|
FirstQuaker -> RE: Stupid Fucking Cunt Is Going To Kill Someone Someday.... (7/18/2011 7:54:51 AM)
|
I tried to point out early on that Canada has rifles as a necessary tool. In fact I think the firearms ownership in the Dominion is higher then the US, though certainly more are rifles.
You get more then a hundred miles from the border and almost everyone seems to have one. As I noted, a rifle, a chainsaw, and a boat were pretty much standard family equipment where I was raised. My woman, who normally doesn't eat red meat, ignores that personal taboo when the moose meat appears.
You get into the upper parts of any of the non-Maratime provinces and they start becoming food providing tools, a lot of people in the northern parts of the country still subsistence hunt. Canada might lean on handguns a bit more, and cut down on who can have automatic weapons, but unless Ottawa wants to abandon much of the northern part of the country, they are going have rifles available at least. Never mind the shotguns the farmers have and think they need.
Alaska is no different.
And while I have treaty rights to live on either side of the border, I still had to take the test, and that involved some study. From what I learned changing the constitution to abolish guns and the militia would essentially rewrite the relationship between the states and the federal government. Most US states seem to have similar provisions in their constitutions. so not only would you have to get them to agree to such an material change of the federal constitution, but also to rewrite their own. Getting two thirds of the US states to do this set of things is a lost cause. Then there are all the state laws, and the whole common law of the US to deal with.
Most British don't realize each US state has its own little army and many have air forces and naval assets too, and these are normally independent of the federal government unless called to service. States also have their own militia laws, and some extend the service to all adults of either sex between 18 and 65.
It would be similar to if the Commonwealth deciding to abolish the monarchy and replace it with the 'president' of England being the head of state of every member, surely it is possible, but is very unlikely to happen as getting all the Commonwealth members to agree on such a thing.
|
|
|
|
