Canada on it's way to banning guns except for sport and hunting

[azeri98]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61641543

[classhandicapper]

Some sensible gun control can make sense, but that's not with this about. The totalitarian slime to the north has to be removed. I hope Canadians aren't as dumb as I fear.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Some sensible gun control can make sense, but that's not with this about. The totalitarian slime to the north has to be removed. I hope Canadians aren't as dumb as I fear.

I agree most of our gun violence comes by way of illegal guns. Trudeau's hero is Xi Jinping. He wants to be him and more and more everyday he is.

[PaceAdvantage]

disarming the populace is always the final step

Except when you're Ukraine...then it's GUNS FOR EVERYONE!

[Tom]

You'd think we learned our lesson from Arming Britain in WWII.
Oh, wait....

[davew]

Trudeau ran in fear for his life after the trucker insurrection shutdown the capital.

[Dave Schwartz]

Frog in Boiling Water Steps
(Small, Incremental Steps that the true believers can use to justify why it's a good idea.)

1. "We're not outlawing guns. But you can't SELL GUNS."
Which, of course, means you can BUY guns.

2. "Guns are not illegal. But gun REPAIRS are illegal."
Which, of course, means all guns will eventually disappear.

3. "Guns are not illegal. But you can only buy 5-ROUND MAGAZINES."
In the meantime, you will not be able to defend yourself against a Governmental Tyranny Agent with even a semi-automatic weapon.

4. "Guns are not illegal. But you can only buy 10-ROUND BOXES, MAXIMUM OF 1 PER MONTH."
Which means a whole bunch of things.
Gun ranges go out of business.
... which cuts down on training of new gun owners.

If you ever actually need to use your gun to defend yourself, even if you live, you'll never be able to defend yourself again because you will be out of bullets.

etc. etc.

KNOW HOW THEY STOPPED ANY SPREAD OF INSURRECTION IN CUBA?
They made it nearly impossible to find PRINTER PAPER!

Just think of what the implications are for that simple, seemingly innocent, action.

[classhandicapper]

It's a dilemma.

No one wants innocent people in schools, movie theaters, nightclubs etc... getting shot and killed. Personally, I could make a list of gun regulations I could support. But the left obviously has totalitarian tendencies. So they can't be trusted with power in an unarmed society. That makes it hard to find the balance.

The average run of the mill democrat thinks that's crazy talk.

They can't understand it because they are typically living in some kind of idealistic La La Land to begin with, but it's even harder to grasp when the politicians are doing something you are in favor of instead of when they are forcing you to do something you don't want to do or taking away your freedom. That's when you get riled up, but then it's too late.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's a dilemma.

No one wants innocent people in schools, movie theaters, nightclubs etc... getting shot and killed. Personally, I could make a list of gun regulations I could support. But the left obviously has totalitarian tendencies. So they can't be trusted with power in an unarmed society. That makes it hard to find the balance.

The average run of the mill democrat thinks that's crazy talk.

They can't understand it because they are typically living in some kind of idealistic La La Land to begin with, but it's even harder to grasp when the politicians are doing something you are in favor of instead of when they are forcing you to do something you don't want to do or taking away your freedom. That's when you get riled up, but then it's too late.

Many on the right are the same way 180 degrees off.

[JustRalph]

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/05...e-guns-n472876

Another opine

[pandy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's a dilemma.

No one wants innocent people in schools, movie theaters, nightclubs etc... getting shot and killed. Personally, I could make a list of gun regulations I could support. But the left obviously has totalitarian tendencies. So they can't be trusted with power in an unarmed society. That makes it hard to find the balance.

The average run of the mill democrat thinks that's crazy talk.

They can't understand it because they are typically living in some kind of idealistic La La Land to begin with, but it's even harder to grasp when the politicians are doing something you are in favor of instead of when they are forcing you to do something you don't want to do or taking away your freedom. That's when you get riled up, but then it's too late.

I have similar views. There's no question that quite a few of these mass shooters, especially the teenagers, had a history of violent behavior and were still able to buy a gun at 18 years of age and go on a shooting rampage. Obviously there needs to be better regulations on guns.

I always hear people say that the NRA is protecting the second amendment, but they're more about protecting profits for ammo and gun manufacturers. If the NRA really wanted to protect the second amendment, they'd be pushing for smarter gun laws.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by pandy

I have similar views. There's no question that quite a few of these mass shooters, especially the teenagers, had a history of violent behavior and were still able to buy a gun at 18 years of age and go on a shooting rampage. Obviously there needs to be better regulations on guns.

I always hear people say that the NRA is protecting the second amendment, but they're more about protecting profits for ammo and gun manufacturers. If the NRA really wanted to protect the second amendment, they'd be pushing for smarter gun laws.

I'm a libertarian at heart, but I try to be a sensible one.

I'm not a hunter, but I don't want to impose my views on others when it comes to hunting for sport.

I understand the need to have guns for self defense in some instances even though I don't own one for that reason.

I understand that some people enjoy owning and shooting guns even though I never owned one or even shot one.

But I don't see the absolute need for guns that can inflict serious damage because they can fire quicker or hold more rounds. Sure some people like them, but the trade off is more casualties when someone goes off the deep end. Certain guns and weapons are simply too dangerous for widespread ownership when you are also arguing against better background checks, better mental health checks, and other controls that would reduce these kinds of mass shootings. Something has to give.

[Fred Mertz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand the need to have guns for self defense in some instances even though I don't own one for that reason.

I understand that some people enjoy owning and shooting guns even though I never owned one or even shot one.

Do you have a vagina?


I've got several for home defense if needed.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Fred Mertz

Do you have a vagina?


I've got several for home defense if needed.

I don't have a vagina, but based on that comment you may be a dick.

I was born, raised, and live in NYC. Only criminals and police are allowed to have guns in NYC. The rest of us don't go to dangerous neighborhoods.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Fred Mertz

Do you have a vagina?


I've got several for home defense if needed.

How do you defend your home with vaginas, I am confused?