Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[taxslave]

So......following your logic, we should do away with all things that can possibly do away with death...right!! Goodbye to barbecues, knives and forks, cars, swimming pools, must put large fences around all lakes, rivers, oceans etc, definitely no more guns, certainly no scissors, roller blades and skates, all contact sports, after all dead is dead right!!. Gas stoves, ladders, balloons, (some children have died inhaling them instead of blowing), of course all pills, too many dangers of allergic reactions, or overdoses, all must go. I do not understand your logic.

All this just because thinking moderate persons feel there should be strict rules and laws regarding guns, which I will point out once agains, were/are manufactured to KILL. And please don't bother pointing out other uses for guns, all the things listed above were made for other purposes but guns were not.

Now tell me again why we should fear decent, and strict gun laws .

Are you planning on making your version of gun laws apply to criminals this time? Because the current ones are not working as intended.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Are you planning on making your version of gun laws apply to criminals this time? Because the current ones are not working as intended.

Well, to be fair, her version varies considerably from the current laws.

She wants possession of firearms by persons other than government agents banned, no exceptions, no variance.

 

[waldo]

In context of the thread, that would be the same right that BByrd was speaking of.

if you can't... won't... answer directly, why bother? Again, in the context asked, per below:

There is a right to keep arms.

in Canada... what "right" are you speaking to?

just exactly how does a gun equate to liberty... if I have no gun do I have no liberty... less liberty? If you own 2 guns do have twice as much liberty as the guy owning 1 gun?

there has been volumes written on this. i think it would be a great topic to revisit when things slow down on this thread

or you could quit avoiding, apparently, inconvenient questions; again, why bother with what you wrote? I asked simple questions!

does a gun registry infringe upon said "gun liberty"? If so, how so?

what gun registry?

geezaz... I said, "a gun registry"! Again, could you be any more avoiding... any more evasive? :mrgreen:

I love it! The anti-gun nuts might learn that having a meal next to an armed citizen is much like having a meal next to an armed police officer, ie it really isn't that scary.

G U N C U L T U R E !

Yet, the 'perpetual violence machine' is slowing down. Oh well! That blows a hole through another one of his monologues that waldo takes serious.

is it... "slowing down"? I can put up academic studies that suggest otherwise... or present U.S. CDC mortality data that states that in 2011 there were "55,544 non-fatal injuries as a result of assaults involving guns, as compared to 53,738 in 2010, 44,466 in 2009. I can put forward analysis that states increases in U.S. gun ownership can be mostly attributed to 'existing owners' stocking up. You won't accept any of it. Typically, gunners... like you... fall-back to decreased gun-related murder stats, but have a real aversion to actually speaking to attribution causes for that decrease. Of course, this whole 'ti t-for-tat' study/stat play reflects mostly on the long-standing... decades long-standing... influence of the NRA in blocking attempts to do complete, thorough and ongoing gun research/analysis that can be accepted by both sides of the debate.

You tell me again....How someone dead by drowning or from a knife or overdose of pills etc. is less dead than by gunshot!!!

oh my! Are you in the wrong thread? :mrgreen:

.
.
and still... no takers... no bites!

I'm more interested in understanding if Canadian gun-proponents feel their existing gun-rights are being encroached upon... and what is it they really want in terms of gun regulations, particularly those Canadians that regularly parrot U.S. gun advocates, U.S. gun policy/talking points, U.S. gun stats and selective interpretations on U.S. gun related violence, gun related murders, gun related deaths.

 

[taxslave]

if you can't... won't... answer directly, why bother? Again, in the context asked, per below:

​

​

or you could quit avoiding, apparently, inconvenient questions; again, why bother with what you wrote? I asked simple questions!

​

geezaz... I said, "a gun registry"! Again, could you be any more avoiding... any more evasive? :mrgreen:



G U N C U L T U R E !



is it... "slowing down"? I can put up academic studies that suggest otherwise... or present U.S. CDC mortality data that states that in 2011 there were "55,544 non-fatal injuries as a result of assaults involving guns, as compared to 53,738 in 2010, 44,466 in 2009. I can put forward analysis that states increases in U.S. gun ownership can be mostly attributed to 'existing owners' stocking up. You won't accept any of it. Typically, gunners... like you... fall-back to decreased gun-related murder stats, but have a real aversion to actually speaking to attribution causes for that decrease. Of course, this whole 'ti t-for-tat' study/stat play reflects mostly on the long-standing... decades long-standing... influence of the NRA in blocking attempts to do complete, thorough and ongoing gun research/analysis that can be accepted by both sides of the debate.



oh my! Are you in the wrong thread? :mrgreen:

.
.
and still... no takers... no bites!

​

But can you ever post anything intelligent?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You have no liberty, waldo. You threw it away with both hands when you became a slave to ideology.

If that makes you happy, that's fine.

 

[waldo]

In fact, in some CCW states, the change of gun death rates exceeds Canada.

please sir... are you sure you meant to say "gun death rates"... and not "gun murder death rates"? :mrgreen:

and... you're getting dangerously close to attribution here! You know, the thing gunners want nothing to do with in attempting to fully and completely analyze why gun-related murder rates are down.

You have no liberty, waldo. You threw it away with both hands when you became a slave to ideology.

If that makes you happy, that's fine.

says the ideologically driven gun-proponent! See... I just followed your lead. Besides, according to member Bond... member 'James Bond', this isn't the time to speak of liberty! :mrgreen:

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

please sir... are you sure you meant to say "gun death rates"... and not "gun murder death rates"? :mrgreen:

and... you're getting dangerously close to attribution here! You know, the thing gunners want nothing to do with in attempting to fully and completely analyze why gun-related murder rates are down.



says the ideologically driven gun-proponent! See... I just followed your lead. Besides, according to member Bond... member 'James Bond', this isn't the time to speak of liberty! :mrgreen:

So, which are you concerned about, waldo? Gun death, or gun homicide?

 

[waldo]

oh, look who has joined the thread! Countdown to yet another 'taxi' one-liner drive-by... in 10, 9, 8... :mrgreen:

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

oh, look who has joined the thread! Countdown to yet another 'taxi' one-liner drive-by... in 10, 9, 8... :mrgreen:

Unable to answer the question, waldo?

Sad, really.

 

[waldo]

So, which are you concerned about, waldo? Gun death, or gun homicide?

uhhhh... and you would yearn for a distinction, a separation... because?

Unable to answer the question, waldo?

Sad, really.

huh! I didn't meet your 5-sec violation clock!!! :mrgreen: Your response is... Sad, really!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

uhhhh... and you would yearn for a distinction, a separation... because?



huh! I didn't meet your 5-sec violation clock!!! :mrgreen: Your response is... Sad, really!

Ah, the angry sarcasm. Last resort of the ideologue faced with an honest question.

 

[waldo]

But can you ever post anything intelligent?

can you ever post anything other than a testament to your one-liner drive-by nothingness!

 

[Colpy]

in Canada... what "right" are you speaking to?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 26:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

That means that any constitutional right that existed in Canada before the Charter is not negated by the adoption of the Charter.........any right of English common law still exists.

English Bill of Rights of 1689:

Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons............... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

...........That the subjects ........... may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;


I can actually read, unlike the pointy-headed morons we seem to put on the Supreme Court.

 

[waldo]

Ah, the angry sarcasm. Last resort of the ideologue faced with an honest question.

angry? That's quite the reaction you had to me not responding to your question immediately... of course, you actually quoted something I posted in that "10 second gap" that you wigged out over!

and... I answered your question by implying there is no reason to make a distinction, to separate the two... and I asked you why you presume to make that distinction, reach for that separation. Any ole' azzhole can keep throwing the ideological/ideologue label... do you have nothing else? :mrgreen:

I can actually read, unlike the pointy-headed morons we seem to put on the Supreme Court.

thanks for mentioning the Supreme Court... saves me the trouble of once again repeating my post that has the highest court in the land stating there is no constitutional based "gun rights"... that has the Ontario Supreme Court presenting a complimentary finding.

since you insist on harping on that "1689 English Bill of Rights", don't hesitate to show just where those rights were enshrined in the Canadian constitution? Do you plan to bring a case before the Supreme Court? :mrgreen:


sorry... have to run... CUlater

 

[bluebyrd35]

There is a right to keep arms.



No there isn't in Canada. It is a privilege granted with rules.

Of course there is a right to life. The law says so. No one has the right to kill you. You may claim that right to take a life but you spend time incarcerated for doing so.

For DaSleeper.
Yup if you don't get a license, register your vehicle and follow the traffic laws. HOWEVER, if you have a car, you have already done those things. Still feeling that loss

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

angry? That's quite the reaction you had to me not responding to your question immediately... of course, you actually quoted something I posted in that "10 second gap" that you wigged out over!

and... I answered your question by implying there is no reason to make a distinction, to separate the two... and I asked you why you presume to make that distinction, reach for that separation. Any ole' azzhole can keep throwing the ideological/ideologue label... do you have nothing else? :mrgreen:

You need to win. I would like to talk.

So, you win. I give you what you need. You are victorious. Well done, you.

 

[bluebyrd35]

bluebyrd35 is the minority, afraid and paranoid.. I went for a drive yesterday. Went shooting out in the country, and as I drove home saw plenty of farmers out shooting on their property..

Gun culture is strong in Canada.. just a little more hidden..

I am sure most guns in Canada are not registered.. why should they be... it's not the governments business.

Sorta like Rand Paul on Government intrusion into our lives..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=exaycqViaA4

LOL....No bluebyrd is neither the minority nor afraid or paranoid. Sure hope you asked permission to hunt in the country on someone else land........many so called hunters never used to. I have gone out and made them leave. There used to be a good many gun owners that used to shoot at anything that moved including prize jersey cows.....for those who are not familiar with cows, Jerseys are brown and of smaller stature than the Holstein that predominate now. They were like a plague in the fall when hunting season opened. Hunters not cows.

We do not see that now that gun owners must know a bit about the laws and rules. We do not see so many stupid gun accidents either.

And please, a democratic government elected by society is most certainly charged with making and enforcing of laws. It most definitely is it's business.

If you want to live in a country with no gun laws, move to a country that has gun laws more to your liking. However, where there are few or no gun laws, generally there are not a lot of other laws either. You would have a much greater chance to be free to use your weapon to the max, even if ii is only to shoot before the other guy does.

 

[DaSleeper]

No there isn't in Canada. It is a privilege granted with rules.

Of course there is a right to life. The law says so. No one has the right to kill you. You may claim that right to take a life but you spend time incarcerated for doing so.

For DaSleeper.
Yup if you don't get a license, register your vehicle and follow the traffic laws. HOWEVER, if you have a car, you have already done those things. Still feeling that loss

Again I have to Call Bullshyte....
I can buy any number of cars get them towed to my property and drive them around there to my heart's content, and as long as I don't drive them off my property I don't need registrations or plates......
In quebec it might be different....even bulldozers need to be registered....I guess it's a provincial thing.
And again.....learn to quote properly won't you? I had to come back and fix my post because you can't!

 

[bluebyrd35]

Again I have to Call Bullshyte....
I can buy any number of cars get them towed to my property and drive them around there to my heart's content, and as long as I don't drive them off my property I don't need registrations or plates......
In quebec it might be different....even bulldozers need to be registered....I guess it's a provincial thing.
And again.....learn to quote properly won't you? I had to come back and fix my post because you can't!

Sure you can but that is not what a normal person uses a car for. Actually besides traveling, the early cars were used for racing. Of course the tow truck owner, has all those things, you know like the license, registration and a cabby would have those as well, when you wish to go anywhere outside of walking distance. Anymore stupid responses??

 

[DaSleeper]

Sure you can but that is not what a normal person uses a car for. Actually besides traveling, the early cars were used for racing. Of course the tow truck owner, has all those things, you know like the license, registration and a cabby would have those as well, when you wish to go anywhere outside of walking distance. Anymore stupid responses??

Stupid heh? You're the one who brought it up...and furthermore if I don't need a license to have a car in my yard, why should I need one to possess a firearm in my house?....... and you just now showed what an old biddy you really are...