Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Andrew Scheer stepping down as Conservative Party leader/Which has morphed into the Gun Control thread


Mackcanuck

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

How about surface to air missile deaths? I was thinking of installing them on motion sensors and deployed them from my roof. .

I was also hoping to apply for an open carry for my Bazooka...How many Bazooka deaths? 

Oooh.

 

I always wanted to open carry my Bazooka.  It's about time.

 

:)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, inane said:

law is not politics. you'll go crazy trying to apply that paradigm to political decisions.

Ah so full support for a dictatorship.  Glad you can admit it. Guess that’s what it comes to when you blindly support something and have no evidence to back up why you do. 
 

 

14 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its laughable is what it is. The CPC and its supporters loved the supremacy of federal jurisdiction over firearms when they wanted to cancel the long gun registry. But when it comes to how they don't want it used, suddenly we have US-style gun rights. Its quite funny to watch the squirming over it. Instead of accepting reality you see the fight mentality out of Alberta in particular that gets them nowhere. 

 

Haha. Really showing your lack of knowledge once again. the long gun registry was the equivalent to throwing money directly into the trash. I know that’s what you liberals enjoy doing but cons had evidence to make a calculated decision and put an end to a pointless money pit.  
 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/amp/

 

14 hours ago, Warhippy said:

It's fear.  Pure and simple.

 

I'm a registered owner.  I own 3 nice guns now.  Locked.  Secured.  In my safe.  I'm not worried at all about these new laws.

That’s because you own super soaks not firearms. Lol.  You obviously are not one of the 60k Canadians that does own an AR. These are the people the will be effective so it’s not surprising why YOU wouldn’t be worried. 

 

 

Quote

It's a meh law, and it has people scared for no reason other than someone told them they should be scared.  exactly the types who don't need to own weapons.

I know your busy pretending to be an economist but the person that to people to be scare in none other than Canada’s public safety minister Bill Blair and echoed Trudeau. It’s pretty hard to defend when it comes straight from the horses mouth. Although I know you will try (and fail). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Ah so full support for a dictatorship.  Glad you can admit it. Guess that’s what it comes to when you blindly support something and have no evidence to back up why you do. 

Lol what? 

 

The logical fallacy is strong with you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lionized27 said:

Not sure how a gun confiscation is going to solve any gun crime issue.

I think we need to stop talking about and thinking about guns in absolute terms. Confiscating or restricting some guns isn't taking all guns. It won't solve all crime problems but it has a chance at saving some. Its very hard to "prove" a prevention program works until its been tried, it goes that way for any prevention effort at the outset. 

 

If you take a quick look at 'smart gun' tech thats been out there for a while, you can see there are all kinds of things that haven't been tried, mostly due to the power of the US gun lobby. The same folks that come out after a school shooting and say that its 'not the time' to talk about changes. Maybe lets not have that kind of thinking drive the agenda up here?

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, inane said:

This is the thing. Perfection is the enemy of good. It's the argument they always use. 'well this isn't going to work 100% of the time in all situations so let's not do it at all'. 

 

That's the highest order of bs and the refuge of the ugly cynic. 

it is. And we have one on here. 

 

The gun manufacturers and lobby have brought this on themselves by promoting thinking like this. Its left a gap for the political will to take it over from them, and thats their fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

FWIW that same party should use a process that's democratic to pass said laws.

huh? what are you talking about? they ran on a mandate, they won.

 

Nowhere in the our constitution does it say you have to ensure that the gun lobby is OK with the logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

huh? what are you talking about? they ran on a mandate, they won.

 

Nowhere in the our constitution does it say you have to ensure that the gun lobby is OK with the logic. 

Interesting you would use the key word there being "logic".

Gun owners, by this "logic", have no constitutional rights.

Good talk.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, inane said:

Lol what? 

 

The logical fallacy is strong with you. 

You just finished saying burden of proof need not apply to politics. If statistics and facts are completely ignored in making a decision that affects a large group of people then what kind of system are you supporting. 
 

 

35 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This "discussion" is hilarious....."critical thinking"..."intelligent discourse"....

Rupert you are the prime example of lacking the skillsets to apply critical thinking to a discussion. When I made that statement, it was directed to you. Tell me more about what professor Mickey Mouse believes, or tell me about how a potential one off (that didn’t even come to forwishing) is the result Climate change. Rather than reading a headline that assumes correlation equals causation, try to apply the slightest bit of logic to the why and how. You will be so much better off in life and it’s what differentiates understanding between a child and an adult. So rup are you able to grow up?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Interesting you would use the key word there being "logic".

Gun owners, by this "logic", have no constitutional rights.

Good talk.

but see this is the problem, you're making up a hyperbolic statement thats just ridiculous and not based in any facts, and actually refusing to talk about it rationally. So when gun owners do this, you leave yourself open  to others making decisions for you. 

 

but you are correct in one sense, you have no 'right to bear arms' in Canada. Acceptance of that would go a long way to having a rational discussion. 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

 

Gun owners have no constitutional rights.

 

They ummm don;t.

 

There is no law stating there is a constitutional right to bare or own firearms.  We have the same rights as every canadian and those rights are always subject to change based on the party of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This "discussion" is hilarious....."critical thinking"..."intelligent discourse"....

 

......If you support a buyback of one particular type of firearm, you're "supporting a dictatorship!" :frantic:

 

Listen to yourselves....:rolleyes:

You forgot the 

 

Cons can beat up libs, my dad can beat up your dad

 

Comments from yesterday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warhippy said:

They ummm don;t.

 

There is no law stating there is a constitutional right to bare or own firearms.  We have the same rights as every canadian and those rights are always subject to change based on the party of the term.

the anger over not understanding your rights is interesting. Imagine the anger you'd feel as a parent of a kid that gets shot. 

 

It always seems to come down to a willful ignorance of your rights in Canada. No 2nd amendment is coming here. But they act like they have that right in how they design their arguments. Its never going to work, you'd think that would be obvious by now. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...