How do you mess up good Canadian gun laws? Ask the Liberals

[captain morgan]

One of the great things about buddy is that he believes that by putting someone on ignore, that it makes any difference.

He surrounds himself with only the opinions and ideas that are identical to his and thus, he and the usual suspects are nothing more than enablers for each other in the realm of living in a fantasy.

 

[Murphy]

But the problem with that is everyone else read the posts that he ignores. So the opinions or facts expressed by those on his ignore list come through loud and clear.

He reads most of the ignored posts anyway. I answer him so that he thinks he's getting attention. The truth is, he has no credibility. He's destroyed what little he had by pretending to be the resident expert on any subject or thread in which he posts. :lol:

Flossy craves attention, as does his buddy Waldo.

[youtube]MAgfPHP1w0I[/youtube]

 

[Colpy]

only egotists who have installed themselves as firearms experts would even care

That "only" includes the vast majority of two million licensed gun owners, any one of which is a whole lot brighter than you, obviously.

Oh, and you could probably include their families as well.

 

[White_Unifier]

My basic view is as follows?

Morally, I think it best for a person to not acquire a weapon except when essential (such as for sport or defense of self or others).

Politically, I don't care enough about it to ban weapons. So I guess that comes down to as long as the state doesn't force me to own or carry a weapon except when essential (such as in an employment contract if I became a police officer, in military conscription in times of war, etc.), then I'm happy with it.

That said, if ever Canada became the war zone that is the USA, then I would appreciate the state banning weapons for all non-essential purposes at least in certain zones. For example, let's say it decide to adopt a policy comparable to England's or Singapore's within one kilometre of any riverbank but otherwise adopt a policy comparable to that of the USA elsewhere, I guess I could accept that.

That way, those who prefer to live in a comparably more gun-free zone could do so while the rest could just move a few neighbourhoods away to buy a weapon.

 

[pgs]

My basic view is as follows?

Morally, I think it best for a person to not acquire a weapon except when essential (such as for sport or defense of self or others).

Politically, I don't care enough about it to ban weapons. So I guess that comes down to as long as the state doesn't force me to own or carry a weapon except when essential (such as in an employment contract if I became a police officer, in military conscription in times of war, etc.), then I'm happy with it.

That said, if ever Canada became the war zone that is the USA, then I would appreciate the state banning weapons for all non-essential purposes at least in certain zones. For example, let's say it decide to adopt a policy comparable to England's or Singapore's within one kilometre of any riverbank but otherwise adopt a policy comparable to that of the USA elsewhere, I guess I could accept that.

That way, those who prefer to live in a comparably more gun-free zone could do so while the rest could just move a few neighbourhoods away to buy a weapon.

Well your view is flawed from the opening statement. Is a hunting rifle a weapon ? If I as a hunter have never used my rifle for any reason other then harvesting meat , why is my gun a weapon ? Are your kitchen knives weapons ?

 

[White_Unifier]

Well your view is flawed from the opening statement. Is a hunting rifle a weapon ? If I as a hunter have never used my rifle for any reason other then harvesting meat , why is my gun a weapon ? Are your kitchen knives weapons ?

Good points. A hunting rifle could be seen as sports equipment. A kitchen knife could be seen as a utensil. A sword could be viewed as martial-arts equipment, so again, sports equipment.

So I guess even in a weapon=free zone, we'd still need to allow for a broad interpretation of what might be essential.

 

[Hoid]

That "only" includes the vast majority of two million licensed gun owners, any one of which is a whole lot brighter than you, obviously.

Oh, and you could probably include their families as well.

Yes but not the RCMP

They know nothing.

 

[taxslave]

My basic view is as follows?

Morally, I think it best for a person to not acquire a weapon except when essential (such as for sport or defense of self or others).

Politically, I don't care enough about it to ban weapons. So I guess that comes down to as long as the state doesn't force me to own or carry a weapon except when essential (such as in an employment contract if I became a police officer, in military conscription in times of war, etc.), then I'm happy with it.

That said, if ever Canada became the war zone that is the USA, then I would appreciate the state banning weapons for all non-essential purposes at least in certain zones. For example, let's say it decide to adopt a policy comparable to England's or Singapore's within one kilometre of any riverbank but otherwise adopt a policy comparable to that of the USA elsewhere, I guess I could accept that.

That way, those who prefer to live in a comparably more gun-free zone could do so while the rest could just move a few neighbourhoods away to buy a weapon.

Do you seriously think criminals are going to obey that law?

Yes but not the RCMP

They know nothing.

More like they have their own agenda which isn't necessarily in anyone else's best interests.