At Least 12 Shot at Montreal College

[Fuzzness 2]

all semantics..........

just because you have the right to do something - in this case i'll cite owning a firearm, provided you meet all the criteria for such - that right disappears upon conviction of a felony, also upon conviction of domestic spousal abuse

sure, seems to be an american trend to take a word and re-define it to their conveniance... like "liberal" and "conservative"

[ceriserose 1]

They are called rights because they (supposedly) cannot be taken away.

Lots of "rights" are routinely taken away from certain classes of people. The right to vote for felons, for example.

Not saying I agree with it, but it's been like that for a long time. Rights are not unconditional.

Do you mean the right of the average person to vote for a felon or the felon's right to vote?

Or both?

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

keeping the law abiding citizen from owning a firearm does not decrease their risk from being shot by some thug who cares less about the law. i don't believe in registration of guns, or licensing of guns. but i do believe in very strong measures for those who use one to commit a crime.

that, my friend, is putting the blame where it belongs for the crime - on the back of the one committing it, rather than applying a blanket policy like the uk and australia....

Good luck with that... Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional so claiming it's an infringement on the Second Amendment is a fallacy.

such was preceeded with "i believe" steven. such is just my thoughts. obviously i'm not on the supreme court

[one...two...tree 2,762]

keeping the law abiding citizen from owning a firearm does not decrease their risk from being shot by some thug who cares less about the law. i don't believe in registration of guns, or licensing of guns. but i do believe in very strong measures for those who use one to commit a crime.

that, my friend, is putting the blame where it belongs for the crime - on the back of the one committing it, rather than applying a blanket policy like the uk and australia....

Good luck with that... Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional so claiming it's an infringement on the Second Amendment is a fallacy.

such was preceeded with "i believe" steven. such is just my thoughts. obviously i'm not on the supreme court

Charles, I don't have problem with your opinion. It's when you start telling me I hate the Second Amendment or that I want to infringe on the right to bear arms that is intellectually dishonest and absurd.

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

keeping the law abiding citizen from owning a firearm does not decrease their risk from being shot by some thug who cares less about the law. i don't believe in registration of guns, or licensing of guns. but i do believe in very strong measures for those who use one to commit a crime.

that, my friend, is putting the blame where it belongs for the crime - on the back of the one committing it, rather than applying a blanket policy like the uk and australia....

Good luck with that... Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional so claiming it's an infringement on the Second Amendment is a fallacy.

such was preceeded with "i believe" steven. such is just my thoughts. obviously i'm not on the supreme court

Charles, I don't have problem with your opinion. It's when you start telling me I hate the Second Amendment or that I want to infringe on the right to bear arms that is intellectually dishonest and absurd.

you started citing supreme court this and that. does that not bother you that even the courts are doing that? where's the outrage? or is that all spent on the eavesdropping program alone?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

keeping the law abiding citizen from owning a firearm does not decrease their risk from being shot by some thug who cares less about the law. i don't believe in registration of guns, or licensing of guns. but i do believe in very strong measures for those who use one to commit a crime.

that, my friend, is putting the blame where it belongs for the crime - on the back of the one committing it, rather than applying a blanket policy like the uk and australia....

Good luck with that... Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional so claiming it's an infringement on the Second Amendment is a fallacy.

such was preceeded with "i believe" steven. such is just my thoughts. obviously i'm not on the supreme court

Charles, I don't have problem with your opinion. It's when you start telling me I hate the Second Amendment or that I want to infringe on the right to bear arms that is intellectually dishonest and absurd.

you started citing supreme court this and that. does that not bother you that even the courts are doing that? where's the outrage? or is that all spent on the eavesdropping program alone?

Huh?

[Cristy 4]

My cousin was across the street. He is a film maker and had his camera with him. He ran across the street and was documenting it.