Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,208
9,451
113
Washington DC
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

LOL!!

Perhaps I should be nicer to the puppy....maybe a scratch behind the ears?

Might I suggest "presumptuous cretin" or "crude varlet?"

You got 'em on the run, Colpy. Just remember the ancient Anglo-Canadian right to effective self defence. That's an even better argument than the 2nd Amendment.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

LOL!!

Perhaps I should be nicer to the puppy....maybe a scratch behind the ears?

Every forum seems to infested with two or three malignant trolls. I guess that I just stumbled on one or two of them.

Big surprise that its on a thread about gun control. That is one of the rocks under which the bullying types hide.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

Every forum seems to infested with two or three malignant trolls. I guess that I just stumbled on one or two of them.

Big surprise that its on a thread about gun control. That is one of the rocks under which the bullying types hide.

Sonny, here is a life's lesson for you.

If you do not want to be treated like an a$$, do not behave like one.

You came on here mounted on a high horse, insinuating that the peasants who believed they actually possessed ancient rights were merely weak-minded barbarians fallen under the influence of some evil American ideal.

You were wrong on so many levels........

However, you demonstrated quite effectively that typical "progressive" characteristic of equal parts ignorance of the facts and excessive arrogance.

I corrected you, you didn't bother to address the facts, as you were shown in error. Instead, you attempted to insult my experience and knowledge by calling me a child.

I corrected you yet again, and now you are crying about being bullied.

Grow up. Grow a brain. Develop some manners. Find some humility, and you will find me quite pleasant to talk with.

Until then, fvck you. I don't have the time, nor the desire, nor the patience to be constantly changing your diapers, intellectually speaking.
 
Last edited:

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

Gee Whiz!! They came here to talk!!! The HORROR that Canadians might be exposed to a foreign IDEA!!!!!!

You'll have to do better than that. They have no involvement in Canada, in fact their constitution forbids them spending money outside the USA.

you said the NRA has no involvement in Canada... and you just repeated that in the face of the linked article that confirms the NRA actively engaged in working with gunners for over a decade to help repeal the gun registry.

What are you talking about?

in regards the comment made about a fear in "persons" gaining coercive power, you offered up a curt "too late" comment. I simply asked you to clarify what coercive power you're fearful of? I'll ask again.

The principle of the right to keep and bear arms is an English construct, not an American one. It existed in English common law before the Magna Carta, and was recognized in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, 100 years before the US Bill of Rights was written. As subjects of the Crown, the idea comes to us directly from our constitutional history, totally apart from US history.

We'll let you digest that for awhile. I know it must be a shock.

BFD! Your "English construct" means diddly. As you've been instructed many times over, Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"... no matter how many times you presume to tap that "English construct".

The American murder rate is currently 4.5 per 100,000 (2013). It has fallen 50% in the past 20 years, as gun laws became looser, not stricter.

same ole, same ole nonsense of yours. If you're going to speak to "gun laws" why do you incessantly reference murder rates instead of gun-related violence, gun-related murders and gun-related deaths? And... per your way, per your consistent way, you refuse to provide a more comprehensive accounting as to why "murder rates"... or "gun-related murder rates" (which you refuse to speak to) are down. That is to say, you categorically refuse to acknowledge the influences that modern medical advances and improved trauma care have meant to murder/gun-murder rates... as in, with these advances, many incidents that previously would have been murders are now shifted into the non-fatality category. But hey, you sure can keep repeating that "gun laws became looser, not stricter" gunner talking point, can't you?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

The above post proves you have absolutely no clue about the firearms community in Canada.

You should probably stay the hell out of conversations on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about.

If you want to be taught, ask nicely.

Too bad waldo won't heed that advice. Then he would have nothing to say.

Every forum seems to infested with two or three malignant trolls. I guess that I just stumbled on one or two of them.

Big surprise that its on a thread about gun control. That is one of the rocks under which the bullying types hide.

All of whom are anti gun. Funny that.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

you said the NRA has no involvement in Canada... and you just repeated that in the face of the linked article that confirms the NRA actively engaged in working with gunners for over a decade to help repeal the gun registry.

And I stand by that.

If the President visits Canada, and speaks to parliament, is he involved in Canadian politics?

No.

It is a simple speech.

Same as individuals coming here to speak to the CSSA or the NFA.

Without the expenditure of resources, I do not think you can accuse the NRA of "involvement" in the Canadian struggle.

in regards the comment made about a fear in "persons" gaining coercive power, you offered up a curt "too late" comment. I simply asked you to clarify what coercive power you're fearful of? I'll ask again.

I was kidding TB....as an Indian, his people have lived under "coercive power(s)" since 1492.

The crack had nothing to do with you.

BFD! Your "English construct" means diddly. As you've been instructed many times over, Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"... no matter how many times you presume to tap that "English construct".

Yeah, actually we do.

I love how you depend on your elitist masters to define your clearly set out rights.

You really should learn to think for yourself, and not depend on others so much.

same ole, same ole nonsense of yours. If you're going to speak to "gun laws" why do you incessantly reference murder rates instead of gun-related violence, gun-related murders and gun-related deaths? And... per your way, per your consistent way, you refuse to provide a more comprehensive accounting as to why "murder rates"... or "gun-related murder rates" (which you refuse to speak to) are down. That is to say, you categorically refuse to acknowledge the influences that modern medical advances and improved trauma care have meant to murder/gun-murder rates... as in, with these advances, many incidents that previously would have been murders are now shifted into the non-fatality category. But hey, you sure can keep repeating that "gun laws became looser, not stricter" gunner talking point, can't you?

Because, as I have explained to you ad nauseum, if you can not show that gun control stops murders, then you can not convince any rational person of the necessity to limit the freedom to keep arms.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca

Newfie's can't shoot straight.. LOL

What's going on in Northern Canada.. chewing on too much blubber.
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

i care less and less about gun control, better for everyone to kill themselves off. give everyone guns, abolish laws completely.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

Too bad waldo won't heed that advice. Then he would have nothing to say.

troll away lil' drive-by arteeest taxi, troll away!

And I stand by that.

Without the expenditure of resources, I do not think you can accuse the NRA of "involvement" in the Canadian struggle.

no - the whole intent of the NRA was to help ensure the demise of the Canadian long-gun registry... how selective and self-serving of you to provide a most narrow interpretation of "resources"! :mrgreen:


Yeah, actually we do.

I love how you depend on your elitist masters to define your clearly set out rights.

You really should learn to think for yourself, and not depend on others so much
.

oh my! That Canadian Supreme Court ruling that declares Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"... that ruling really rubs ya, hey! So... are the SCOC justices only "elitist masters" in the case of rulings you don't care for? What do you label those SCOC justices for rulings you agree with, for rulings that you accept?

Because, as I have explained to you ad nauseum, if you can not show that gun control stops murders, then you can not convince any rational person of the necessity to limit the freedom to keep arms.

you have absolutely NO STANDING in this debate when you categorically refuse to speak to gun-related violence, gun-related murders and gun-related deaths. When you purposely isolate yourself to the broad catch-all "murders at large"... while attempting to leverage those related stats directly with/to gun laws, gun policies, gun regulations... with/to anything but gun-related violence/murders/deaths, you have NO STANDING in the debate!
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

no - the whole intent of the NRA was to help ensure the demise of the Canadian long-gun registry... how selective and self-serving of you to provide a most narrow interpretation of "resources"! :mrgreen:

As I asked before; if the PM of India comes to Canada to speak, is he "involved" in Canadian politics?

The NRA spent not a cent in Canada. They are not "involved" in the debate.

Although I would have no problem if they were involved. They are an honourable and respected civil rights organization.

oh my! That Canadian Supreme Court ruling that declares Canadians do not have a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"... that ruling really rubs ya, hey! So... are the SCOC justices only "elitist masters" in the case of rulings you don't care for? What do you label those SCOC justices for rulings you agree with, for rulings that you accept?

Now you are starting to get it!

The Supreme Court is simply wrong on this, as it has been wrong on so many other things.

The justices (or at least the majority) do not understand the basics of individual rights. They proved that in the Whatcott decidsion.

The Canadian Charter is a useless....nay a counter-productive document that does not protect our rights, it enshrines methods to destroy our rights.

you have absolutely NO STANDING in this debate when you categorically refuse to speak to gun-related violence, gun-related murders and gun-related deaths. When you purposely isolate yourself to the broad catch-all "murders at large"... while attempting to leverage those related stats directly with/to gun laws, gun policies, gun regulations... with/to anything but gun-related violence/murders/deaths, you have NO STANDING in the debate!

Tell you what, we'll let the people that read this decide which of us has "standing" in the debate.

You certainly do not get to decide the matter.

Once again, if gun laws do not prevent murder, they are useless.

Dead is dead. Shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, garroted, kicked to death, hatcheted, poisoned, drowned in a bathtub, set on fire, run over, beaten to death, hit over the head with a rock, pushed off a cliff, cut into little bits with a chainsaw, smothered with a pillow, flayed with a chain, strangled, slashed etc etc etc..........dead is dead, and unless you can show the lack of guns in a society prevents people from simply switching weapons and killing anyway, you have not shown that gun control is effective.

Your obsession with guns is really quite unhealthy. :).
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

Maybe he will go postal to prove that nutbars should not be permitted to own guns. But wait we already have a law about that. Guess he will have to use an illegal firearm.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

What's up with Colpy's stalker starting blogs with Colpy's writings?
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??

Not sure where this wingnut from Morocco came from, his little 'blog' or the FB page either.

I just find it quicker and easier to ban this clown and duct tape this thread closed as I'm a very busy man.


 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
An old writing on the importance of a free citizenry and Second Amendment rights:



Never Forget The Principles That Undergird The American Revolution


Never Forget The Principles That Undergird The American Revolution - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel



July 3, 1994 | By Charley Reese of The Sentinel Staff

May I suggest that Americans form Committees for the Defense of the Revolution? Our revolution, that is.

Most Americans have forgotten our revolutionary heritage. They tend to think of it, if at all, as nothing but a war to break loose from the British empire. It was a lot more than that.



The basic principles of the American Revolution were stated eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. The first is that human beings are all born free and endowed by God with rights that precede the establishment of government. That is the defining belief of an American.

It's important to understand that. Many people today think of rights as something granted by government, but that's wrong. Whatever government grants, by implication, it may withdraw or refuse to grant. Such a thing is a privilege, not a right. A right is permanent and may not legitimately be taken away or abridged by government.

The second great principle of the American Revolution was that the sole purpose for which men created governments (note, God creates men and rights; men create governments) was to protect and preserve their rights.

From this flows the logical premise that the primary purpose of government is not to provide economic benefits or privileges but to protect the liberty of the people. From this flows the logical premise that the relationship between government and people is that of servant and master - not the reverse, as many politicians and bureaucrats assume it is today.

The third great principle is that when a government, rather than protecting and preserving rights, becomes abusive of those rights, then the people have the right and the duty to overthrow it and to replace it with another.

This is not interpretation on my part. The Declaration is as explicit and clear as sunshine on these three points. Naturally, politicians and bureaucrats and those people addicted to the slave mentality do not feel comfortable reminding people that they have the right and the duty to overthrow a government that abuses them.

Not only does the Declaration state this explicitly as a major principle, but the signers of the Declaration were in the process of doing exactly that - overthrowing a government that they deemed had become abusive of their God-given rights.

Another reason modern politicians dislike reminding people about the Declaration and our Revolution is because, when you understand the revolutionary principles, the Constitution becomes clear.

The meaning of the Second Amendment, for example, which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, is perfectly clear when read in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence. If people are sovereign, if people have a right to overthrow an abusive government, then no government must ever be allowed to disarm the people.

To read the Second Amendment as that gaggle of lying elitists in the gun-control mob want you to - that it merely guarantees a government army for the states - is ludicrous and contradictory. It is crystal clear - and there is a growing body of scholarly work that supports this view - that the Second Amendment not only guarantees individual rights to keep and bear arms, it means by arms military-style weapons.


These revolutionaries were not concerned that a government might interfere with duck hunters. They were concerned that people would always be armed so that, if necessary, they could revolt against the government, overthrow it and replace it with a better one. That's what they were doing when they wrote the Declaration, and that's what they had just done when they adopted the Constitution.

Read your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution together and you will see they make a perfect fit. Let us not forget our Revolutionary heritage. The alternative is some form of slavery.







And this buttresses my argument in the Baltimore thread that this is the solution to police suppression of the people:











We lost Charley Reese a couple of years ago - can't say I always agreed with him but he was a good hearted man, very patriotic, and highly principled. A true American hero in many ways.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
An old writing on the importance of a free citizenry and Second Amendment rights:



Never Forget The Principles That Undergird The American Revolution


Never Forget The Principles That Undergird The American Revolution - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel



July 3, 1994 | By Charley Reese of The Sentinel Staff

May I suggest that Americans form Committees for the Defense of the Revolution? Our revolution, that is.

Most Americans have forgotten our revolutionary heritage. They tend to think of it, if at all, as nothing but a war to break loose from the British empire. It was a lot more than that.



The basic principles of the American Revolution were stated eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. The first is that human beings are all born free and endowed by God with rights that precede the establishment of government. That is the defining belief of an American.

It's important to understand that. Many people today think of rights as something granted by government, but that's wrong. Whatever government grants, by implication, it may withdraw or refuse to grant. Such a thing is a privilege, not a right. A right is permanent and may not legitimately be taken away or abridged by government.

The second great principle of the American Revolution was that the sole purpose for which men created governments (note, God creates men and rights; men create governments) was to protect and preserve their rights.

From this flows the logical premise that the primary purpose of government is not to provide economic benefits or privileges but to protect the liberty of the people. From this flows the logical premise that the relationship between government and people is that of servant and master - not the reverse, as many politicians and bureaucrats assume it is today.

The third great principle is that when a government, rather than protecting and preserving rights, becomes abusive of those rights, then the people have the right and the duty to overthrow it and to replace it with another.

This is not interpretation on my part. The Declaration is as explicit and clear as sunshine on these three points. Naturally, politicians and bureaucrats and those people addicted to the slave mentality do not feel comfortable reminding people that they have the right and the duty to overthrow a government that abuses them.

Not only does the Declaration state this explicitly as a major principle, but the signers of the Declaration were in the process of doing exactly that - overthrowing a government that they deemed had become abusive of their God-given rights.

Another reason modern politicians dislike reminding people about the Declaration and our Revolution is because, when you understand the revolutionary principles, the Constitution becomes clear.

The meaning of the Second Amendment, for example, which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, is perfectly clear when read in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence. If people are sovereign, if people have a right to overthrow an abusive government, then no government must ever be allowed to disarm the people.

To read the Second Amendment as that gaggle of lying elitists in the gun-control mob want you to - that it merely guarantees a government army for the states - is ludicrous and contradictory. It is crystal clear - and there is a growing body of scholarly work that supports this view - that the Second Amendment not only guarantees individual rights to keep and bear arms, it means by arms military-style weapons.


These revolutionaries were not concerned that a government might interfere with duck hunters. They were concerned that people would always be armed so that, if necessary, they could revolt against the government, overthrow it and replace it with a better one. That's what they were doing when they wrote the Declaration, and that's what they had just done when they adopted the Constitution.

Read your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution together and you will see they make a perfect fit. Let us not forget our Revolutionary heritage. The alternative is some form of slavery.







And this buttresses my argument in the Baltimore thread that this is the solution to police suppression of the people:











We lost Charley Reese a couple of years ago - can't say I always agreed with him but he was a good hearted man, very patriotic, and highly principled. A true American hero in many ways.

Good article....but do I need to point out that Michael Brown got justice?
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Suspected home intruder shot dead in Boulder Monday night



BOULDER, Colo. - Update: Intruder had banged on other homes before he was shot & killed by resident on Pima Court in Boulder. Read more here.

Previous story: Boulder Police say a suspected home intruder was shot and killed Monday night by a resident of a house on Pima Court.

Boulder Police Cmdr. Tom Trujillo said it happened at 8:40 p.m., at 98 Pima Court, near Highway 36 and Foothills Parkway.

"A male broke through the front glass door and was confronted by a person in the home," Trujillo said. "The male was shot and died at the scene."

Mitchell Byars, a reporter for our partners at the Daily Camera, said a man was seen being taken away from the house with paper bags over his hands. This is typically done to preserve forensic evidence.

Trujillo said there were at least two people in the house at the time of the shooting and both were cooperating with police.

Colorado's "Make My Day" law allows homeowners to shoot home invaders, if they feel their lives -- or the lives of anyone in the house -- are at risk, but that determination has to be made by the local district attorney.

source: Suspected home intruder shot dead in Boulder Monday night - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

.........

‪#‎ArmedCitizen‪#‎GoodGuyWithAGun‬ ‪#‎GunsSaveLives