Gun Control is Completely Useless.


JamesBondo
+2
#12541
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I have been trusted by many with firearms but I will not play with my gun.

Because you are busy playing with your pistol
.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12542
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Because you are busy playing with your pistol
.


http://youtu.be/4kU0XCVey_U
 
JamesBondo
+1
#12543
That explains a lot about you.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12544
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

That explains a lot about you.

It tells me that you've never been in the military.
 
JamesBondo
+1
#12545
It tells me that you get your military knowledge from a movie on youtube.

Besides, it is your side that wants 'gun' control.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12546
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

It tells me that you get your military knowledge from a movie on youtube.
Besides, it is your side that wants 'gun' control.

Actually ... that "this is my rifle, this is my gun" was well in use when I was training in the Canadian Forces in the 1970s. Ask anyone in the Army, Navy. A gun in a cannon, not a personal firearm.
 
MHz
#12547
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

You need help to control your obvious anger!

No I don't, you need some help in identifying what you should get mad about and what is fluff. If maybe beyond your mental abilities based in your posting history. If you don't get angry at what psychopaths promote you are part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.
 
spilledthebeer
#12548
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I have been trusted by many with firearms but I will not play with my gun.






Oh FER GAWDS SAKE Comrade Curious........................................... ....


you just gave Tecumehbonesforbrains another opening........................................... ................


for making his patented masturbation "quips"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




You know what I mean............................


those barbed snotty remarks he makes whenever he is fresh



out of logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
JamesBondo
#12549
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Actually ... that "this is my rifle, this is my gun" was well in use when I was training in the Canadian Forces in the 1970s. Ask anyone in the Army, Navy. A gun in a cannon, not a personal firearm.

Don't worry. I get it. My rifle is not a gun. Your cock is a gun.

It makes total sense until I go back and read everything you've written about gun control.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+3
#12550
John Robson: Ottawa's proposed handgun ban is as dumb as all the others

Ottawa councillor Mathieu Fleury, a handgun ban supporter, just asked 'Who carries a gun?' Uh, that’d be criminals

Flowers at the corner of York Street and ByWard Market Square in Ottawa pay tribute to Markland "Jahiant" Campbell, a father and a member of the hip-hop trio HalfSizeGiants, who was fatally shot on June 7, 2019.Tony Caldwell/Postmedia News

John Robson


June 11, 2019

Some days reading the news you struggle to remind yourself that people aren’t being daft on purpose and, even if they are, it’s not to annoy you personally. For instance calls for a handgun ban because some reckless thug shot a law-abiding citizen in Ottawa.


It would not be correct to label these calls “symbolic” because cities lack jurisdiction over guns. If a municipal problem is legislatively the responsibility of a senior level of government, it makes sense to ask it to act. But not this way.


The reason they’re symbolic, and silly, isn’t just that murder is already illegal. It’s that murders like Ottawa’s on Friday are committed by people using weapons it’s already illegal for them to carry or, usually, own. What’s the point of banning illegality?


Ignoring this question leads to infuriatingly feeble proposals. The Ottawa Citizen says “Toronto city council this month is scheduled to debate a motion asking for the federal and provincial governments to ban the sale of handguns, assault rifles, semi-automatic firearms and handgun ammunition in that municipality.” As if someone prepared to use an illegal handgun in Toronto would balk at driving one into Toronto.


I don’t want to get into the argument between Allan Rock and George Washington about whether government should take citizens’ guns away then tell them what to do for their own good. Canada faces no present danger of tyranny in the classic sense, despite constant nibbling at our liberties by elected governments claiming a popular mandate for every fool thing they do. But I will say the claim that ordinary Canadians cannot be trusted with dangerous objects is, like the claim that we cannot be trusted with dangerous ideas, incompatible in principle with democracy.


I will also ask whether anyone seriously thinks it’s only difficulty acquiring a gun that prevents the average Canadian from blasting away at loved ones and random strangers. They wouldn’t put it that way, of course. But it is implicit in the tired argument that the United States has a high murder rate because Americans have more guns. Which is also an affront to that “evidence-based decision-making” we hear about more often than we see it, since statistics show no correlation between firearms ownership and murder internationally (compare Canada with Russia) or indeed between jurisdictions in the U.S. (compare “constitutional carry” Vermont with Chicago where handguns were long banned).
Police patrol Ottawa’s Byward Market on June 10, three days after a man was fatally shot there. Tony Caldwell/Postmedia News



So what is going on? Ottawa City councillor Rawlson King, who is bringing a gun ban motion later this month, also wants a pile of money to help get at the “root cause of gun violence.” But if you want to know what’s causing increasing gun violence, surely you’d look at what has changed since it was rare.


It’s not rising gun ownership; guns in Canada were common and mostly unregulated until the mid-20th century. And forget poverty and “exclusion” both of which have fallen dramatically since 1960. But do include semi-feral youth roaming the streets because we’ve made a virtue of vulgar, undisciplined selfishness, including those who allegedly shot an Ottawa father trying to protect his daughter from their lewdness on Friday.


Also be sure to include telling criminals potential victims are helpless as deliberate public policy. People in posh neighbourhoods with quick police response times may scoff. But Britain essentially banned civilian guns under Tony Blair, following Margaret Thatcher’s lead, and London’s murder rate recently exceeded that of New York City after centuries, with no gun control in either, where even New York’s non-gun murder rate was five times London’s. That policy sure backfired.

Once again, incentives matter. The more we restrict guns the more only criminals carry them, exactly as Sir John A. Macdonald warned. Thus NBC just reported people in Britain building trenches and moats to protect their property against illegal trash dumping by organized criminals, on fancy estates and ordinary working farms. But “Many victims are reluctant to go on the record about how they were targeted due to fear of reprisals.” O Brave New World.


The U.K. also has an epidemic of urban knife crime to which the official response has descended to the level of parody. Politicians propose banning home delivery of knives; stores remove kitchen knives from shelves; and police put out street-corner knife-surrender bins in case you stuck a shiv in your sock by mistake or something. So aspiring chefs suffer while any hood can sharpen metal against rock, even in prison. Give every tenth shopkeeper and homeowner a shotgun and see how many thugs pull knives, I say.


Ottawa councillor Mathieu Fleury, a handgun ban supporter in whose ward the Friday shooting happened, just asked “Who carries a gun?” Uh, that’d be criminals. If you don’t know something that obvious, please try to stay out of my newspaper. It’s so annoying it feels deliberate.


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joh...all-the-others


........... the claim that ordinary Canadians cannot be trusted with dangerous objects is, like the claim that we cannot be trusted with dangerous ideas, incompatible in principle with democracy.

Hear! Hear!
Last edited by Colpy; 1 week ago at 05:32 PM..
 
Hoid
#12551
White natty suddenly in love with democracy.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12552
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Don't worry. I get it. My rifle is not a gun. Your cock is a gun.
It makes total sense until I go back and read everything you've written about gun control.

A gun is ordinance, not a personal weapon of any kind (unless you're the crazy old git who fires off the noon gun in Mary Poppins).
 
MHz
#12553
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

A gun is ordinance, not a personal weapon of any kind (unless you're the crazy old git who fires off the noon gun in Mary Poppins).

You have never had an armed person blocking your path have you?? If so did you turn around or carry on like 'normal'?
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
+2
#12554
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

The reason they’re symbolic, and silly, isn’t just that murder is already illegal. It’s that murders like Ottawa’s on Friday are committed by people using weapons it’s already illegal for them to carry or, usually, own. What’s the point of banning illegality?

Exactly... but the retarded Left just doesn't get that..

Look at Chicago, there is a gun ban there, a perfect example..

Chicago shootings: At least 10 killed and dozens more injured in deadliest weekend of 2019

Deadliest city in the USA, with the strongest gun laws..

Personally I believe they need concealed carry in Canada..
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12555
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

You have never had an armed person blocking your path have you?? If so did you turn around or carry on like 'normal'?

... and you said "Draw, Pardner!" and gunned them down in a pool of frontier justice, did you?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#12556
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Personally I believe they need concealed carry in Canada..


 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#12557
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Actually ... that "this is my rifle, this is my gun" was well in use when I was training in the Canadian Forces in the 1970s. Ask anyone in the Army, Navy. A gun in a cannon, IS not a personal firearm.

There; FTFY.

I think James was correct about your lack of real military training - you don't normally put guns in cannons and expect to become trained. IN anybody's military forces. It's like looking down the barrel of a missfire while tapping the rifle butt solidly on the ground.

Every one knows normally you stuff the lowest class into the cannons, not their guns, which they need to defend themselves from you doing that.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#12558
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Oh Cliffy! You look so grown up

Who's your baby friend?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12559
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

There; FTFY.
I think James was correct about your lack of real military training - you don't normally put guns in cannons and expect to become trained. IN anybody's military forces. It's like looking down the barrel of a missfire while tapping the rifle butt solidly on the ground.

Every one knows normally you stuff the lowest class into the cannons, not their guns, which they need to defend themselves from you doing that.

ignorant moron....
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#12560
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

ignorant moron....


Figures! No one knows as much as you!
 
DaSleeper
+2
#12561
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...ernet%20expert
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#12562
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

ignorant moron....

I believe that is what he just said.
 
spilledthebeer
#12563
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Because you are busy playing with your pistol
.




Oh Gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!



It is CATCHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!


When Tecumsehbonesforbrains runs out of what passes in his little mind for clever quips............................................. ...


he also makes masturbation remarks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WHY IN HELL are LIE-berals FIXATED on that subject?????????????????????


Got to be some sort of SORDID Freudian slip?????????????????????????????????????
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#12564
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

ignorant moron....

That's why they named you left and me right I suppose.


But stay tuned...more on that story at Eleven.
 
JamesBondo
#12565
..


.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#12566
LILLEY: Trudeau's rifle ban idea won't hurt the criminals

Brian Lilley




An AR-15 rifle on display at a sporting goods store. Joshua Lott / Getty Images

If there was any doubt that the Trudeau government’s plans for new gun control measures were more about politics than public safety, that doubt evaporated on Friday.


That was the day that Bill Blair, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, gave an interview to the Globe and Mail.


“There are some weapons that are currently available in our society that represent an unacceptable risk,” Blair told the Globe while talking about a potential “assault weapons” ban.


The Liberals have been floating the idea of banning handguns or some types of rifles for more than a year now. Blair did extensive consultation across the country speaking to activist groups on all sides and engaging the public.


The result of that consultation was a Canadian public that told the government to deal with gun violence in our cities but rejected the idea of a gun ban.


Being the party that promises to make all decisions based on science and evidence, Trudeau’s Liberals are now talking about a ban of certain kinds of rifles.


So how is this more about politics than public safety?


Well first off, rifles are not typically used in crime — criminals prefer handguns. Nor are they the problem most people want dealt with — the shootings in streets across the country.


That gun violence comes from handguns — illegal handguns mostly smuggled into Canada from the United States.


How will Trudeau’s plan to take rifles away from people who have already passed universal background checks, taken and passed a safety course, applied for a licence and been vetted by the RCMP stop the gun violence the public is concerned about?
It won’t.


But given that rifles like the AR-15, the No. 1 target on the Liberal hit list, are still registered – yes, restricted rifles remain registered in Canada – it makes it easy to seize those rifles.


Taking guns away from criminals who will never follow the law is difficult. Showing the thousands of seized rifles gives the politician behind it a photo op and a chance to say they are doing something.


Depending on the RCMP estimate you use there are between 66,000 and 86,000 AR-15 rifles in Canada legally. Those are old estimates and thousands more have been purchased in the last year as the ban has been discussed.


Can anyone point to one of these guns being used for crime in Canada?


No.


Instead they point to American examples of the guns being used in mass shootings, or to the Christchurch, N.Z. massacre. Those are different countries with different cultures and different rules.


Canadian gun owners are subject to every gun control measure that Democrats call for in the United States and more. And still there are calls for bans here?


What is the real problem with guns and violence in Canada?


Gangs.


The latest homicide numbers from Statistics Canada showed that there were 266 firearm-related homicides out of a total of 660 murders in 2017.


“In 2017, 52% of firearm-related homicides were related to gang activity,” Stats Can said.


“Almost 9 out of every 10 (87%) gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun.”


The stats also show that you are more likely to be murdered by someone stabbing you than with a rifle or shotgun.


Yet the government’s plan is to stoke fear over certain rifles based on how they look, to describe them as killing machines and to be seen as doing something.


Of course nothing the Liberals have done or will be proposing before the election will remove one single gun from the hands of a criminal, just from people who followed the rules.


Another example of Trudeau playing the politics of fear and division.


https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-the-criminals
 
spilledthebeer
#12567
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

White natty suddenly in love with democracy.






Hemer-HOID continues his love affair with LIE-beral FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Too bad the "white nattys" are ON TO THE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
spilledthebeer
#12568
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

LILLEY: Trudeau's rifle ban idea won't hurt the criminals

Brian Lilley




An AR-15 rifle on display at a sporting goods store. Joshua Lott / Getty Images

If there was any doubt that the Trudeau government’s plans for new gun control measures were more about politics than public safety, that doubt evaporated on Friday.


That was the day that Bill Blair, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, gave an interview to the Globe and Mail.


“There are some weapons that are currently available in our society that represent an unacceptable risk,” Blair told the Globe while talking about a potential “assault weapons” ban.


The Liberals have been floating the idea of banning handguns or some types of rifles for more than a year now. Blair did extensive consultation across the country speaking to activist groups on all sides and engaging the public.


The result of that consultation was a Canadian public that told the government to deal with gun violence in our cities but rejected the idea of a gun ban.


Being the party that promises to make all decisions based on science and evidence, Trudeau’s Liberals are now talking about a ban of certain kinds of rifles.


So how is this more about politics than public safety?


Well first off, rifles are not typically used in crime — criminals prefer handguns. Nor are they the problem most people want dealt with — the shootings in streets across the country.


That gun violence comes from handguns — illegal handguns mostly smuggled into Canada from the United States.


How will Trudeau’s plan to take rifles away from people who have already passed universal background checks, taken and passed a safety course, applied for a licence and been vetted by the RCMP stop the gun violence the public is concerned about?
It won’t.


But given that rifles like the AR-15, the No. 1 target on the Liberal hit list, are still registered – yes, restricted rifles remain registered in Canada – it makes it easy to seize those rifles.


Taking guns away from criminals who will never follow the law is difficult. Showing the thousands of seized rifles gives the politician behind it a photo op and a chance to say they are doing something.


Depending on the RCMP estimate you use there are between 66,000 and 86,000 AR-15 rifles in Canada legally. Those are old estimates and thousands more have been purchased in the last year as the ban has been discussed.


Can anyone point to one of these guns being used for crime in Canada?


No.


Instead they point to American examples of the guns being used in mass shootings, or to the Christchurch, N.Z. massacre. Those are different countries with different cultures and different rules.


Canadian gun owners are subject to every gun control measure that Democrats call for in the United States and more. And still there are calls for bans here?


What is the real problem with guns and violence in Canada?


Gangs.


The latest homicide numbers from Statistics Canada showed that there were 266 firearm-related homicides out of a total of 660 murders in 2017.


“In 2017, 52% of firearm-related homicides were related to gang activity,” Stats Can said.


“Almost 9 out of every 10 (87%) gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun.”


The stats also show that you are more likely to be murdered by someone stabbing you than with a rifle or shotgun.


Yet the government’s plan is to stoke fear over certain rifles based on how they look, to describe them as killing machines and to be seen as doing something.


Of course nothing the Liberals have done or will be proposing before the election will remove one single gun from the hands of a criminal, just from people who followed the rules.


Another example of Trudeau playing the politics of fear and division.


https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-the-criminals




Our idiot Boy DOES NOT want to attack criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


After all............................................


some of his most staunch supporters are CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!


If you were a gang banging THUG who routinely

benefited from LIE-beral hug a thug values...............................


WOULD YOU - or your family members ..................


willingly VOTE for a strong law and order



candidate??????????????????????????????

 
spilledthebeer
#12569
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

..


.




Bondo has NOTHING TO SAY............................


in defense of FAILED LIE-beral policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!


And says it with his usual GRUNT of inarticulate DISDAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
spaminator
#12570
Parkland survivor: Harvard revokes acceptance over past racial slurs
Reuters
Published:
June 17, 2019
Updated:
June 17, 2019 2:42 PM EDT
Kyle Kashuv, a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student speaks during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the 148th NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits on April 26, 2019 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Scott Olson / Getty Images
Harvard University has rescinded its admission offer to a survivor of the 2018 massacre at a Florida high school over his past use of racial slurs in an online document posted on Twitter, the student said on Monday.
The student, Kyle Kashuv, was a junior at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida when a gunman opened fire in February 2018 and killed 17 students and staff. He became the target of online criticism last month after images of a shared study guide from more than a year ago circulated on Twitter, showing he wrote anti-black slurs.
“A few weeks ago, I was made aware of egregious and callous comments classmates and I made privately years ago – when I was 16 years old, months before the shooting – in an attempt to be as extreme and shocking as possible. I immediately apologized,” Kashuv wrote on Twitter on Monday.
Kashuv said on Twitter that he submitted a written apology to Harvard after the school contacted him asking him to explain the statements he made in the Google document. In response, he said, he received a letter from the admissions dean saying that his acceptance had been revoked.
“The Committee takes seriously the qualities of maturity and moral character. After careful consideration the Committee voted to rescind your admission to Harvard College,” Harvard Admissions Dean William Fitzsimmons wrote to Kashuv on June 3, according to a copy of the letter that Kashuv posted on Twitter.
A representative for Harvard declined to comment on the matter, citing a policy to not comment publicly on the admission status of individual applicants.
Kashuv, who distinguished himself from other Parkland students as a gun rights advocate after the school shooting, said on Twitter that he requested to meet with the admissions committee to discuss the matter in person, but Harvard denied his request.
26 Parkland shooting victims sue school board, sheriff
Sheriff: Parkland shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz assaulted jail officer
New documentary on Parkland shooting shows graphic footage

http://torontosun.com/news/world/par...t-racial-slurs