It is not that simple. I have been trustworthy with firearms for my entire life. If someone was to insist that I own an illegal gun, I would be no less trustworthy that I am now. It is just a piece of metal. It doesn't corrupt the values that I already have.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
It is not that simple. I have been trustworthy with firearms for my entire life. If someone was to insist that I own an illegal gun, I would be no less trustworthy that I am now. It is just a piece of metal. It doesn't corrupt the values that I already have.
You have a point, one that I agree with to an extent. My comment above was premised on the assumption that your government has sensible gun laws, which yours (and my state government) does not have at the moment.
I struggle with how a sensible gun law or non sensible gun law would influence my values as a lawful responsible gun owner. And, I am not alone.
There is what....89,000 lawful responsible gun owners that own AR-15s. They owned them when they were legal and they now have owned them for several months while they are illegal. Yet, are they not still as trustworthy and law abiding as they were this time last year? Where is the evidence that suggests that illegal guns corrupt the law abiding?
Hmmm...I know a guy that beat an impaired driving charge because the officer asked him to get back into the vehicle and drive it to a side street. "If he was drunk, why did you let him drive?"
In about 2 years time, the government is going to say 'turn in your AR-15s boys because you can't be trusted with them' well if that is the case then why the **** did you let them have them for 2 years, and why the **** won't you recognize that not one of them committed a crime with them?
In about 2 years time, the government is going to say 'turn in your AR-15s boys because you can't be trusted with them' well if that is the case then why the **** did you let them have them for 2 years, and why the **** won't you recognize that not one of them committed a crime with them?
I figure if you had sensible gun laws, ones that forbade people with criminal records and documented mental-health issues from owning guns, and otherwise left people alone, you wouldn't own an illegal gun (which, under those circumstances, would be a very narrow category) because you would have confidence in the justice and propriety of your gun-law system.
Sadly, that is not the case, as we both know.
I've said before, and you may agree or disagree as you like, that I would support banning or tightly restricting civilian ownership of semi-automatic guns that are capable of accepting detachable box magazines, simply on the basis of how destructive they can be if stolen by criminals, or if the owner goes nuts.
BUT, that position applies ONLY if the jurisdiction does it as part of a sensible system of gun laws that respects the rights of people to own guns. And you will note that my class of banned guns goes way beyond one particular design to an entire class that all share the same characteristic, i.e., an incredibly high capacity/rate of fire.
Anything else is sheer "ugly gun" hysteria, a con job perpetrated by the dishonest upon the ignorant.
Last edited:
You'll note, James, that though I'm partially disagreeing with you, I'm also giving you greenies. That's because I'm unsure of the validity of my position, and because it's so full of qualifications that don't apply in the here and now that I realize it's fairly futile anyhow. Always willing to discuss it, but please remember that I'm well aware of how far my whole framework is from the reality in contemporary Canadian (and some U.S. state) politics.
Your gun laws (and many of ours) are stupid and useless as they stand. Worse, they erode the confidence of good, responsible, law-abiding people in the validity and value of the laws in general. That is an active harm that your current gun hysteria is doing to your (and my) society.
Your gun laws (and many of ours) are stupid and useless as they stand. Worse, they erode the confidence of good, responsible, law-abiding people in the validity and value of the laws in general. That is an active harm that your current gun hysteria is doing to your (and my) society.
De Minimis Non Curat Lex
If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked.'
If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked.'
When you have 89000 lawful AR-15 owners in Canada never killing anyone in 30 years, if this was allowed to continue it would weigh little on the public interest.
I knew that, but thanks for the check. I keep crossing over between your laws and ours, which in some cases are even more ridiculous. Example: Maryland bans the sale or purchase of clips above ten rounds. Which means I have to hop in my car and drive six whole miles to Virginia, where I can buy high-capacity clips to my heart's content, and bring them back into Maryland, legal as church on Sunday.
Sheer craziness.
Obviously , it worked so well when the follower of the peaceful religion demonstrated his faith in Montreal .
And those are compelling arguments,if you weren’t so arrogant , condescending and down right rude on so many other threads others might give your opinions more credence.Clearly.
We've been through this. I own this. . .
functionally identical to this:
Both are 5.56 x 45 mm, semi-automatic rifles with 16-inch barrels, capable of accepting box magazines of up to 40 rounds and drums of up to 100 rounds. They use the same magazines. Only difference is #2 has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.
Maryland sharply limits what AR-15 types and models one can own, so I own an AR-10. Completely unrestricted, and as you know, at 7.62 x 51 mm, vastly more likely to kill with a single shot than the 5.56 x 45 mm AR-15.
It's very simple. Liberal politicians as a breed know little to nothing about guns, which is also true of their supporters. So they're comfortable with wooden-stock rifles of the type they see in old movies, and afraid of the scary black guns. They neither know nor are interested in finding out the real differences in rate of fire, speed of reloading, and deadliness of ammo. They can ban certain classes of guns, and crack down on legal, safe gun owners, and go back to their constituents claiming a "real victory against gun violence" that somehow fails to show up in the gun crime statistics.
I've laid out on a few occasions a set of gun restrictions that would seriously reduce gun harm by professional criminals, people who go nuts out of nowhere, and be a pretty serious inconvenience to responsible, legal gun owners. Nobody's interested because nobody cares. It's all a show. It neither has, nor is intended to have, any effect other than swaying the ignorant. It's a culture wars thing.
As such, it's not only a violation of the right of law-abiding, peaceful citizens to be left the hell alone, it won't do anything significant about gun violence.
BTW, I also own a bolt-action, two lever-actions, and two revolvers, anticipating the day Maryland gets enough hysteria to go after semi-autos as a class. With nine up the tube of my carbine and eight in the cylinder of my revolver, and speed-loaders, I could still kill a whole bunch of people if I was minded to.
You do good work here. I think you sway a few fence-sitters, and keep gun owners aware of the silliness of Canada's current gun control charade.
And when you use the same pragmatic attitude to discuss other issues you are well received .Imagine that .
F-k you too . You have now yesterday nor any other day have nothing to say . A sad product of Canadian education . Never had a drain no smoke joint or aspirin wants to discuss life . F. U.