Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
oh snap! You got me :mrgreen: Ok, ok... it's the other document that U.S. gunners (and their Canadian wannabe's) so covet. Please substitute and proceed with my question... please proceed Governor!
I had to reference your post, as Waldo is on my ignore list.
Actually, Waldo IS my ignore list.
can anyone help a bro out here... it seems member Colpy is attempting to claim he hasn't seen my prior post that completely debunks his BullShyte about a Canadian right to bear arms!!! :mrgreen:
.
.
.
Colpy, are you so intimidated by the waldo that you must forever pepper your posts with such a plethora of insults? Are you so lacking in your own position/argument that you can't actually write anything... anything... without such extensive inclusion of gross insults? :mrgreen:
the right to bear arms in Canada - the facts:
- Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398
you're welcome, Colpy... carry on
the right to bear arms in Canada - the facts:
- Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398
"Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited."
- Ontario Court Confirms No Right to Bear Arms in Canada; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal
you're welcome, Colpy... carry on
Do tell.....
Au contraire.....Ian Thomson proved it....
Ian Thomson: Judge rightly acquits man who defended himself with a gun | National Post
Au contraire.....Ian Thomson proved it....
Ian Thomson: Judge rightly acquits man who defended himself with a gun | National Post
Thanks for that article.
Just my opinion, when a term like 'careless manner' is so poorly defined, the courts should look at the intent of the accused. In this case, this was a trained firearms instructor with the intent to store his firearms safely.
Intent is used in other sections of the criminal code. For example, a golf club is just a golf club ( and not a weapon) unless intent to use it as a weapon is present.
Even better, here is the vid: BTW, his porch and wall were on fire:
Professionals are taught NEVER to fire warning shots, for a number of reasons.
I always taught that warning shots should be carefully fired through the centre of the chest.
In other words, if you have reason to shoot, shoot centre mass.
If you have no reason to shoot, hold your fire.
I can't understand, save you like the debate, why you bothered to post this.
Lets face it, arming a bunch of nutbags can't be good. And I'm sure you will agree, if for no other reason than you own self esteem, that the right to defend oneself does't extend to using chem or nukes.
Lets face it, how many people can a nutbag kill with a semi, or fully automatic weapon? Whereas a nuke, or some biological, well hell, a nutbag could kill millions, given the "right" conditions. Obviously, there's a big difference. Still, the right to bear arms..., just in case.
Though you would have to admit, if you had a loved one in Ottawa (for example) and you lived in Victoria (for example), and that loved one was killed by a nutbag with a gun, or by the same nutbag with a nuke, it would't really matter, dead is dead, the how is not overly important.
But change the dynamic, and be honest, how would you feel, if your loved one was one of those mounties in NB, and that nutbag had a knife, instead of a gun, that the probability of your loved one was still alive (in the knife case), well, then yeah it would make a big difference.
But hey, I could be wrong, all of those mounties would have been killed had that nutbag used only a knife. And besides, to prove your point, we have these gun control laws, and still all those mounties got killed by a gun. Which raises the question, why have laws against murder, people still get murdered. Why those rape laws? Women still get raped. Why have laws against robbing banks, they still get robbed. Gee when you think about it, why have laws at all, people still ignore them.
Yup, when thinking about it, you've convinced me.
Lets face it, arming a bunch of nutbags can't be good. And I'm sure you will agree, if for no other reason than you own self esteem, that the right to defend oneself does't extend to using chem or nukes.
Lets face it, how many people can a nutbag kill with a semi, or fully automatic weapon? Whereas a nuke, or some biological, well hell, a nutbag could kill millions, given the "right" conditions. Obviously, there's a big difference. Still, the right to bear arms..., just in case.
Though you would have to admit, if you had a loved one in Ottawa (for example) and you lived in Victoria (for example), and that loved one was killed by a nutbag with a gun, or by the same nutbag with a nuke, it would't really matter, dead is dead, the how is not overly important.
But change the dynamic, and be honest, how would you feel, if your loved one was one of those mounties in NB, and that nutbag had a knife, instead of a gun, that the probability of your loved one was still alive (in the knife case), well, then yeah it would make a big difference.
But hey, I could be wrong, all of those mounties would have been killed had that nutbag used only a knife. And besides, to prove your point, we have these gun control laws, and still all those mounties got killed by a gun. Which raises the question, why have laws against murder, people still get murdered. Why those rape laws? Women still get raped. Why have laws against robbing banks, they still get robbed. Gee when you think about it, why have laws at all, people still ignore them.
Yup, when thinking about it, you've convinced me.
You do use the term in an excessive manner in your post. Sound like you have "nutbag"on your mind. May I suggest you go get laid, and remove "nutbag" from your terminology. :lol:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AETv3WRueQQ
oh my gunnerColpy! Just what are you expecting from Harpo... from the Canadian militiary/police? :mrgreen:
do you ever comment on a subject with anything other than a twaddling piece of one liner drive-by nothingness?
taxi, you felt emboldened enough to drop another of your one-liner drive-by turds given my response to member Colpy in his playing the 'Nazi/Holocaust' card... let me ask you the same question:
"Just what are you expecting from Harpo... from the Canadian militiary/police?'
Ahhhh....couldn't resist a gun spat, had to resurrect Waldo for a bit.....
Of course, I soon learned that Waldo still displays the usual lack of anything faintly resembling critical thought or creative intellect.
For instance: this bit of Waldo stupidity.....not even original, of course, as evidence suggests Waldo has never had an original thought in his entire sorry existence.....but I digress.
Un-huh.
You do not overthrow a government with a pistol.
You create a situation where the gov't can not oppress you with impunity.......it costs to oppress an armed society.
In the event that a gov't proceeds with violent, relentless oppression, you use your pistol to get a rifle, your rifle to get a machine gun, your machine gun to get a rocket launcher, your rocket launcher to get mortars..............then you use your pistols, rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers and mortars to set cities alight.
Ask the Cuban revolutionaries.
Ask the Viet Cong.
Ask the Iranian revolutionaries.
Ask the Taliban.
Ask the Shia militias in Iraq.
Ask Mao Tse Tung, who said : "An armed people can never be oppressed", and then set out to disarm China.
Of course, I soon learned that Waldo still displays the usual lack of anything faintly resembling critical thought or creative intellect.
For instance: this bit of Waldo stupidity.....not even original, of course, as evidence suggests Waldo has never had an original thought in his entire sorry existence.....but I digress.
Un-huh.
You do not overthrow a government with a pistol.
You create a situation where the gov't can not oppress you with impunity.......it costs to oppress an armed society.
In the event that a gov't proceeds with violent, relentless oppression, you use your pistol to get a rifle, your rifle to get a machine gun, your machine gun to get a rocket launcher, your rocket launcher to get mortars..............then you use your pistols, rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers and mortars to set cities alight.
Ask the Cuban revolutionaries.
Ask the Viet Cong.
Ask the Iranian revolutionaries.
Ask the Taliban.
Ask the Shia militias in Iraq.
Ask Mao Tse Tung, who said : "An armed people can never be oppressed", and then set out to disarm China.
as is your way... as is this board's way (aided and abetted by a so-called "moderator")... you can't discuss anything without first throwing a heaping pile of your standard packaged insult.
as for your referenced "original thought", was that graphic you just posted... your "original thought"? Of course not; it's a well worn talking point for all you Gunners, hey Colpy! Original thoughts... from you? You're a freakin' cliche of gunNutz talking points!
like I said/asked Colpy..... "Just what are you expecting from Harpo... from the Canadian militiary/police?"
