RE: Where I Stand On Gun Control - A Canadians Perspective
Your thoughts would take us on a slippery slope. What you are suggesting is PC (Political Correctness), which would mean we are trying to play the same game the Globalists are playing.
Keep in mind that guns are meant to protect citzens from their own government, from internal enemies. In Canada, your rights have been diluted, but the criminals have not been affected. It is documented that in Europe, mosques are used as store rooms of weapons, grenades, and so on. If it is also true for Canada, why don't you tell me how you will fight if and when they decide to take over?
In Switzerland citizens are trained and have guns so as to protect their country from invaders; there your logic would make sense.
In the USA, guns are meant to protect the people from would-be dictators (of any kind).
The globalists and their communist lackeys are potential dictators. Let us take an example from the USSR. If they needed to imprison someone, but he was popular or his arrest could cause an outcry, they would certify that person as being mentally unstable and lock them away.
The moment the rights under the constitution start to erode, the citizens will lose all rights. We've seen this time and time again, where rights are taken away progressively (the UK has done exactly that, lately taking away the right of Free Speech).
Advice comes from the past; from those who had the experience of being enslaved by their own government and once they fought and won their freedom, they wrote the Consitution and warned the people that if progressive attempts are attempted against any of the clauses of the Constitution, people must rebel.
Am I being extreme? Well, what of the news today? From the Democrats demanding the R15 be banned, today the message is that they are presenting a Bill, to remove the rights for the American public (insane or sane) to own ANY guns. I see this latest move as being an interpretation by them of the compromise by Trump as being a weakness.
It is a case of the well known saying, "offer a finger and they'll want to take your hand".
I think you have reason to be concerned. I appreciate the effort you put into this reply. I think there is a lot of hated towards republicans, and we have to put something on the table. It wouldn't have to be a slippery sloped if we had well defined checks and balances, and we start getting laws writing through grassroots organizations, instead of elitist with hidden agendas. Sandy hook kinda spooked me, call it an inside job, but I don't see an autistic kid shooting up a kinder garden.
I also don't buy the Boston marathon bombing. Everyone that knew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, said there was nothing weird about him. He was just a collage kid doing his own thing. It sounds like they were planning on framing someone else, and picked Dzhokhar in a panic. If the NRA was one step ahead of the Democratics, that could offer legislation that would confiscate guns from people that are clearly deranged. I would say people with known Schizophrenia, that doctors could prove in court. As long as the constitution guarantees at least 90% of Americans cam own whatever firearm they want, except weapons of war, tanks etc. It could be the answer. We clearly need to get have the ability to take guns away from crazy people. So we're going to have to figure out how to define it, without it being a slippery slop.
I would also take the gun away from a husband who beats her wife up, and puts her in hospital. There's enough Americans left to defend the constitution, without the help of crazy people. The governments first responsibility is to protect your right to life, so that's a contradiction with the second amendment, if the there is no action taken on citizens of absolute concern.
Consider this: Freedom of Speech is also protected by the Consitution, however, certain speeches are not allowed. For instance, one which is often quoted: Shouting "Fire" in a theatre.
The exceptions were tightly drafted, so that the courts do not have much leeway, thus no slippery slope was created.
With guns, there must be certain exceptions, I agree (I presuppose there already are some). However, mental health is something that is very hard to calibrate, so as to judge someone unfit to carry a weapon. Can you also prevent him from carrying a knife?
Do you recall how psychiatrists made a big thing about multiple personality disorder? The one personality kills and steps back, leaving the body to the other personalities, who are innocent of the crime. Do we have the right to punish the innocent personality in charge now? While we thrashed around with the ethics of it, the profession reversed themselves and announced there is no such disorder.
Since it has been found that certain drugs kids and teenagers are dosed with cause them to turn to violence, we could maybe say that while on the drug and for a period thereafter, they cannot be licensed to carry a gun of any kind.
As for domestic violence - I presume you want the same rule to apply to women who are guilty of domestic violence? I would say that the law must first become more unforgiving of domestic violence. Maybe we could have that when they are realeased, for the next 3 years they may not carry?
As you see, it is not that I see everything as black and white and stand against all changes in the laws. I am just worried that we do not leave loopholes that can be exploited in a scenario where the globalist elites take over. Of course, we also have to worry that their plans are not all dependent on their winning any elections.
I don't have all the answers here. I'm going to write an article on the national debt. It's something i'm very passionate about. I would love to take away the governments ability to borrow money. I'll invite you to join the debate, because I want to hear your thoughts and ideas. Very few people are talking about the Debt, and I think it's one of the biggest Trojan horses that's going to take down society. I'm also angry at trump for over-spending. He has no idea how to make real cuts.
Always, when he does something you do not like and you thought he opposed, keep in mind that he is under constant threat.
For instance, what is keeping him in power and alive and able to fight the deepstate is not the voters, but the military. So, to keep them happy, he had to spend hundreds of billions. They want a war? He cannot say no, all he can try to do is limit them.
Obama pushed up the debt without any excuse (and mislaid $3 trillion?). I would rather the debt go up, but Trump keep us out of the clutches of the globalists (Soros, Bill Gates, Rothschild and so on. Sh*t, what about the EU, with Hillary they were planning to take over the USA deepstate).
Once Trump wins a few extra (crucial) States and has ability to control Congress/Senate, then you'll see a new Trump.
He is risking his life and that of his family - he is not the Anti-Christ as some think, so he cannot pull off miracles. We need to back him and ensure he has the power to really be the President of the United States.
Good comment, @arthurbravo . Following
Thanks. Reciprocated.
To hear Benjamin Fulford tell it from his sources, the US petrol dollar (central bank) has been rejected by a host of nations including China; a global reset back to gold (even backing a crypto currency) is imminent; throw in the reports that EO from last Fall to seize assests from criminals against humanity went into full affect, and the shut down of deepstate underground bases, and I conclude one of two things: Trump can approve a hideously irresponsible-looking budget because he's bowing to the system; or, he's acting like money grows on trees because he knows the US is going to get a windfall bigger than the wealth of many small nations if jubilee is declared and stolen assets are redistributed.
I obviously suspect the latter. But I can't verify any of the factors that make me suspect that.
I guess we see eye to eye on this.
I subscribe to Breitbart and an annoying feature is that I get emails that look as if they are from them, but are from advertisers. One of the 'business advisors' sent me an email a few weeks back, saying that on 3rd March the US$ will not longer be the international currency, that other countries will be depositing with the IMF for a new currency to be created. They explained that despite the huge 21 trillion debt, because it was the international currency, all countries were forced to keep it strong, but that from the 3rd it will collapse to a tiny percentage of it's current value.
My first thought was, that then it should be safe for Trump to close the Fed Reserve Bank and create a new dollar - as president Kennedy did, days before they killed him.
I had thought the IMF is controlled by the U.S. - am I wrong?
Let's hope Trump lives through all this shit - and that we do too...
As a side thought. Many countries need the USA as their customer, or else much of their industry would collapse. How will they survive if the USA dollar were to collapse, as they are supposed to be planning?