King, your claims concerning lobbying Members of Parliament about new anti-handgun laws are very questionable and troubling considering your prolonged anti-gun rhetoric and statements like this here:
Gun control doesn't work? I believe gun control works reasonably generally in Canada, providing a less violent society compared to some others, in good part because of our different culture.
Then there was yet another of your wild claims that the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms was a recent invention or NRA fabrication. You've repeated that nonsense many times... even after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Original Intent of the Framers in the 2008 McDonald and Heller Decisions. This crap supporting the notion that the 2nd confers a collective, and not an Individual Right is right out of the anti-gunners playbook:
Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.
Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
You said "The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship..." But you know that's a lie, and there is a vast amount of historical data, including the actual words of the Framers that demonstrated their Original Intent. And even after we've shown it to you, you still persist in the anti-gunner's lies.
I asked you to show us where anyone made the claim here that "guns are a be-all or end-all in America". But we know that was simply another lie from you. You also persist in the insane idea that support for those who would take away our gun rights is in no way disloyal to the gun fraternity. That kind of repeated denial goes beyond foolishness, and transcends over to pathological dishonesty.
You were repeatedly asked several years ago to show us what you did to help Canada get rid of the Long Gun Registry. You couldn't provide a single thing. If you are now suggesting you had anything to do with it, I can't imagine why I or anyone else would believe you. And I can't really imagine that you would do anything to fight restrictive gun legislation in Canada now.
But that opinion is merely based upon your own words and actions here. I mean, who could forget this propaganda, direct from our leading anti-gun organizations, that attempts to portray violent gang-bangers as children:
What would pass for absurd in Canada is the notion that a vote for liberals means an anti-gun sentiment, as if a reverence or need for guns comes first in a country's priorities. Or anti-gun to mention US acceptance of mass murder, mass school executions, 438 children being hit by a bullet every month between 2004 and 2014, 13 children between one and three killed themselves with guns so far this year as the violence that defines the US trickles down to babies in diapers.
Or how about an Atheist invoking the name of Jesus and accusing law abiding U.S. Gun Owners of abandoning His teachings by defending their Gun Rights:
The roots I'm comfortable with are the radical---"to get to the root of"---and that's Jesus's teaching. The shame is how far the Christian community has drifted from it. We act irrationally from fear when the Christian message is to fear not, even death itself.We call ourselves Christian nations and stockpile ammunition, need concealed carry to protect ourselves and a regulated militia without regulations to protect us from our own governments, abandoning Jesus's teaching to defend it.
Or how about your lame-ass excuse for Obama violating his Oath of Office by attempting to gut the 2nd Amendment:
With respect, you tend to believe the written as something sacrosanct as it appears in the Constitution and other bills. Look at the Oath you posted: It says only that the president will do to "the best of my ability" to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. What he determines "best"---wrongly or rightly.
Some people don't like to see me using actual unedited QUOTES to reveal the truth. But as I said last week when SKB was once again attempting to say he was a Trump supporter... Pay no attention to what he says... Pay attention to what he actually does.
You know what you actually did here for many years King. You might fool Dave, the new guy who hasn't been here to see how you and Ed intentionally did all you could to disrupt the "PRESERVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT INFORMATIONAL THREAD" that used to be pinned to the top of the topics of this Forum, but not for long. You fooled a lot of people for a lot of years. But those days are over.
Nice try though. It all sounded so sincere until we got to see your own words from the past.
