Handguns and Assault Rifles

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

LMAO. So true.

"I am large, I contain multitudes" ~ Walt Whitman

No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy, No Fears On Earth.

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The really sad part is, that's the only true judge of our character - what we do when we're in a position of power.

I have the power, gun control is no check on my power, my power is only checked by the Commander-in-Chief, because I submit myself to Her authority by the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

"I am large, I contain multitudes" ~ Walt Whitman

No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy, No Fears On Earth.

Isn't that a US Marine saying?

[WestCanMan]

32 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I have the power, gun control is no check on my power, my power is only checked by the Commander-in-Chief, because I submit myself to Her authority by the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Lol. 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Isn't that a US Marine saying?

No, the origin of the phrase is Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Roman General and Dictator.

"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If Trump caves to the Democrats again on gun control, like he did with the bump stocks post-Vegas, it's a big mistake.

The only people who would like it are Democrats

Most Republicans want tighter gun control too.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-politicians-are-much-more-resistant-to-gun-control-than-gop-voters/

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

No, the origin of the phrase is Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Roman General and Dictator.

"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."

Pretty decent quote. Doubtful that anyone could truly live up to all that but it's a nice sentiment.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Pretty decent quote. Doubtful that anyone could truly live up to all that but it's a nice sentiment.

You can live up to it to the extent of your resolve to kill and die for your friends against your enemies.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Most Republicans want tighter gun control too.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-politicians-are-much-more-resistant-to-gun-control-than-gop-voters/

Tighter, yes, but not Dem-style.

Eventually you run into the same hurdle with gun control that you run into with abortion - where do you draw the line between one person's civil rights and the lives/safety of others? If someone has an iq under 70 are they banned? [insert joke here] If they had anger issues as a kid are they forever banned?

This is just another battle line to move back and forth in the big political brownie points game. The Dems never saw a dead body that they couldn't use for funding or to advance their agenda. (Oddly enough they don't care about babies until a second after they're born, they throw healthy pre-natals in a trash bin and never look back.) 

[Dougie93]

Same thing in Canada, there is gridlock because the left in Canada is totalitarian, they make into all or nothing, at which point we will give them nothing, not one step back, they'll have to crush us under the jackboots, at which point they will simply bring the Confederation down, vive le Quebec libre.

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You can live up to it to the extent of your resolve to kill and die for your friends against your enemies.

I get that you could have the resolve, but if you lost a friend in battle how could you ever say that you killed the exact person who killed them? 

The quote doesn't leave any room for error imo.

Tell that biotch that Arminius says "Hi" lol. 

 

[Dougie93]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

I get that you could have the resolve, but if you lost a friend in battle how could you ever say that you killed the exact person who killed them?

My friends seek no revenge on their behalf, my friends kill and die only for our rights endowed by the Creator, we are Christian soldiers, we honor all organized surrenders and will render aid and comfort to all prisoners who submit to the will of the Lord, in the face of his wrath.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

My friends seek no revenge on their behalf, my friends kill and die only for our rights endowed by the Creator, we are Christian soldiers, we honor all organized surrenders and will render aid and comfort to all prisoners who submit to the will of the Lord, in the face of his wrath.

Wow. We just used to say things like "Kill a commie for mommy" or "Kill them all and let God sort them out". You're like a warrior/bard.

[Dougie93]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Wow. We just used to say things like "Kill a commie for mommy" or "Kill them all and let God sort them out". You're like a warrior/bard.

Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool Instructor.  

Tho I would not kill a Commie for my mommy, because my mother is a communist, although she's not a Communist, but if she had her druthers, I would only kill and die for the World Socialist Revolution.

[Spiderfish]

I'm not sure if this thread is supposed to be about handguns and assault weapons in Canada or not...the original post indicated that this was about consultations on whether handguns should be banned in Canada after last year’s marked increase in gun homicides in Toronto.  Making the assumption that there's a reason this thread is in the Canadian Federal Politics section, it's worth noting that all this talk about bump stocks, Republicans vs Dems, and of course Trump....is exactly the problem we have in rationally discussing Canadian gun laws.  When the issue of gun control gets conflated with the problems down in the US, it creates a false narrative that Canadian gun laws are too weak, that Canada has some imaginary problem with mass shootings, and we need to tighten up our laws to solve a problem we don't even have. 

That's not to say there is no gun violence in Canada, but it's not even in the same realm of comparability with our neighbors down South, and it never will be.  Using what happens in the US to push a fear driven social/political agenda in Canada is lazy, irresponsible, and overtly ignorant.  As I mentioned previously, Canada has some of the strictest laws and regulations on the planet, and writing more gun laws or banning more guns is not going to make Canadian streets any safer from bad guys who don't give a rats ass about current gun laws, let alone stricter ones.  All it's going to do is give politicians more talking points and Government more fear driven control of law abiding citizens, their rights/privileges, and their possessions.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Spiderfish

[taxme]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:34 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

There is no 2nd Amendment in Canada...that only applies to the U.S. Constitution (a different country).

If Canada wanted to ban handguns and "assault rifles", it could have done so by now...but it hasn't, and several recent "mass shootings" in Canada have not moved the needle.

What happens is the usual virtue signaling about "gun control" without any meaningful action(s).   The stupidly implemented (and crazy expensive) Gun Registry was put out of its misery with a political bullet.

 

 

Hundreds of billions of Canadian taxpayer's tax dollars blown on a gun registry and where has all those tax dollars gone and what has the registry done to stop gun violence? Gone nowhere but down the leftist liberal shit hole. The alt-left liberals appear to just enjoy wasting tax dollars on stupid programs and agendas that do nothing to make Canada great but just make Canada look stupid once again. We have stupid political leaders who do not care all that much about anything. They appear to be totally clueless when it comes to just about everything as to what to do about anything. It's all just about trying to appease some special minority whiny interest group who have only their comrade ideas for Canada and Canadians. Canada is a joke and the Canadians that keep voting for these jokers deserves what they get. What they get all the time is more government, more taxes and less freedom and by the looks of things these days they appear to like it that way. Sadly for Canada there are not enough true and patriotic nationalists Canadians around to try and eliminate the insane politics and policies that liberalism and it's comrade style programs and agendas that has been forced on us all. Canada has truly become a Potemkin looking village. It looks great on the outside but it is diseased on the inside. But hey, what more can be said about Canada. Canada can be one great country to live in but liberalism will never allow that to happen. The facade grows bigger. Sadly, handguns and assault rifles will always be available to those bad dudes out there who like to kill people. No laws or registry will ever change that. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by taxme

[Dougie93]

There is no way to rationally discuss Canadian gun laws, Canadian gun laws are patently irrational.

None the less, it's not like it's difficult to achieve the standard, as because Canadian gun laws are so irrational, the standard is hardly exacting.

Discussing a Canadian gun law generally consists of laughing at a farcical absurdity, but then just shrugging and getting on with it, silly as it may be, to avoid being criminalized by a recklessly incompetent overweening nanny police state.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[Spiderfish]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

There is now way to rationally discuss Canadian gun laws, Canadian gun laws are patently irrational.

None the less, it's not like it's difficult to achieve the standard, as because Canadian gun laws are so irrational, the standard is hardly exacting.

You completely missed the point. 

And if the strongest counter argument you can muster is "we can't discuss Canadian gun laws because Canadian gun laws are irrational",  then you might as well just give up your guns now.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Spiderfish said:

You completely missed the point. 

And if the strongest counter argument you can muster is "we can't discuss Canadian gun laws because Canadian gun laws are irrational",  then you might as well just give up your guns now.

I'm an agnostic servant of the Crown, I'll give my guns only on the directive of my Sovereign, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, none the less, if I am presented with a lawful order signed by the Queen, I will of course obey.

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool Instructor.  

Tho I would not kill a Commie for my mommy, because my mother is a communist, although she's not a Communist, but if she had her druthers, I would only kill and die for the World Socialist Revolution.

 Not the Queen? What about the whole "landed gentry" thing? 

[taxme]

I remember in the good old days before the sixties people use to drive around in their pick up trucks with a rifle hanging on the back window, no one gave a chit. It was just normal. And there was no worry about it as those rifles were mostly used for hunting purposes only. But thanks to the anti-gun leftist liberal media and their attacks on gun owners and scaring the hell out of the people who will listen to them that if someone sees someone driving around in a pick up with a gun hanging in the window they go hairy kairy with paranoia. Call the police and the police will go ballistic and surround that pick up with a dozen cop cars and will get ready for a shoot out. Geez people, chill out.  it was just hanging in the window. At least the person was not hiding the rifle. People today are just so paranoid about everything. Drop a piece of paper on the ground and some environmentalists will go crazy on someone. I found that out first hand when I did that. this environmentalist went up one side of me and down the other all over me dropping a piece of bio degradable paper. It's not like I dropped a whole newspaper all over the ground. It seems that people go crazy these days over the smallest of things. Chill out people. A piece of paper thrown on the ground will not bring the earth to an end. Some people's kids! 

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 Not the Queen? What about the whole "landed gentry" thing? 

Landed gentry simply means a gentleman who free holds on the land of the Queen.  

You don't actually own your property in Canada, the Queen retains ownership of all of Canada, you simply free hold on that land, as a subject of the British Crown in North America.

Thus, to be a landlord in Canada, you are representing the Queen, it's Her land.

So in terms of defending myself under the auspices of "possession and occupation of property and in defence of life", that's not just in defence of me and mine, that is in defence of the Queen's Peace as well, which is why you can't just haul off and blow people away, you instead must act as a Peace Officer.

Which is perfectly acceptable to me, as I am comprehensively trained for the full spectrum of operations other than war, to include aid to the civil power armed constabulary, I'm not chaffing at the Queen's Peace, I am the one defending and upholding it.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[taxme]

29 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

I'm not sure if this thread is supposed to be about handguns and assault weapons in Canada or not...the original post indicated that this was about consultations on whether handguns should be banned in Canada after last year’s marked increase in gun homicides in Toronto.  Making the assumption that there's a reason this thread is in the Canadian Federal Politics section, it's worth noting that all this talk about bump stocks, Republicans vs Dems, and of course Trump....is exactly the problem we have in rationally discussing Canadian gun laws.  When the issue of gun control gets conflated with the problems down in the US, it creates a false narrative that Canadian gun laws are too weak, that Canada has some imaginary problem with mass shootings, and we need to tighten up our laws to solve a problem we don't even have. 

That's not to say there is no gun violence in Canada, but it's not even in the same realm of comparability with our neighbors down South, and it never will be.  Using what happens in the US to push a fear driven social/political agenda in Canada is lazy, irresponsible, and overtly ignorant.  As I mentioned previously, Canada has some of the strictest laws and regulations on the planet, and writing more gun laws or banning more guns is not going to make Canadian streets any safer from bad guys who don't give a rats ass about current gun laws, let alone stricter ones.  All it's going to do is give politicians more talking points and Government more fear driven control of law abiding citizens, their rights/privileges, and their possessions.

We all get carried away at times. It seems like so many topics can lead into talking about something that is not relevant to the main topic. As they say "chit happens sometimes". Just saying. 

[bush_cheney2004]

38 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

...That's not to say there is no gun violence in Canada, but it's not even in the same realm of comparability with our neighbors down South, and it never will be.  Using what happens in the US to push a fear driven social/political agenda in Canada is lazy, irresponsible, and overtly ignorant....

 

True, but it is in Canadian political and social DNA to make such comparisons to "down South" no matter what the topic is.    It is organic to Canadian media as well, if only to define and contrast content that would otherwise be very thin.    The very Canadian identity is often defined as "not American", and so it goes with gun control as well.

[Dougie93]

See the most important thing in Canada if you are going to defend yourself, whether that is with a gun, or with your fists, is that you have to be able to justify the use of force, and if you exceed the level of force which a Peace Officer is empowered to employ, that's where you've gone too far, but you don't have the police union backing you up.

In theory the police are not the military, they can't use military force, in practice they do, because de facto they are above the law, but de jure you are not, so you have to apply force "within the allowance of the law"