Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
The future of the N.D.P. in Canada probably depends in some part on Rachel Notley's performance. Will she adhere strictly to N.D.P. ideals? I'm guessing we'll see some variance. Mulcair would a be a huge mistake for one main reason- I don't see him being too interested in the West.
Mulcair and Trudeau have both made it clear that they are going after guns if elected. I don't see an other pressing issues so I'm comfortable NOT voting for thrm on that reason alone.
Tired yet of the "enlightening discussions without the "screamer" bringing y'all back to reality?"
Oh and as far as the voters go, they generally elect the best of a poor bunch.
Oh and as far as the voters go, they generally elect the best of a poor bunch.
Last edited:
bluebyrd35 has bought into the lie hook line and sinker..
The issue I have with gun registrations is the government and police know where and who owns the guns..
So like what happen in High River, Alberta, the RCMP busted down doors and without warrants stole people's firearms.
Also, if the government says they want to ban a firearm and you have one... they can come and seize your gun.
Don't register, and what the government's doesn't know about, they can't steal from you..
I think Canadians should just refuse to register their guns.. in protest.
The issue I have with gun registrations is the government and police know where and who owns the guns..
So like what happen in High River, Alberta, the RCMP busted down doors and without warrants stole people's firearms.
Also, if the government says they want to ban a firearm and you have one... they can come and seize your gun.
Don't register, and what the government's doesn't know about, they can't steal from you..
I think Canadians should just refuse to register their guns.. in protest.
Any closer to an agreement on anything?
Considering that gun owners seem to be Gung ho about defending their rights and would be prepared to vote based on gun policy alone, whereas proponents of stricter gun control are far less likely to vote based on that issue alone, it being merely an influencing factor, it seems to me that any smart party would leave the issue alone. It's like universal medicare, gay marriage,abortion, official bilingualism, etc. It's a political hot potato that seems to defy reasoned discussion among most voters. Even scholars must tread lightly around these sacred cows.
Considering that gun owners seem to be Gung ho about defending their rights and would be prepared to vote based on gun policy alone, whereas proponents of stricter gun control are far less likely to vote based on that issue alone, it being merely an influencing factor, it seems to me that any smart party would leave the issue alone. It's like universal medicare, gay marriage,abortion, official bilingualism, etc. It's a political hot potato that seems to defy reasoned discussion among most voters. Even scholars must tread lightly around these sacred cows.
Sacred cow really says it all. It wouldn't matter if the government wanted to take all but what a person/family needs to live cheaply,, but let them keep their guns most here would go for it. The fact that the powers that be, would always keep the heaviest artillery for themselves doesn't seem to occur. When a government, controls the money they can be ever so lenient with small arms.
No I haven't. The thing is I understand you and your ilk want all the hoops, back=ground checks, and the checks and balances Canadian law demands, gone and a system like that the US has ended up with. . There are moderates about in this forum, but from what I have read, in this thread, most are like you. You want carte blanche to own and use a gun at YOUR discretion, not what the law demands. You know ........like shoot first and ask questions after, protect yourself even from salespeople, sellers of religion even from those who come begging to the door. God forbid if some poor beggar becomes so desperate, he contemplates even taking a bit of food when starving. Good grief, it wouldn't be long before you would want debtor's prison reinstated.
This may come as a shock to you, but moderates do not trust those who want no controls on their behaviours when they are dealing with young people, old people, homeless, and the infirm. Get in your way and your answer is to wave a gun about. Well, where I live that is classed as idiot behavior. There are hunters who ask permission to hunt before invading my land and those that ask, get it, If there are no cattle about, children or campers around, i give it. Since most hunting here is done at dawn, I have no problem with it.
So of course being a moderate, in your wanna-be macho world, I should shut up and butt out.f Well too bad that ain't gonna happen. Get used to the idea that moderates are here to stay.
You are definitely NOT a moderate. Colpy is a moderate. Those of us that are moderates want realistic gun laws that will keep guns of any kind out of the hands of criminals. What you want is laws that make criminals out of law abiding citizens and legalize theft by corrupt governments. We elected Harper to protect ourselves from extremists like you and the rest of the anti rights nuts.
Depends on who you class as scareech......If you are referring to me, then you need help with understanding what you read. Even an IQ of 50 eventually comprehends a statement after multiple repetitions.
I personally find words and the pen much mightier than the gun or sword, as most humans with a decent working brain do. How many times in the course of your life, have you ever had to threaten someone with a loaded gun??
DaSleeper, Who here is anti-gun?? You have been hanging about with Petros too long. Comprehension deficit seems to run rampant here.
Now that is the most unrealistic statement I have ever come across. Do you think a law will stop criminal behavior?? No not ever. The human race is flawed. Until the end of the human race, there will be criminals
But vigilantes running around with loaded weapons, thinking they are humanities gift to righting wrongs is not a solution. For goodness sake, even with training law enforcement in the US kill many innocent people. If those trained in law enforcement, and ways of defusing a situation make so many mistakes in judgement ......why do you feel, someone untrained in law enforcement won't make even more errors in judgement when confronted with what they think is a criminal???.
Excerpt from above:
“…Every time I enter the Senate Chamber, I see two armed police officers at the door, one with a handgun and one with an automatic firearm.
I must admit that this does not make me feel safe. On the contrary, I am frightened by the thought that a police officer armed with an automatic weapon could shoot it on the Hill.
How many innocent victims would pay with their lives for this so-called security measure?
In my opinion, it is a serious mistake to arm police officers with these weapons. No matter what, the first victims of an attack will probably be police officers, because people who wish to do harm do not give advance notice.
Security that relies on firepower has proven to be ineffective, and millions of Americans have paid the price for this false assumption with their lives.
I remind you of the incident of October 22, when the intruder—not a terrorist—was shot by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, in full view of the many RCMP officers stationed on the Hill.”
By Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette
Which leaves only one question: do you have to be a complete moron to be a Liberal?