• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps that will make the analogy clearer.

I've read the book, and in it he called for stricter gun control because he believed civilians were being conditioned to kill. I'm surprised that a book which criticizes desensitization to violence and support of gun control would be worth noting.

What in the name of (for lack of a more popular word) blue blazes are you talking about? Who said anything about lax firearms laws resulting in death? Austrailia massacres? Are you on drugs?

No, I'm simply stating that we need regulations on firearms for a reason.

Ok so all of what I said is false and everyone that's been trying to help lead you down a more correct path is wrong?

Correct path, according to who?

Is it coincidence that everyone's jumping on your posts? Just click the preview button before you make your next post. If you question the contents within or the context it's presented in, delete it and say nothing.

Not really, most are knee jerk responses. Couldn't help but notice you stopped posting on another forum after you made some outlandish posts as well.

That would almost look like you're advocating a military run government.

Nope, I just don't like giving assault rifles to anti-government nuts.

But you want harsher measurements, including the banning of handguns. You're a one trick pony who hasn't read or heeded anything that anyone contrary to your small-minded opinion has stated.

Handguns are already restricted enough, and I haven't called for a ban.

Therefore, you are a troll Jimmie.

Well, I think I have more of a reason to worry about authoritarian government from you since you believe dissent and thoughtful opinion is troll like behavior.
 
For everytime Sigs Guy protests firearms, I'm going to go out and buy two.

By all means go ahead.

Well...I wouldnt call it a phobia...more of an irrational believe that the current law enforcement capabilities will keep us all cuddly and protected...

What do you call the belief that a gun will always be the solution to all of lifes little problems. Especially when you consider the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine has stated that the risks in having a gun for protection also dramatically increase the chance a fellow family member will be killed with said gun.
 
Sigs Guy said:
Well, I think I have more of a reason to worry about authoritarian government from you since you believe dissent and thoughtful opinion is troll like behavior.

Mod hat on now.

Troll-like behaviour is not your opinions, but your one sentence answers to questions without providing a lick of evidence to back up your one line answer. Also, answering questions with a question serves no purpose except to illicit responses from people that are trying to have a thought out, mature discussion.

You are trolling and hence the reason you're on warning. Keep it up and you'll soon find yourself a notch higher on the warning ladder.

Inch
Army.ca Staff
 
I bought another gun, my M1 Garand rifle arrived yesterday  8)  I spent all night stripping it down and cleaning the crap out of it.  I think it was made in 54 but I'm not sure.  Bought some 8 round clips and a few boxes of 30-06 and am looking forward to getting some range time soon.  As a history buff I feel very happy giving this old rifle a new lease on life!
 
Has a great past contibutor would have say, Sigs Guy , you're on the ramp ...
 
Johnny Rotten said:
I bought another gun, my M1 Garand rifle arrived yesterday  8)  I spent all night stripping it down and cleaning the crap out of it.  I think it was made in 54 but I'm not sure.  Bought some 8 round clips and a few boxes of 30-06 and am looking forward to getting some range time soon.  As a history buff I feel very happy giving this old rifle a new lease on life!

Congratulations! I want an M1 Garand very bad. It'll have to wait until after basic unfortunately. Reading your post made me realize that's certainly something we both have in common. I love nothing more than to get the hands on an old firearm, milsurp or otherwise, restore it if need be, clean it up, care for it, and as you say "giving thsi old rifle a new lease on life!".

I'm currently restoring an old CA dbl barrel .12 gauge made in 1911!
 
You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll. 


Inch said:
Mod hat on now.

Troll-like behaviour is not your opinions, but your one sentence answers to questions without providing a lick of evidence to back up your one line answer. Also, answering questions with a question serves no purpose except to illicit responses from people that are trying to have a thought out, mature discussion.

You are trolling and hence the reason you're on warning. Keep it up and you'll soon find yourself a notch higher on the warning ladder.

Inch
Army.ca Staff
 
QV said:
You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll. 

Please read the Valcartier2007 thread or this one again.

Debate entails including statements and sources into ones speach/input/typing.

Once you just start repeatedly posting the same one liner over and over, the debate ceases and the trolling starts; and, apparently, the warning system kicks into gear.

 
I did read and re-read this thread and Sig Guy is not being inflammatory nor abrasive.  He is not name calling and he is not being dis-respectful.  He is simply disagreeing.  Other posters were heated up and came across as abrasive.  If I was Sig Guy I would take that "verbal warning" to the Supreme Court of Army.ca... I think it was a mistake in judgement and from a non-participant of this thread (until now) it appears Sig Guy was punished for disagreeing with DS Staff.   

 
QV said:
You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll. 

Maybe you need to re-read my post. Very first sentence...

Troll-like behaviour is not your opinions, but your one sentence answers to questions without providing a lick of evidence to back up your one line answer.

I never said anything about his opinion being the reason for the warning for trolling. His posting style adds nothing to the discussion, all he's been putting in are one line answers (which don't really answer anything) to specific things we've posted. He has yet to put in a paragraph outlining his thoughts, this style is not only posted in this thread but in many others.
 
He was countering points to the debate brought up by others.  If you can't debate without getting angry because someone else isn't buying your point of view, then don't participate. 

 
>I haven't seen that happen in Japan, Australia, or Great Britian yet.

I categorize the militarist faction which gained sway in Japan prior to WWII as malicious.  In any event, selective cherry picking of counterexamples doesn't change the truth of my statement, because I did not assert that all governments must occasionally be controlled by malign forces.  I wrote of possibility, not certainty.  Bad governments can and do ride roughshod over the unarmed.  And self-defence isn't just something for individuals against criminals or peoples against nations.  It's a fact that the right to bear arms is credited in the US with helping black people to defend themselves against organizations in the grey area between handfuls of thugs and nation-states.
 
QV said:
I did read and re-read this thread and Sig Guy is not being inflammatory nor abrasive.  He is not name calling and he is not being dis-respectful.  He is simply disagreeing.  Other posters were heated up and came across as abrasive.  If I was Sig Guy I would take that "verbal warning" to the Supreme Court of Army.ca... I think it was a mistake in judgement and from a non-participant of this thread (until now) it appears Sig Guy was punished for disagreeing with DS Staff.   

Excuse me.

The reason why I have stepped in is exactly BECAUSE I have not been involved in this thread.  

He is trolling, there is a difference, I said nothing about him being inflammatory or abrasive.

He is not simply disagreeing, nor is he "debating" as you have said down below. He is posting the same comments, without sources, over and over again whenever anyone else posts anything that does not mesh with "his opinion."

It is one thing to diagree, it is quite another to make statements of alleged "fact" without citing your references or sources to evidence those 'facts." I have bolded the word that you both must be very familiar with. He has provided nothing save a comments such as:

Not really, most are knee jerk responses. Couldn't help but notice you stopped posting on another forum after you made some outlandish posts as well.
Where's the facts here?? Other than the intentional baiting of another member of this site with his last comment?

What do you call the belief that a gun will always be the solution to all of lifes little problems. Especially when you consider the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine has stated that the risks in having a gun for protection also dramatically increase the chance a fellow family member will be killed with said gun.
Here we have a statement. Where's the citation link to back up this alleged fact?? Or do the other members just take his word for it?? Would you in the course of your day job?

So should he get a gun?
Answering arguments counter to his with one lined questions such as this (especially when no-one -after review of the thread history-) has ever insinuated that he should get a gun. Read it in its context.

and this deliberate little baiting of the mod staff after he was warned nicely:

From a mod who was not involved in the thread:
Maybe I can make this a little clearer than the last time. Quit the trolling and smart assed comments.

His response after a minimum of two posts by a mod warning him gently back towards non-trollish behaviour??

Sheep and wolves?

That was the final bit of bait that was going to be passing me by. I bit. Let him appeal it if he wants to. That's his right. I'm sure he knows where the report button is.

So now it's laid out nicely for you.

And for yourself & everyone else:

Moderator Warning:

Let's get this thread back on topic, lest it be locked.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff
 
Thanks for the input Armyvern.

For those keeping up on Bruce Montague's fight for our deserved rights and freedoms, here is a personal email I got from the man himself.
Dear Matt:

Our next court date is Oct. 22, 2007 and should last the whole week. I guess
I should probably send out another e-mail bulletin to let people know this
date.

Thank you for your words of support. Our new lawyer seems to be pretty sharp
and fully understanding of what our constitutional issues are. If anyone can
win this case for firearms owners in Canada, Doug Christie can. We are very
excited as our case management team and I prepare to meet with our lawyer
again to further developed our case. I feel very comfortable now that things
are progressing very well with our new lawyer.


Yours in Liberty, Bruce.
 
Unlike the USA here in Canada we don't have rights guaranteed under the charter to possess firearms.  That is why gun ownership can be regulated heavily or abolished. 
 
QV said:
Unlike the USA here in Canada we don't have rights guaranteed under the charter to possess firearms.  That is why gun ownership can be regulated heavily or abolished. 
We know that, and it's been stated and agreed here before. Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property, which has to be changed. What I do have a right to is self defence, up to and including deadly force, but why am I not allowed to have the tools to perform said defence?

............and the wheel comes full circle. Here we go again.
 
recceguy said:
We know that, and it's been stated and agreed here before. Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property, which has to be changed. What I do have a right to is self defence, up to and including deadly force, but why am I not allowed to have the tools to perform said defence?

............and the wheel comes full circle. Here we go again.
Here we go again indeed.

I agree with your post entirely recceguy. Guns are so easy to target. They're stereotyped to death. It's easy for those who are uneducated about firearms to come on here, or anywhere for that matter... spew crap all over the place, skew the facts, and try to make it seem legit. As I've said before, I'm sure automobiles kill a hell of a lot more people in Canada annually than firearms. Where are your automobile control groups? Your muscle car bans?

Alcohol is targeted by a few anti groups but it isn't broadcasted nearly as much as the anti gunners. We don't NEED alcohol. We don't need legalized potent beverages such as 151 or even rums/whiskeys at around 40%+. People want these drinks. When taken in moderation, it certainly helps people to enjoy themselves more, etc.  Do you think we should ban alcohol? How about control it more, imposing restrictions? We could create an alcohol registry, force everyone who wants to buy a drink to carry a card and allow them to have no more than one 350ml beverage of a max 5.5% alcohol once a day. If they want to buy alcohol and bring it home, they need proper transport permits to "prevent" drunk driving. If someone may be having more than one drink or have something above 5% in their homes, let the police raid their home and seize it. Hopefully you anti's see where I'm going with this.

Cell phones are great. Talk to loved ones wherever you get service, etc. However there are driving bans in place because cellphones can impair your driving, taking your attention off the road and unto your wonderful little electronic device. Why don't we just ban those, or place even more restrictions on them? They're dangerous too, and I bet there have been deaths due to neglect of cell use while driving... but Arnold, Chuck, or Tom Berenger don't kills dozens of badguys while driving loaded and on the phone in their movies, so it can't be that bad... mostly people are killed with guns. Guns are bad! Ban guns! Life's problem of death solved. ::)

I sure as hell enjoy nice fast cars, my booze, my cell, and firearms---if used with common sense, judgement, in moderation, and properly (courses for all minus the alcohol and cell). These are all just examples of the many "dangers" in life.

To me, it seems the LIEberals  try to make their scandals and years of wasting money on useless programs go away -- trying to cover up their horrible track record.They have tried (and in some areas succeeded) to lure the votes of the scared and the uneducated with "ideas" such as the gun registry, handgun bans, or the newest, ban of semi autos. (Which they want stored in a shed on your range wherethey allegedly they'll be more safe ::)). All of these "ideas" have only wasted billions on nonsense, stripped gun owners of their rights and freedoms, and monitor their every movement with imposed restrictions. They've implemented the ability to raid a home off an anonymous tip, which could be anyone from a disgruntled neighbour to some kid playing a prank. Add seizure and destruction of property to the mix and I've no reason to question how barbaric this sounds, and why people refer these ideas to that of infamous leaders from long past. If all of this isn't a violation of our rights and freedoms, then I don't know what is.

It has proven that gun laws do not curb gun crime. All you have to do is look at the "big bad USA" and look at their cities with imposed gun bans, DC and NYC for example... with some of the highest homicide by firearms rates in the country. For some, it's so easy to blame inanimate objects and punish those who wish to obtain, operate and store them properly, with no threat to their fellow citizen---rather than create deterrants (harsh sentences, increased policing, giving civillians the right to defend themselves), to help curb the troubled souls who are the root of all this fuss in the first place...and help prevent others from walking down that path.

I don't care who tries to prove that what's in place is working and what's proposed by the red excuse of a political party will work. I know it isn't working, period. There is not ONE person who can come on here and explain to me how the registry of handguns or longguns, submachine guns or assault rifles, prohibiting .25 and .32acp cartridges, firearms with selective fire, full autos, etc... has cut down on crimes created by determined criminals. There are no reasons why I should have to register my firearms, no more than having to register that dangerous bottle of alcohol, or a dangerous knife. There is no reason why I should be allowed to have a semi automatic firearm and not a fullly automatic firearm. No reason why I shouldn't be allowed to collect that Thompson SMG, or that Bren or Sten, an AK, C7 or whatever the case may be. Sure, I don't need these. I don't need a lot of things. I don't need machetes or booze or 5lbs of lasagna for supper... I want those things. If I own those things and I am not harming my fellow citizen by having them, then why can't I have them?

And don't argue the "they'll get stolen" bit. It's old. Full autos are prohibited, yet criminals still have them (and the scattered licensed grandfathered owner). Full autos float around the street more frequently than you'd like to think. With unguarded roads  into and out of the USA and our huge shore line which I'm sure isn't 100% covered (not to mention smuggling through border security), they'll exist in this country no matter what.

LAWS AFFECT THOSE WHO ABIDE BY THEM.

CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAW, HENCE THE REASON THEY'RE CRIMINALS. THEY ARE NOT AFFECTED BY RESTRICTIONS OF THE LAW, BUT ONLY BY THE SENTENCE(S) DEALT (IF they're caught and sentenced)

Caps to try to get the very simple point across.

/end mega rant.
 
There is not ONE person who can come on here and explain to me how the registry of handguns or longguns, submachine guns or assault rifles, prohibiting .25 and .32acp cartridges, firearms with selective fire, full autos, etc... has cut down on crimes created by determined criminals.

The registry goes hand in hand with licencing.  Licencing/registry requirements means there are controls on who can buy a gun and who can own a gun and how that gun is transferred from one person to the next.  If there wasn't any of this then any person could walk into a gun store and buy a rifle.  Anyone meaning people with violent criminal records or people threatening to kill their spouse.  Of course there is always going to be the back alley deals, but lets not make it easy for them.   

There has to be some checks and balances to a safer society.  Arn't you glad that a violent offender or a person that has recently threatened to kill their spouse can't just walk in and buy a gun?
 
Well said Fry!  You were right on the money.....  criminals will do whatever they like regardless of what the law says.  I f the government bans firearms ownership, it will only affect law abiding citizens.  Criminals or anyone intent on causing harm to others will always find a way to get their hands on a firearm, and that leaves law abiding citizens with no means of protection unless a police officer instantly teleports to the scene of the crime.  All gun control does is give criminals the utmost assurance that they will have a monopoly on power, everyone else can fend for themselves by running away.
 
recceguy said:
We know that, and it's been stated and agreed here before. Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property, which has to be changed. What I do have a right to is self defence, up to and including deadly force, but why am I not allowed to have the tools to perform said defence?

............and the wheel comes full circle. Here we go again.

When you say
Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property
I take it you mean the seizure of firearms?  What confiscation of private property are you talking about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top