Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
How does that go again.....?
When the People fears the Government.....you have Tyranny!
When the Government fears the People......you have Democracy!
When the People fears the Government.....you have Tyranny!
When the Government fears the People......you have Democracy!
Ahhh, but as I keep telling people....we DO!
The Constitution Act of 1982 does not in any way reduce or eliminate the rights and priviledges that we inherited through English common law.......and that includes a declared right to keep and bear arms "as allowed by law"....but it IS a right, and it IS declared to be "for....defense". Look up the English Bill of Rights
To keep ourselves free.
In many ways, it is more the attitude of the armed citizen that is desirable, rather than the ability to defeat tyranny....although that is a factor.
An armed man has a completely different sense about himself and his place in society.......a good man carries with his arms a sense responsibility, an inherent confidence, a directness, a sense of his own independence, a feeling that is inherent in the knowledge that he can not be coerced with impunity.
Ask anyone, armed people are stubborn people. I think the refusal of the firearms community to bow to 15 years of pressure by gov't idiots is ample evidence of that!
And that is extremely healthy in a society that increasingly believes it has a right to involve itself in every single aspect of life.........To say nothing of the fact that a heavily armed citizenry makes the gov't think twice........
And then we get into the right of self-defense....which no one (I hope0 would argue exists....but is largely irrelevant if we are not allowed the tools for the job.
And for the same reason Unforgiven thinks he should be allowed to spark up.....it is simply none of the gov't's business to interfere with normal behaviour.....something they long since seem to have forgotten.
Okay, but you're forgetting some pretty important points here..
1.) Guns can get into the wrong hands and hurt people
2.) You don't need guns to defend yourself due to improbability alone
3.) There are plenty of mockups that will make you feel just as manly
4.) In a fight between you and these guys... you won't win..
So, if we're going to consider the well being of others and the sanctity of our own lives - it doesn't look like guns are going to help much.
In fact there is a much higher probability they will do harm rather than help.
Why would you endorse hurting your Canadian neighbours?
Therefore, we have a right to keep and bear arms as allowed by law, which means restrictions, limitations, and registrations as defined by law.
And we also have the right to protest those laws by any and all non violent means at our dispoasal, unless physicaly attacked.
Okay, but you're forgetting some pretty important points here..
1.) Guns can get into the wrong hands and hurt people
2.) You don't need guns to defend yourself due to improbability alone
3.) There are plenty of mockups that will make you feel just as manly
4.) In a fight between you and these guys... you won't win..
So, if we're going to consider the well being of others and the sanctity of our own lives - it doesn't look like guns are going to help much.
In fact there is a much higher probability they will do harm rather than help.
Why would you endorse hurting your Canadian neighbours?
You've spent far too long in the nanny-state culture.....
First of all, the "bad guys" will always get guns. Fact of life. ask any Jamaican street punk on Jane and Finch....that's probably carrying a Glock 9mm that I can't afford...lol.
Secondly, it is practically unheard of for a gun to hurt somebody........and even for that to happen they must have been misused. People attack people. I have never seen a gun load, aim, and fire itself.......
Third.....I carried guns to defend myself for years. The police carry guns to defend themselves. What exactly makes them a higher classification of citizen than I???? Because that is the only explanation possible in their being armed, and my being disarmed......
Fourth....man, you are just like the guy that wrote in the Globe that hunting should be illegal and hunters should just play hunting video games.....you have absolutely no concept of the culture nor the essence of which you speak. Not a clue. Weapons are weapons, mock-ups are TOYS! When I became a man, I put away childish things.
Fifth, wanna bet? I been on the range with a lot of police....
Sixth......if you are trying to restrict my freedom, the onus is on you to prove that my freedom is causing significant damage and cost to society at large....since the imposition of the long gun registry, the murder rate has CLIMBED, then dipped.....but it is not yet back to where it was before the registry was complete. The gov't has failed completely..................
Seventh.....I endorse no harm to my neighbours.....but there is NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RISK.......and the campaign to eliminate risk is incredibly dangerous to our freedom.
Last edited:
I've actually got a few friends from Jane and Finch. And they would laugh themselves to tears by your ridiculous profiling generalization.
P.S. None of them have guns.
That's why we keep them away from people.
There's the guns... *pew pew pew*
And there's the people........................................................................................................................"hello hello!"
Police have a much higher exposure to threat. Statistically speaking, you really don't need to defend yourself because you will have very little exposure to someone who wants to seriously injure you.
Like, duh!
Well so far, you have done nothing to convince me yet that you will get any tangible use for a gun other than boosting your ego. You know viagra apparently works wonders as well.
Fifth, wanna bet? I been on the range with a lot of police....
You let me know a date, time and place. I'll make the call.
You're not the only person that exists silly. If you were the only one with a gun, I might let it slide, but you're part of a group now. A group of people with guns. A big group of people with guns.
And here is the only argument that might change my mind. If this big group of people with guns had free reign of their fire arms, without any control from the government, and I could be assured that it would have no significantly negative impact on the well being of others - I might be convinced to let them have this freedom.
Right. And that freedom is not worth the risk, from what I understand.
Based on your flimsy arguments - you still do not deserve to be armed. *stamps gavel*
Not the way you mean it we don't.
Allowed by law. Important part of that sentence. Not regardless of law, allowed by law. A Bill introduced and making it's way through the levels of legislature, given royal accent is the law part of that sentence. Your rights don't exceed the law.
You are free. Who wants you as a slave anyway?
I'm having my fun and screw you if it kills or injures you isn't the attitude that desirable by any stretch of the imagination. No one is going to be shooting at any Canadian politicians without spending a long time in jail afterwards.
All well and good but that goes for an unarmed man as well. The Charter is the weapon to keep us all free of tyranny
which is why it's such a problem for Harper.
Ask anyone, armed people are stubborn people. I think the refusal of the firearms community to bow to 15 years of pressure by gov't idiots is ample evidence of that!
Yeah like guys who feel it is well within their rights to make their own shooting range that endangers farms.
As I've told you many times before, you don't stand even a slight chance against the police and the military both which are operated by the government to keep order.
Sure I feel everyone is entitled to self defense. But it has to be reasonable. That is the part that you and others don't seem capable of grasping.
Cannabis harms no one. If someone finds my Cannabis the worst thing that could happen is the munchies and a nap.
The same can't be said about your guns. Still I would welcome regulation regarding Cannabis use. As then it would be even more legitimized than it already is.
Not according to the G20 precedent. You can try and protest if you like but the police have it seem, the right to beat your ass, arrest you, lock you up for a few days without identifying themselves, no food no water and make you go to the bathroom in the middle of the room on a bucket without any privacy. Then dump you outside at 3 in the morning and tell you to fu ckoff or their will give you a ticket for loitering.
I suppose there are some who might laugh and say "You deserve it gun nut." but I wouldn't be one of them.
No one that lives or 'hangs' in the Jane and finch corridor, have guns? Or just the couple you know?
Go away.
I might as well debate with my dog as with you.
You long ago exhausted not only my patience, but also any shred of respect I might have had for your opinion, or your intellectual capability, as you refuse to address the facts that do not support your view........
The truth is the registry has been a colossal failure, proven by the fact that the murder rate is now higher than it was eight years ago.
Deal with it.
Slam the gavel all you want....I am armed, and will be armed always. Not a thing you, or anyone else, can do about it.
heh heh Nice debate maneuver. Did you think this one up yourself?
The dog will win also.
"Hello Pot?" "It's Kettle calling."
Murders, accidents and suicide by long guns have been reduced. It's fact, the stats are there to prove that.
Still trying to deal with that dumb ass debate trick you used at the top the the post.
Just abide the law so no one gets hurt.
For what it's worth, I believe Vermont has the most relaxed gun laws in the US while Washington DC has the strictest. It would be interesting to see how Texas stacks up as I'm pretty sure toting a gun is a legal requirement.
Produce them or STFU.
Vermont has a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000.....much lower than Canada.......and has no state gun control laws. Want to carry a handgun? Load it and drop it in your pocket. Assault rifles are fine. No problem. Vermont scores 8 out of a possible 100 on the Brady Scale for gun control.
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center
Washington DC has a murder rate (2009) of 23.8 per 100,000. That is 12 times the Canadian rate, and 20 times the rate in Vermont. Washington has a gun control regimen tougher than Canada's......
From what I can tell, the Brady Campaign doesn't want to talk about DC, which is their showcase of gun laws....lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
Yes, but as Unforgiven said, murders do not necessarily constitute those committed by shooting. Also, you're comparing individual states to an entire country???
Oh, hold on.. sorry, I forgot to translate..
BARK BARK BARK.. BARK.. RUFF.. RUFF RUFF.. BARK BARK BARK
Oh, hold on.. sorry, I forgot to translate..
BARK BARK BARK.. BARK.. RUFF.. RUFF RUFF.. BARK BARK BARK
If a law is found to violate a Charter right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that the law is “rationally connected” to its purpose; that it impairs the right involved “as little as possible”; and that there is a proportionality between the harm done and the good achieved. No impartial judge could find that the Firearmsct licensing and registration requirements satisfy these criteria.
The only issue with a bow is that it is large and noticeable (although I do agree that bows are pretty deadly and I do know how to use one). Chances are you would notice someone aiming a bow at you, as opposed to a small gun, such as a pistol, pulled and fired within 1/2 of a second.