Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Guns, Carried Openly or Concealed, Threaten Our Safety [View all]Straw Man
(6,622 posts)87. It seems there's much you've never heard of.
I've just never heard
of "shall issue" bus driver licences, let alone "shall issue" bus driver jobs ... or of bus drivers driving their buses around malls without anybody knowing they were there ...
of "shall issue" bus driver licences, let alone "shall issue" bus driver jobs ... or of bus drivers driving their buses around malls without anybody knowing they were there ...
Really? So the licensing authorities in Canada have complete discretion to deny a bus driver license to anyone, even if the person meets all the published criteria and passes the standard test? "Shall issue" means the license cannot be denied to someone who meets the criteria. Is that not the case for bus drivers where you come from? Shocking, just shocking.
Jezus Christ, man, do you want to make yourself look this thick?
There is NO oversight of people wandering around with firearms in the US. There is NO screening process to determine their suitability, apart from determining that they are not ruled on one or two very very very basic points.
There is NO oversight of people wandering around with firearms in the US. There is NO screening process to determine their suitability, apart from determining that they are not ruled on one or two very very very basic points.
Self-contradiction in adjacent sentences: from "NO oversight of people wandering around with firearms in the US" to "NO screening process apart from..." So there is some oversight. You might not consider it adequate, but even you can't pretend there isn't any. Or maybe you can: I can't speak to your mental acuity.
Permitting someone to wander around in public with a firearm creates a situation where there is NO POSSIBILITY of oversight. Not of mental state, not of law compliance, not of criminality, not of ANYTHING. Not before or after the permission is given.
See above. Oversight was exercised before the permit was granted. Oversight is exercised when the permit is renewed. Oversight is exercised whenever a firearm is purchased. Any serious transgression of law or adjudication of severe mental illness triggers instant suspension of the permit and mandatory confiscation of firearms. Sounds like oversight to me.
Aren't those goalposts getting heavy? Feel free to plant them anywhere. Apparently that's the way the game is played up there in Bieberland.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
134 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"the murder itself would be extremely unlikely to have been committed absent a firearm"
rl6214
Apr 2012
#29
And you have proof that the " facts and figures" put put by the RCMP are reliable?
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#81
Sorry - didn't realize you supported the public ownership of handguns and other weapons. Sorry. nt
hack89
Apr 2012
#101
So the "actual rate of death and injury" due to drunk drivers is low enough to be acceptable
hack89
Apr 2012
#114
So it is not about facts or evidence but simply "feelings"? At least you are honest about it. nt
hack89
Apr 2012
#116
In many areas LE is required to be armed. They are actually considered to be "on duty" 24-7.
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#39
Well good for you. If you don't want a question answered, then don't ask it.
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#50
In the US federal law mandates that they be allowed to carry at all times.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2012
#95