conventional means. We have strict laws against use and possession of heroin and opioids, but 64,00 people died in the U.S from using them in 2016. That's far more than were killed by AR-15's, but Liberal Left Socialists like you want to ban guns and keep the southern border open to the flow of illegal drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printed_firearmsAnd we know how easy it was for you yourself to illegally fly across the U.S.- Canadian Border with a handgun on multiple occasions. If you don't respect the law, why would you think other criminals will? Do you recall calling me a liar about that, even after I produced a direct QUOTE from you admitting to the crime of illegal transport and crossing international borders with a handgun? I hope you aren't still flying, or the potential threat remains.
The most dishonest part of your statement I QUOTED above is where you said "There is no reason to believe anything will change your way, as I've been saying since I joined the board."
That is simply another of your LULLING lies. You know damn well there was reason to believe the gun ownership rights situation would change when your boy Barack Hussein Obama appointed Joe Biden as his Anti-Gun Czar and directed him and Congress to bring more strict infringements on the rights of law abiding gun owners to his desk. It came close to happening, except thankfully, the NRA and U.S. gun owners rallied to stop it. Even so, you lied then about Obama when you said this:
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
That statement was made after his stinging defeat on anti-gun legislation, and you knew it. And you dishonestly contradict yourself by saying there will be no changes when you yourself repeatedly lament what you say are recent changes to the 2nd Amendment imposed by the NRA in only the last 20 years concerning the 250 year old Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You have never accepted the Supreme Court's 2008 interpretations of that right, and you keep asserting false statements like this:
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
You can't have it both ways anymore King. I won't repeat the mistake of others here by taking my foot off the neck of the snake. Your anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric will be your legacy here... no matter how much you attempt to reinvent yourself and hide from your own lying words. It's very telling that you hate the very thought of your own anti-gun words being used to memorialize you.
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
And here's a little gem for the Sabbath from the old athiest, once again invoking the name of Jesus in order to advance his anti-gun agenda:
The roots I'm comfortable with are the radical---"to get to the root of"---and that's Jesus's teaching. The shame is how far the Christian community has drifted from it. We act irrationally from fear when the Christian message is to fear not, even death itself.We call ourselves Christian nations and stockpile ammunition, need concealed carry to protect ourselves and a regulated militia without regulations to protect us from our own governments, abandoning Jesus's teaching to defend it.
