Canada doesn't have sweeping gun control or a malevolent government. What's your point?
What qualifies as sweeping gun control, then?
You have to take a course and be investigated by the RCMP before you can get a license to own a non-restricted firearm (Any rifle over 470mm). It is illegal to own anything made by Kalashnikov, it is illegal to own anything that is automatic. Most rifles under 470mm are outright illegal, but some aren't, and those that aren't you have to take another course and get another license in order to own. You cannot own a pistol unless you are a member of a gun club and you cannot store that pistol at home.
That qualifies as sweeping gun control to me. There are restrictions on anything that fires bullets.
So the citizens cannot overpower the government through force, but unless we have the right to own guns, to ensure we fail at trying to overthrow the government via force, nothing else matters? Your logic eats itself.
A door lock doesn't prevent someone from breaking into your house. A car alarm doesn't prevent someone from stealing your car. These things are deterrents. It's much less attractive to coerce someone with deadly force when that person may be able to respond with deadly force.
Except that he admitted that gun ownership does not deter the government from shit.
And it's far easier to get a police or military force to shoot the guy who's armed than it is to shoot the guy with nothing.
By losing so many troops the dictator cares so much about. Didn't you know dictators have a strong sense of morality when it comes to the loss of human life?
Seriously, you think Obama can push through a ban on semi-automatic weapons? At the national level? In the United States of America?
We've already had a national semi-auto ban. It expired. So, it's certainly possible.
What is the argument for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, anyway? It's not like you're going to hunt with one, and keeping one in your home for self-defense purposes seems ridiculous. Their only practical application is killing.
We need guns to overthrow the country in the event of a dictator's rise to power, though we can't actually overthrow the country with guns, but someone isn't a dictator unless they try to take our guns. Remove Habeus Corpus? I still got my glock. Ignore judicial oversight? I've still got my glock. Any dictator who swept into power would ensure liberal gun rights existed while cracking down on everything else to the point where gun ownership doesn't mean shit because you're being ruled by a dictator. The very thing you're saying gun rights are necessary to prevent.
Peeking, how can you respond to this?
matisyahu on
i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
And yeah, a shitload of citizens with AK-47s and hunting rifles is going to pose a real threat to trained soldiers, tanks, gunships, jets, etc. We could definitely fuck with them (See: Iraqis) but it's not exactly enough to topple the government. Though, in any case, I really doubt the U.S. military would be willing to act in a widespread manner against U.S. citizens.
Umaro on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Seriously, you think Obama can push through a ban on semi-automatic weapons? At the national level? In the United States of America?
We've already had a national semi-auto ban. It expired. So, it's certainly possible.
What is the argument for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, anyway? It's not like you're going to hunt with one, and keeping one in your home for self-defense purposes seems ridiculous. Their only practical application is killing.
And yeah, a shitload of citizens with AK-47s and hunting rifles is going to pose a real threat to trained soldiers, tanks, gunships, jets, etc. We could definitely fuck with them (See: Iraqis) but it's not exactly enough to topple the government.
Has it helped erode support for the military action?
I never used the word overthrow. I used the word overpower. The citizens will need help from the military and other nations in the short term. Long term would be about economics, see vietnam/iraq. I also never said a person becomes a dictator when they take arms. You guys don't make any sense.
The assault weapons ban was more cosmetic than anything and basically amounted to a prohibition on foreign arms. This is one reason why people were so frustrated with Ruger's stance.
And yeah, a shitload of citizens with AK-47s and hunting rifles is going to pose a real threat to trained soldiers, tanks, gunships, jets, etc. We could definitely fuck with them (See: Iraqis) but it's not exactly enough to topple the government.
Has it helped erode support for the military action?
Mostly because we're losing. Which wouldn't be the case in the event of total war. See: Iraq circa 1988.
I never used the word overthrow. I used the word overpower. The citizens will need help from the military and other nations in the short term. Long term would be about economics, see vietnam/iraq. I also never said a person becomes a dictator when they take arms. You guys don't make any sense.
If the military no longer supports the government's actions, why did you need to own a gun to prevent government abuses?
I am a gun ownership advocate and I think that "genocide" bit is beyond the pale. I was not aware that people who thought like that lived outside of compounds.
I am a gun ownership advocate and I think that "genocide" bit is beyond the pale. I was not aware that people who thought like that lived outside of compounds.
Who says he doesn't have an internet connection in the compound?
I am a gun ownership advocate and I think that "genocide" bit is beyond the pale. I was not aware that people who thought like that lived outside of compounds.
Who says he doesn't have an internet connection in the compound?
Benefit of the doubt.
Also, isn't capslock abuse endemic to those people?
Most rifles under 470mm are outright illegal, but some aren't, and those that aren't you have to take another course and get another license in order to own. You cannot own a pistol unless you are a member of a gun club and you cannot store that pistol at home.
That qualifies as sweeping gun control to me. There are restrictions on anything that fires bullets.
Just to be clear, you can own a pistol without being a member of a club depending on the province and you can store the pistol at home. Although firearms laws are federal, the provinces can make up regulations as they see fit. Also, Nova forgot the paperwork to take a gun home from the store and separate paperwork to take it to the range. It's also illegal to fire a pistol anywhere but a range, even if you live on a 10,000 acre farm.
Pistols have been heavily regulated since 1934 and are not easy to acquire legally. Fortunately, the supply of illegal firearms is so large, criminals can purchase them for only a $100-200 premium over store prices.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Because that may not have been the case at the outset, for the military or the majority of the citizens. It usually isn't.
But without military backing you and your gun aren't going to do much of anything, so ensuring gun rights isn't really preventing abuses of governmental power.
moniker on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Most rifles under 470mm are outright illegal, but some aren't, and those that aren't you have to take another course and get another license in order to own. You cannot own a pistol unless you are a member of a gun club and you cannot store that pistol at home.
That qualifies as sweeping gun control to me. There are restrictions on anything that fires bullets.
Just to be clear, you can own a pistol without being a member of a club depending on the province and you can store the pistol at home. Although firearms laws are federal, the provinces can make up regulations as they see fit. Also, Nova forgot the paperwork to take a gun home from the store and separate paperwork to take it to the range. It's also illegal to fire a pistol anywhere but a range, even if you live on a 10,000 acre farm.
Pistols have been heavily regulated since 1934 and are not easy to acquire legally. Fortunately, the supply of illegal firearms is so large, criminals can purchase them for only a $100-200 premium over store prices.
Right. :P I was going by the preliminary investigation I did in pistols before I gave it up as not worth getting one.
Nova_C on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Posts
What qualifies as sweeping gun control, then?
You have to take a course and be investigated by the RCMP before you can get a license to own a non-restricted firearm (Any rifle over 470mm). It is illegal to own anything made by Kalashnikov, it is illegal to own anything that is automatic. Most rifles under 470mm are outright illegal, but some aren't, and those that aren't you have to take another course and get another license in order to own. You cannot own a pistol unless you are a member of a gun club and you cannot store that pistol at home.
That qualifies as sweeping gun control to me. There are restrictions on anything that fires bullets.
Keep arguing until you're blue in the face, it's not going to help.
Except that he admitted that gun ownership does not deter the government from shit.
And it's far easier to get a police or military force to shoot the guy who's armed than it is to shoot the guy with nothing.
You may as well not vote for him because you think he will resurrect Ronald Reagan by laying on of the hands.
I don't disagree.
You don't understand! He is in favor of gun control. Clearly he wants to genocide us.
But, but you are one of the few people that could give a good legal analysis of the opinions.
Yep. The citizens can't overpower the government, so how is a dictator being deterred?
Turkey 1915-1917
Soviet Union 1929 - 1953
Germany 1939 - 1945
China 1948 - 1952
Cambodia 1975 - 1977
Guatemala 1964 - 1981
Uganda 1971 - 1979
gunfacts
We've already had a national semi-auto ban. It expired. So, it's certainly possible.
What is the argument for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, anyway? It's not like you're going to hunt with one, and keeping one in your home for self-defense purposes seems ridiculous. Their only practical application is killing.
Peeking, how can you respond to this?
See my sig for why banning semi-autos is dumb.
That thing is too awesome to be banned.
No, I don't think he can, but he can appoint justices who will in the future. I'm asking ElJeffe a question.
Umaro,
We've never had a national semi-auto ban. I don't think you understand what semi-auto means.
I think I meant to say 'assault weapons' - I always assumed to two to pretty much overlap.
A soldier is more likely to shoot the fucker that just sniped their buddy than they are the bunch of lawyers peacably assembled in Times Square.
I never used the word overthrow. I used the word overpower. The citizens will need help from the military and other nations in the short term. Long term would be about economics, see vietnam/iraq. I also never said a person becomes a dictator when they take arms. You guys don't make any sense.
Stop it.
You're like a caricature of an ignorant, single issue, mouthbreathing redneck at an NRA meeting.
Mostly because we're losing. Which wouldn't be the case in the event of total war. See: Iraq circa 1988.
If the military no longer supports the government's actions, why did you need to own a gun to prevent government abuses?
This is why you need to stop talking
Right.
God bless America.
Also, isn't capslock abuse endemic to those people?
Is it Jeff Foxworthy?
"You might be a redneck if you believe the Democrats want to herd you into a gas chamber."
Just to be clear, you can own a pistol without being a member of a club depending on the province and you can store the pistol at home. Although firearms laws are federal, the provinces can make up regulations as they see fit. Also, Nova forgot the paperwork to take a gun home from the store and separate paperwork to take it to the range. It's also illegal to fire a pistol anywhere but a range, even if you live on a 10,000 acre farm.
Pistols have been heavily regulated since 1934 and are not easy to acquire legally. Fortunately, the supply of illegal firearms is so large, criminals can purchase them for only a $100-200 premium over store prices.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
But without military backing you and your gun aren't going to do much of anything, so ensuring gun rights isn't really preventing abuses of governmental power.
Right. :P I was going by the preliminary investigation I did in pistols before I gave it up as not worth getting one.
Yeah.....I'm pretty sure I can ignore everything you say now.