Senior. Same thing really except except seniors sometimes hate to admit they’re socialists
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Senior. Same thing really except except seniors sometimes hate to admit they’re socialists
For a number of reasons we talk about the US constitutional right........:
1. It is interesting to discuss the Second Amendment.
2. There is also a constitutional precedent in our history for a (limited) right to keep arms.
3. Because the USA and Canada are very much alike, and positive things about the "gun culture" in the USA are also positive things in Canada.....and vice-versa.
4. Because there are a lot of Americans on the site.
5. Because we're jealous.
Your stupid is showing again. You really need to stop embarrassing your parents like that.
Top of page 1:
'This is where we get down to business and talk about Canadian Politics. As with all discussions, we'd like to remind you to keep it clean and completely refrain from making any personal attacks against any participant in debates and discussions. Anything political and Canadian belongs here. International matters can be discussion in the International Politics forum. We discuss national politics and Canada's place in the world.'
Aaron Tao's lengthy nationalistic lecture / pro-gun propaganda piece could fit in the International Politics forum, although in fact it made no reference to any country other than his own. Nevertheless it will be of interest to any outside of the USA, who want to know how some of its citizens think.
For me (and whoever wrote the forum rules) it has no place under the heading of Canadian Politics.
Nos 1, 2 & 3: The article discussed none of these things; The US Second Amendment (mentioned but not explained or discussed), Canadian precedents on a right to bear arms (not mentioned), or 'positive things about "gun culture" in Canada' (not mentioned).For a number of reasons we talk about the US constitutional right........:
1. It is interesting to discuss the Second Amendment.
2. There is also a constitutional precedent in our history for a (limited) right to keep arms.
3. Because the USA and Canada are very much alike, and positive things about the "gun culture" in the USA are also positive things in Canada.....and vice-versa.
4. Because there are a lot of Americans on the site.
5. Because we're jealous.
No. 4 - There are Americans on this site. I don't see the relevance to posting US media articles with no Canadian content or reference.
No. 5 - Jealous? You speak for yourself of course
.
Nos 1, 2 & 3: The article discussed none of these things; The US Second Amendment (mentioned but not explained or discussed), Canadian precedents on a right to bear arms (not mentioned), or 'positive things about "gun culture" in Canada' (not mentioned).
No. 4 - There are Americans on this site. I don't see the relevance to posting US media articles with no Canadian content or reference.
No. 5 - Jealous? You speak for yourself of course
The positive things about gun culture in Canada are largely the same as they are in the USA........aside from the revolution they fought, and on the street self-defense.
Discussion of the US right to keep and bear in comparison to Canada has been a major source of discussion throughout the thread, not just in that one article.
Yeah, I am jealous of freedom. As I've said a hundred times on this thread, I have no problem whatsoever with background checks, safety training, and subsequent llicensing, nor with classification of guns into different groups requiring different levels of training, or with the ban on full autos......but all the rest is BS. Simple harassment. And there is tons of it.
Go back to the first of the thread, and read the first posts, and all else springs from that.
BTW, don't bother trying to keep the forum organized in neat little sections..........it would be like trying to herd 1.000 cats.
Good luck.
Hell, they just had an argument about socialized medicine and MRIs on THIS thread. Way it goes, free wheeling conversation.
Hmmm.. I did look there and I see it was yourself, Colpy, that opened the topic and got into the America vs Canada gun thing right away; in fact that was what your post was all about.
Sorry, I only recently joined the forums: The subject heading caught my interest. (It didn't mention America by the way.) Seeing the thread ran to almost 400 pages I went straight to the end just to see what folks were saying recently.
Well you & I obviously have grossly divergent attitudes & opinions about gun laws. I don't think either of us is going to change much. There are many facets to the subject, but I really only care about how we deal with it in Canada.
I may post more about it in due course - or maybe not. But it's Canada I care about. The only concern I have with American law is when they want to impose it on other countries.
Be safe
.Well................................the lines are RATHER BLURRED HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets recall that Tecumsehbonesforbrains is very fond of talking through his headress and lying about police issues that occurred in United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And we should also note that T-bonesforbrains is a resident of Washington D.C. and thus not really qualified to spend so much time telling LIES on a CDN FORUM ABOUT CDN issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The automatic gives me a lot more ammo before reloading and a much lighter trigger, but I think if I was going into anything serious, I'd take the revolver. As a friend of mine says, "A revolver is stupid simple. It won't misfire because it CAN'T misfire."
Hard to say. I keep some premium ammo around as combat loads, but the stuff I take to the range is the cheap stuff, so I tend to get stovepipes, light taps, and primer failures about one shot in fifty.
And there's the sheer intimidation factor of that honkin' big-ass ol' hawgleg.
And we should note for the record that all the smart sperm your daddy shot slid down your mama's ass crack.
I'm a Maryland resident, you brain-damaged Canuck.
Yeah, I never cared for revolvers, and only ever owned a Blackhawk thumb=buster in .357 Mag with a 6 1/2 inch barrel.
My Baby was my Browning High Power.........now that's a pistol.
But I changed my mind once I started carrying revolvers on the job. Were I able to carry today, I go with a tuned K frame 4" .38 Special, and good +P 125 gr JHP.
I had one. Sweet, sweet pistol. I sold it because, to my eternal shame, I was better with a Glock 19.My Baby was my Browning High Power.........now that's a pistol.
Good weapon, excellent ammo. I like the .357 because it gives me a little more punch, and because it uses the same ammo as my Marlin 1894 carbine. So I take 'em to the range together, without having to mess around with ammo. One box for both. Same reason I have a Kel-tec SUB-2000 carbine in .40 Glock. Uses the same ammo and even takes the same clips as my Glock 24.
Got a confession to make, though. Thinking of giving up the cowboy guns and getting AR frames in 5.56, 7.62, and .450 Bushmaster. I just like the AR frame. I don't have to cock my head so far over to get a good sight picture, and I don't have to lift the elbow on my trigger hand to get a good grip. Being as most of my shooting was military with M-16s and M-4s, it just feels weird to crank my elbow up that high and lean my head over that far. Plus, if the gun-grabbers completely outlaw the AR frame, they'll grandfather weapons already owned, so better to do it soon.
I know, they're gonna take away my John Wayne card.
Yeah.
Here, ARs can only be used on the range, just like a pistol. Pain in the ass. As for your John Wayne card, what else would he be carrying in 2019?
I would carry the .38 because I shoot .38 Special better than I shoot .357 Magnum, and hits are what counts. As well, I have a much-appreciated S&W 686-6...........and it is much heavier. (the Ruger SA I referred to was the only revolver I owned before I started carrying)