On 1/1/13 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:19:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam-

, says...



wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:

wrote:



On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,







says...















Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...







http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html















What is YOUR solution?







Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.







The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted



the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and



seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is



that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system



that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.



All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.



See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have

you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.



Here's how you do it:



http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control









And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In

2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms

in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of

America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

Here's how who does it?
You do know that Canada makes it's own laws, eh?
That lady is talking about Britain. Being next door to y'all makes it much harder to control hand guns and ammunition.


Even so, Canada is a far safer country than the United States,
especially as it relates to firearm murders.

It's funny that you bring up that bit about Canada making its own laws.
Undereducated Americans think Elizabeth II is the head of government in
Canada, rather than just the head of state.

In the 2008 elections, Sarah Palin thought the Queen, not the Prime
Minister, was the head of government of the United Kingdom. D'oh. The
Queen is the head of state, the constitutional monarch.

Of course, Palin was the dumbest candidate for high elective office in
the history of the United States, and much beloved by righties of
similar intellectual capabilities.