50 stars and 13 bars equals 'Merica!

keep telling yourself that.....

outch, that's low. really low ;(

I mean, couldn't you just call me fat or something?
or kill a family member?
maybe nuke a Canadian city (something in Quebec preferably)

yes, i do know. the war went on for 2 years before we entered in 1941 and ended 4 years after we joined.

while russia certainly dominated the casualty list, american casualties were ~450,000 v great britain, for instance, at ~550, 000.

and back to your original comment that we played a small part, you do not realize we stopped japanese expansion.

Don't forget Celine Dion, Nickelback and Avril Lavigne

look, let me put it another way, i'm not against you. you raised a valid concern, i wasn't aware of it prior, but obviously, canada has a gun smuggling problem. we have relaed gun laws here and until something specifically challenges that at the sc level, we are all stuck with it like it or not. i can't change that, you can't change that. congress can't change it. just like abortion, roe v. wade, like it or not, the sc tells us what the rule is.

so, in all seriousness, i would think the easiest and best way for canada to deal with it, is to better secure your borders.

I never said the USA didn't play a part, just that it didn't have the majority of troops involved

Japan wasn't the only aggressor in WW2...

it's impossible to totally secure any border, the drug problem in the USA proves that

I've fucked uglier than Celine
I can listen to Nickelback, sometimes,......
and Avril's cool and hot,

but the Bieber thing, that was just low.........

I ask this though, how are automatic weapons illegal in the USA if the constitution says you have the right to hold and bear arms?

it makes me think there is a way within existing legislation to ban semi auto and handguns............as it HAS been done for automatic weapons

i'm not an expert by any stretch, but i do try and read original rulings as opposed to just rely on a reporter's view......i will put this in my own words, let's see if it makes sense.

the amendment codifies the freedom AND regulates the use. a "well-regulated" militia has the right to bear arms.......the sc has defined "arms" to be whatever weapons are commonly used in public at the time the sc is making the decision, that's the regulation. we can't own nuclear bombs or automatic weapons (exceptions apply),....


BUT they have left the door open to decide semi-auto, they just have to wait for a case re: that to come to their jurisdiction.

i hear ya, nevertheless, for you and me, the u.s. kicking ass in the pacific had far greater consequences for us than the war in europe. the japanese at the time had big plans!

Sounds like you have bieber fever.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Ran outside in a sleeveless tuxedo. Stone Cold titty twistered my terrorist decoy, stood over its crippled corpse and whispered, "Merica."

Saw a gal pretendin' her kid's spoon was a jetplane. Karate chopped it and said, "This ain't no terrorist trainin' camp, it's Merica bitch."

This is Merica. We ain't Mericants, we're Mericans.

Went outside gettin' all bucknasty with my chainsaw. Blowed the husky neighbor a kiss, gave her a beef jerky coupon and whispered, "Merica."

so did the germans, and the Soviets gave up more lives than anyone else stopping those. Without them, that would have been American and Canadian lives lost

That is seriously low. Like worse than calling the IRS on you and telling then you cheat on your taxes low.


do you have any shame?

venusgal, on crack......... see above

Making a thread because you "owned" someone in another thread. It doesn't get more pathetic than this.

Twinkies are always the answer.

I don't know the actual numbers, but lets say it is 98%. That means 2% had better be armed and ready to gun someone down. I would rather be prepared in the event I ended up being part of that 2%.

Depends on the person really. If you are well trained with a weapon and can keep your cool under pressure, the intruder won't have a chance to use his weapon.

If someone comes into my home, I'm not giving a warning message or warning shot. They just get shot. Assuming I hear them enter, and I probably would because it would be quite a feat to even get into my place, then he'll get his as soon as he gets inside.

Sorry, I'm not going to read what Canadians have to say about USA gun law / USA gun issues. The only reason this thread peaked my interest is because of Obenberger.

When I want to talk about Canadian pork or Avril Lavigne, I'll be sure to let you know.

If it wasnt for the russians, all of europe would be speaking german. Over 23 million russians died in military actons in world war 2.

the overwhelming majority of home break and enter suspects are not armed. you buy into the fear and hype presented by gun nuts like the nra.

You are saying they are banned. They are not. You simply apply for a class III federal permit, pertaining to that one particular firearm seriel number. There is a 6 month background check, and then you are issued a permit for that particular weapons system, and you then complete the purchase. It happens all the time, my local gunsmith sells a couple per month, and I see them all the time at several of the local ranges that allow them. I know for sure that it is this way in at least 32 of the 50 states. So I repeat, you are wrong, they are not banned.


Seriously Scott. Your information on this subject is really flawed.
.



.

you're splitting hairs. they are highly restricted, same shit as banning them. if you restrict the hell out of a firearm it's the same result, the vast majority of people can't or won't get them because it requires effort.

no different than getting a handgun as a civilian in canada. Highly restricted. You can only use them in certain places, you can only transport them to and from the shooting range, etc. it eliminates 99% of the problem and allows the few people who are die hard gun nuts that are also responsible to have their toys

it's about numbers, your gunsmith sells on or two a month, but how many other guns does he sell a month? 100, 200? 1000?

sounds like NRA bullshit where the mentality is if you have a gun the bad guy always loses. That's just not the way it is, it's 50/50 in every circumstance when 2 guns are involved. You don't know if he has a partner, a bullet proof vest, etc etc etc. there is too many variables. think warfare, BOTH side have losses, both side have people die when there are guns on both sides. The NRA rarely tells people this little FACT when tsomeone is considering getting a gun for home protection.


and odenberger did a drive-by, he came in, made a comment that showed he doesn't know how to read or respond to a situation and what was really being asked in this thread, pretending to make himself look smart, and then left. When he was called on it, he didn't come back. If that's an example of his legal work, I feel sorry for every one of his clients.

sun-tzu from the art of war:

if your enemy is superior, evade him.

scenario: i'm asleep at 3am, 2 glasses of wine in me, groggily get woken up by an intruder with a plan and weapons....and the best plan of action is to face him head on in a gun battle?

no.

even paris knows that.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_02Mg78aSCd...by-sun-tzu.jpg