In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
This obsession with "self defence", "fighting for your freedom", "fighting for freedom from slavery", "firearms against clubs" seems to dominate throughout the ideas presented so far. They do not stand well with a lot of people....especially to Canadians and many european countries where violence is not the first response to a situation. These somewhat violent visions should not overbear the idea that everyone has a basic human right to privacy, ownership, feeling secure, free thinking etc.
Don't forget, it's the majority (whether it's in the U.S, Canada, Great Britan, Australia or elsewhere) who want to see some kind of ban on firearms. They have been misinformed from the beginning into thinking that it's the firearms that cause violence. Simply saying that you would rather die fighting than relinquishing your firearms is a violent response in itself.
Any violence, whether it is sanctioned or not strikes a negative note to the debat. What should be put forth is the fact that firearms are not associated with violence. The word "firearm" should not be in any way associated to the word "weapon". A firearm is a tool....not a weapon. Yes, it can be used as a weapon but so can a car, a pillow or scissors or fork or hammer or poison or gas or pollution.
Sure;
I understand you guys. 'Violence' is only condoned by you when sanctioned by government.
The Cannuck I can understand..living under Socialism and w hOoreshipping a King or Queen...one can expect that sort of belief.
What I CANNOT understand is an American THINKING THAT WAY.
This country was formed with fire and sword...and destroyed by pissants with suits and ties.
Weapons, you idiots is what the SECOND AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT...WEAPONS
Weapons that can be used to keep a government in check. You don't like that. TOUGH. You and the rest of the anti-gunners.
Just PLEASE STOP RUNNING ABOUT 'teaching' the ignorant your perverted view of the Second Amendment !!
I want a CLEAR distinction between the watered-down, government friendly Second you and the NRA preach...and the REAL Second Amendment.
Whisky Sam,
Do you like to argue just for the sake of argument??[;)]
I keep repeating myself and so do you. Beleive me, I heard you the first time. I understand what you are saying, I once said EXACTLY the same thing you are saying. I have revised my approach and you have not and do not wish or intend to, I understand this, so give it a rest.[|)]
quote:Do you like to argue just for the sake of argument??
I keep repeating myself and so do you. Beleive me, I heard you the first time. I understand what you are saying, I once said EXACTLY the same thing you are saying. I have revised my approach and you have not and do not wish or intend to, I understand this, so give it a rest.
Well, I cannot say the same thing...NEVER ONCE in my life have I said that government has the authority, duty, or powers granted by the Constitution to regulate, make laws concerning, or rules about firearms.
I also do not believe that you EVER said that..not even ONCE in your life.
Contrary to your statement.. I DO understand you.
You are an Anti-Gunner..in the finest tradition of the TrFoxs/NRAs of the world.
From what I can see, there are a few people who think that Canada is a socialist state. I would like to know why they say this? Our laws are almost exactly the same. Our governements are very similar except the fact that in Canada, every citizen has an equal right when it comes to vote. In the U.S., you have those "super voters", states that have more power than other states. Here in Canada, every electoral area has an equal number of voters. Each area has party members and each area votes for the member they want in parliament. This is the same for provincial politics too. Canada was first to let women vote. Canada has never lost a war. Even the one against the U.S. in 1812. Canada has more guns per household than the U.S. The provincial governements do not have more power than the federal governement. Canada's laws are the same throughout the nation. I guess the only socialist thing that Canada has and that americans do not is a free medical system. Other than that, our laws are exactly the same as most of the states in the U.S. We have not enacted any laws permitting the governement to spy on us contrary to the U.S. where the governement may use wiretaps to listen to conversations...that is a socialist act.
Oh yes....before I forget. The Queen of England or any of the future monarchs do not have the least bit of political power in Canada. We do not give them any money either.
quote:Originally posted by rkba4ever
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Sorry, but there is nothing in our bill of rights or our constitution that explictly states that anyone in Canada has the right to own a firearm. Only the native indians have this right.
Owning a firearm in Canada is a privilege. Yes, in Canada you have the right to own a car. Any one in Canada can own a car....even a 1 month old baby or a convict. But owning a firearm is a privilege. You must prove that you merit this privilege. You must take a course and pass an exam and then get a series of signatures from people of good standing that also state that you merit a firearm.
I know this because I worked for the police for 11 years and I was an instructor in gun safety (obligatory course for obtention of a permission to own a firearm).
Native indians do not have to attend any courses or pass an exam.
Governments do not grant rights - they are something you already possess. That they do not allow you to excercise your right I understand, but I also understand that the concept of inalienable rights may be difficult for people to understand as many are still under the illusion that "the government" grants us "rights". This is how they keep us in control, by fooling the masses into believing in the benevolence of governments granting rights to its populace, not the other way around.
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
What you're talking about is not a right but a privilege.
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
What you're talking about is not a right but a privilege.
Yes you are right and that is exactly what the intention of my message was.....owning a firearm is not a right, it's a privilege.
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
What you're talking about is not a right but a privilege.
Yes you are right and that is exactly what the intention of my message was.....owning a firearm is not a right, it's a privilege.
Perhaps in canada.
WE have a solid right to own arms here. Difference being, our reps won't awken and realize such, as it is NO advantage to them.
quote:A "right" is something that cannot be taken away from you.
If a person did have the right to "bear firearms", even inmates could have them.
There are very few basic human rights
You confuse `Rights" with reality.
I can take you money, your wife, your life..and there is little you can do about it. If you believe in God, there is relief there...if not, tough snit. You just lost the entire ballgame.
The reality is...we are required to judge mans' actions here on this earth ..and within certain parameters, the safety of society trumps `my' absolute "Right" to endanger innocent life through `my' stupidity.
While society has the duty to protect itself from the criminally insane, the Founders laid out a basestone for the protection of the entire system...that being the Second Amendment.
We do indeed have nearly absolute Second Amendment Rights..if we have the courage to fight for them.
In politics, in courts...and ultimately, in the streets.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:A "right" is something that cannot be taken away from you.
If a person did have the right to "bear firearms", even inmates could have them.
There are very few basic human rights
You confuse `Rights" with reality.
I can take you money, your wife, your life..and there is little you can do about it. If you believe in God, there is relief there...if not, tough snit. You just lost the entire ballgame.
The reality is...we are required to judge mans' actions here on this earth ..and within certain parameters, the safety of society trumps `my' absolute "Right" to endanger innocent life through `my' stupidity.
While society has the duty to protect itself from the criminally insane, the Founders laid out a basestone for the protection of the entire system...that being the Second Amendment.
We do indeed have nearly absolute Second Amendment Rights..if we have the courage to fight for them.
In politics, in courts...and ultimately, in the streets.
Don't forget to mention all the fighting that is going on behind computer keyboards.
One very reasonable scenario in which the goverment will take guns and supplies is by
1. An 'Element' seizes control of the WH, with cohorts in Congress
2. A terrible event is staged on American soil, blamed on terrorists, and suspects are drawn up (framed)
3. Martial Law is declared, which is justified as necessary to protect the Public
4. Complete control of the media is assumed, and the populace is controlled by manipulating the flow of information
5. Civil liberties are curtailed, house to house searches follow, anybody resisting will be arrested
6. People resisting the Government are labeled terrorists and rounded up
This scenario could very well be enacted within ONE ELECTION CYCLE in todays political climate
H.B. if you are within a thousand miles of my rifles death toll will you be givin to you and I would be happy with you being my god. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
quote:H.B. if you are within a thousand miles of my rifles death toll will you be givin to you and I would be happy with you being my god
Well, Quick...I think perhaps one would have to BE a 'god' to fully understand your statement...and I reckon I miss the grade.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:H.B. if you are within a thousand miles of my rifles death toll will you be givin to you and I would be happy with you being my god
Well, Quick...I think perhaps one would have to BE a 'god' to fully understand your statement...and I reckon I miss the grade.
[:D][:D][:D]Alcohol strikes ol' quack again.
Gibberish written, or as you've said before, I think HB, "baby gabble".[:D][:D][:D]
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Well, Alec411, now that you have established your bonifides, are you going to submit gracefully to the disarming...or are you going to be doing the disarming ?
quote:Originally posted by Alec411
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Alec,
Abuse of methamphetamines has been proven detrimental to your health and well-being.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by Alec411:
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Alec,
Abuse of methamphetamines has been proven detrimental to your health and well-being.
[:D][:D][:D], Snicker, snicker, So I am not alone in that assumption then.
Judging by the content of Alec411's post, i'd surmise we are way past the 'assumption' stage.
I looked to see if a pic was included in his profile, but alas, there was not one to be found. If he would be so kind as to post a photograph, preferably one in which he is smiling, we could confirm our suspicions by a visual examination of his teeth.
If they look like he has been knawing on a crowbar, then I'd say it is safe to say my statement regarding his indulgence in recreational pharmaceuticals is true. [;)]
Comments
Don't forget, it's the majority (whether it's in the U.S, Canada, Great Britan, Australia or elsewhere) who want to see some kind of ban on firearms. They have been misinformed from the beginning into thinking that it's the firearms that cause violence. Simply saying that you would rather die fighting than relinquishing your firearms is a violent response in itself.
Any violence, whether it is sanctioned or not strikes a negative note to the debat. What should be put forth is the fact that firearms are not associated with violence. The word "firearm" should not be in any way associated to the word "weapon". A firearm is a tool....not a weapon. Yes, it can be used as a weapon but so can a car, a pillow or scissors or fork or hammer or poison or gas or pollution.
You don't get it, and you NEVER WILL!! I am sorry you feel this way![xx(]
I understand you guys. 'Violence' is only condoned by you when sanctioned by government.
The Cannuck I can understand..living under Socialism and w hOoreshipping a King or Queen...one can expect that sort of belief.
What I CANNOT understand is an American THINKING THAT WAY.
This country was formed with fire and sword...and destroyed by pissants with suits and ties.
Weapons, you idiots is what the SECOND AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT...WEAPONS
Weapons that can be used to keep a government in check. You don't like that. TOUGH. You and the rest of the anti-gunners.
Just PLEASE STOP RUNNING ABOUT 'teaching' the ignorant your perverted view of the Second Amendment !!
I want a CLEAR distinction between the watered-down, government friendly Second you and the NRA preach...and the REAL Second Amendment.
Do you like to argue just for the sake of argument??[;)]
I keep repeating myself and so do you. Beleive me, I heard you the first time. I understand what you are saying, I once said EXACTLY the same thing you are saying. I have revised my approach and you have not and do not wish or intend to, I understand this, so give it a rest.[|)]
I keep repeating myself and so do you. Beleive me, I heard you the first time. I understand what you are saying, I once said EXACTLY the same thing you are saying. I have revised my approach and you have not and do not wish or intend to, I understand this, so give it a rest.
Well, I cannot say the same thing...NEVER ONCE in my life have I said that government has the authority, duty, or powers granted by the Constitution to regulate, make laws concerning, or rules about firearms.
I also do not believe that you EVER said that..not even ONCE in your life.
Contrary to your statement.. I DO understand you.
You are an Anti-Gunner..in the finest tradition of the TrFoxs/NRAs of the world.
Oh yes....before I forget. The Queen of England or any of the future monarchs do not have the least bit of political power in Canada. We do not give them any money either.
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Sorry, but there is nothing in our bill of rights or our constitution that explictly states that anyone in Canada has the right to own a firearm. Only the native indians have this right.
Owning a firearm in Canada is a privilege. Yes, in Canada you have the right to own a car. Any one in Canada can own a car....even a 1 month old baby or a convict. But owning a firearm is a privilege. You must prove that you merit this privilege. You must take a course and pass an exam and then get a series of signatures from people of good standing that also state that you merit a firearm.
I know this because I worked for the police for 11 years and I was an instructor in gun safety (obligatory course for obtention of a permission to own a firearm).
Native indians do not have to attend any courses or pass an exam.
Governments do not grant rights - they are something you already possess. That they do not allow you to excercise your right I understand, but I also understand that the concept of inalienable rights may be difficult for people to understand as many are still under the illusion that "the government" grants us "rights". This is how they keep us in control, by fooling the masses into believing in the benevolence of governments granting rights to its populace, not the other way around.
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
What you're talking about is not a right but a privilege.
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
What you're talking about is not a right but a privilege.
Yes you are right and that is exactly what the intention of my message was.....owning a firearm is not a right, it's a privilege.
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Do you mean that any criminal with a violent background has the right to buy and own a firearm in the U.S? Here in Canada, the only persons who do not have the right to own a firearm are people with a violent background. Some lose their right for 5 years, others 10 years. After this period of time, they must prove that they no longer have a problem with violence in order for them to be able to own a firearm.
What you're talking about is not a right but a privilege.
Yes you are right and that is exactly what the intention of my message was.....owning a firearm is not a right, it's a privilege.
Perhaps in canada.
WE have a solid right to own arms here. Difference being, our reps won't awken and realize such, as it is NO advantage to them.
quote:Originally posted by Dabluz
Yes you are right and that is exactly what the intention of my message was.....owning a firearm is not a right, it's a privilege.
Perhaps in canada.
WE have a solid right to own arms here. Difference being, our reps won't awken and realize such, as it is NO advantage to them.
Maybe in theory, freemind. Both, de facto and de juro, this right has been reduced to privilege. A LOOOOOONG while ago.
If a person did have the right to "bear firearms", even inmates could have them.
There are very few basic human rights.
If a person did have the right to "bear firearms", even inmates could have them.
There are very few basic human rights
You confuse `Rights" with reality.
I can take you money, your wife, your life..and there is little you can do about it. If you believe in God, there is relief there...if not, tough snit. You just lost the entire ballgame.
The reality is...we are required to judge mans' actions here on this earth ..and within certain parameters, the safety of society trumps `my' absolute "Right" to endanger innocent life through `my' stupidity.
While society has the duty to protect itself from the criminally insane, the Founders laid out a basestone for the protection of the entire system...that being the Second Amendment.
We do indeed have nearly absolute Second Amendment Rights..if we have the courage to fight for them.
In politics, in courts...and ultimately, in the streets.
quote:A "right" is something that cannot be taken away from you.
If a person did have the right to "bear firearms", even inmates could have them.
There are very few basic human rights
You confuse `Rights" with reality.
I can take you money, your wife, your life..and there is little you can do about it. If you believe in God, there is relief there...if not, tough snit. You just lost the entire ballgame.
The reality is...we are required to judge mans' actions here on this earth ..and within certain parameters, the safety of society trumps `my' absolute "Right" to endanger innocent life through `my' stupidity.
While society has the duty to protect itself from the criminally insane, the Founders laid out a basestone for the protection of the entire system...that being the Second Amendment.
We do indeed have nearly absolute Second Amendment Rights..if we have the courage to fight for them.
In politics, in courts...and ultimately, in the streets.
Don't forget to mention all the fighting that is going on behind computer keyboards.
1. An 'Element' seizes control of the WH, with cohorts in Congress
2. A terrible event is staged on American soil, blamed on terrorists, and suspects are drawn up (framed)
3. Martial Law is declared, which is justified as necessary to protect the Public
4. Complete control of the media is assumed, and the populace is controlled by manipulating the flow of information
5. Civil liberties are curtailed, house to house searches follow, anybody resisting will be arrested
6. People resisting the Government are labeled terrorists and rounded up
This scenario could very well be enacted within ONE ELECTION CYCLE in todays political climate
Well, Quick...I think perhaps one would have to BE a 'god' to fully understand your statement...and I reckon I miss the grade.
quote:H.B. if you are within a thousand miles of my rifles death toll will you be givin to you and I would be happy with you being my god
Well, Quick...I think perhaps one would have to BE a 'god' to fully understand your statement...and I reckon I miss the grade.
[:D][:D][:D]Alcohol strikes ol' quack again.
Gibberish written, or as you've said before, I think HB, "baby gabble".[:D][:D][:D]
In response to quickmajik a deer rifle makes an excellent weapon in combat. What do you think a sniper would use?
A deer rifle if he or she could not find something better.
No harm, no foul.
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Ahhh, burp. HA, you are silly.
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Alec,
Abuse of methamphetamines has been proven detrimental to your health and well-being.
originally posted by Alec411:
Some of you sound like the failed writer, the frustrated poet penning snippits, amassing a new American Gothic. I have been to hell, I flourshished there. These4 pages are filled only withe the unending ramblings of the scored, burned out Mass of wannabes. Those who have tasted, and I mean drank the blood, will be entertained as each kills the other.
Alec,
Abuse of methamphetamines has been proven detrimental to your health and well-being.
[:D][:D][:D], Snicker, snicker, So I am not alone in that assumption then.
Judging by the content of Alec411's post, i'd surmise we are way past the 'assumption' stage.
I looked to see if a pic was included in his profile, but alas, there was not one to be found. If he would be so kind as to post a photograph, preferably one in which he is smiling, we could confirm our suspicions by a visual examination of his teeth.
If they look like he has been knawing on a crowbar, then I'd say it is safe to say my statement regarding his indulgence in recreational pharmaceuticals is true. [;)]