bishopshodan Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said: So let's Outlaw communism. The AR-15 has not killed a person in this country in 30 years. 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? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: So let's Outlaw communism. The AR-15 has not killed a person in this country in 30 years. Neither has an elephant to my knowledge but we can't ride them down the street. How about we stop with the hyperbole? If you want to have a rational discussion over the best way to control guns is lets do that, but if all you and the gun lobby has is this kind of thing then you're going to be very frustrated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 13 minutes 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? Could I interest you in my patented Anti Girl Guide Solicitation Land Mines? I haven't been bothered to by any pesky cookie schillers in years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 56 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: no, it isn't that. The Feds have jurisdiction over firearms, that was settled by the supreme court back in the 80s. The province of AB has no say in it, at all. All Kenney did was introduce a motion, which has all the power of a CDC post. Sorry RS its not the 'firewall' you're looking for. You should know by now that Kenney is full of crap. There's only a conflict if there's some sort of overlap in jurisdiction, and there isn't for criminal gun law. The feds can allow municipalities to ban guns, there's no provincial overlap here at all. Thats why Kenney could only produce a motion and now law. And the proof of this is Quebec wanting to keep its long gun registry. How'd that work out for Quebec? Its very unlikely the feds will be the ones actually doing it. Imo the result will be a direct show down with Ottawa and Alberta does JT want that right now? 53 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Neither has an elephant to my knowledge but we can't ride them down the street. How about we stop with the hyperbole? If you want to have a rational discussion over the best way to control guns is lets do that, but if all you and the gun lobby has is this kind of thing then you're going to be very frustrated. How about we not discuss it? We will never agree on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 48 minutes ago, Gnarcore said: Could I interest you in my patented Anti Girl Guide Solicitation Land Mines? I haven't been bothered to by any pesky cookie schillers in years. Actual video of Gnarcore as he enters an airport (he's a pilot in real life!): 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) On 12/15/2019 at 7:09 PM, Ryan Strome said: Illegal drugs kill far more people and the government does next to nothing to stop it. Hell they invite in criminal after criminal. Hey look, guess who Harper was inviting in for years and is still policy. It's almost like the Libs and Cons are the same thing. https://globalnews.ca/news/6289240/canada-secret-program-grants-visas-to-war-criminals-terrorists-security-threats/ Canada has a secret program that grants visas to war criminals, terrorists, security threats Edited December 17, 2019 by inane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 On 12/16/2019 at 7:45 AM, Jimmy McGill said: ^ this is awesome. A passive aggressive revenge fantasy wrapped up in a myth about a Canada that never existed. Keep on being you, don't ever change man. So your saying that Canada has never been worth anything? Nice. At least you came out and said it finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 32 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Its very unlikely the feds will be the ones actually doing it. Imo the result will be a direct show down with Ottawa and Alberta does JT want that right now? How about we not discuss it? We will never agree on this. I think he does want a show down on guns, tbh. Traditionally its always helped them gain seats. Plus "western alienation" over guns only plays in AB and SK where he's not getting votes anyway. We don't need to agree, but we should at least be having a factual discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said: So your saying that Canada has never been worth anything? Nice. At least you came out and said it finally. yeah thats what I was saying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: yeah thats what I was saying. I knew I couldn’t trust you, but then again it shouldn’t surprise me... as I never trust a grown man who still kisses his daddy on the lips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, Standing_Tall#37 said: I knew I couldn’t trust you, but then again it shouldn’t surprise me... as I never trust a grown man who still kisses his daddy on the lips. you are a weird person. It should concern you that your thoughts went to that place. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 31 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think he does want a show down on guns, tbh. Traditionally its always helped them gain seats. Plus "western alienation" over guns only plays in AB and SK where he's not getting votes anyway. We don't need to agree, but we should at least be having a factual discussion. Yes but if your argument is I don't have a legal right to a firearm you're shutting it down before it begins. I don't have a legal right to a vehicle yet I don't think you would say we should take them away because I don't have a legal right to one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, inane said: Hey look, guess who Harper was inviting in for years and is still policy. It's almost like the Libs and Cons are the same thing. https://globalnews.ca/news/6289240/canada-secret-program-grants-visas-to-war-criminals-terrorists-security-threats/ Canada has a secret program that grants visas to war criminals, terrorists, security threats Honestly surprised this isn't getting more noise. Secret program to bring in war criminals and terrorists? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 44 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Yes but if your argument is I don't have a legal right to a firearm you're shutting it down before it begins. I don't have a legal right to a vehicle yet I don't think you would say we should take them away because I don't have a legal right to one. it doesn't shut it down, but it shifts the onus on you (or the manufacturers) to show things are as safe as possible. Car manufacturers had to be forced into safety changes and I believe that gun manufacturers have to as well. They aren't doing everything they could be to make guns harder to use by illegitimate owners, e.g. By continually arguing against the reality that guns are a privilege I think it puts your focus on the wrong things, and you leave yourself open to things like governments doing all the deciding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, inane said: Honestly surprised this isn't getting more noise. Secret program to bring in war criminals and terrorists? lol Wouldn't it be justifiable if we were receiving intelligence that saved lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: you are a weird person. It should concern you that your thoughts went to that place. My responses to him the last time I engaged in discussion with him. On 12/6/2019 at 4:52 PM, aGENT said: The humans surviving would be the issue. Again, this is pretty poor logic. Of course the planet will be fine. It might take a few millennia but it's survived far worse than human caused pollution. Do you however have some twisted desire to see humanity's time on the planet cut short at our own doing? Do you wish to see massive climate/weather/drought issues and polluted water and soil choke the ability for current life on this planet to survive? Oceans polluted with plastic and acidified? Oxygen depletion? Mass extinction and starvation (of not just us but most currently existing life)? If so, seek help as that's a sociopathic attitude. On 12/6/2019 at 6:20 PM, aGENT said: So doubling down on sociopath. Good luck to you sir but don't be shocked the rest of us don't share your $&!# where you eat and &^@# everyone else but me, view. I'm actually a bit concerned for him/the people around him. Hopefully it's just tasteless internet trolling. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: it doesn't shut it down, but it shifts the onus on you (or the manufacturers) to show things are as safe as possible. Car manufacturers had to be forced into safety changes and I believe that gun manufacturers have to as well. They aren't doing everything they could be to make guns harder to use by illegitimate owners, e.g. By continually arguing against the reality that guns are a privilege I think it puts your focus on the wrong things, and you leave yourself open to things like governments doing all the deciding. See and I disagree. You want to outlaw a gun that hasn't hurt anyone in 30 years, why? Essentially you are saying you support a dictatorship where a government can do whatever it wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: See and I disagree. You want to outlaw a gun that hasn't hurt anyone in 30 years, why? Essentially you are saying you support a dictatorship where a government can do whatever it wants. but you can't disagree its literally how it is in our system. Its like saying you disagree with paying your taxes. Good luck. No I'm not saying that. I'm saying our government, when it comes to gun crime and use laws, has the paramount say. You just don't have US style rights, either personally or state/provincially. What I'm saying is instead of having this "fight" mentality lets talk about what kind of things are actually available to make gun use safer. Edited December 17, 2019 by Jimmy McGill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: but you can't disagree its literally how it is in our system. Its like saying you disagree with paying your taxes. Good luck. no it’s not. You are so out to lunch on how the legal system works. Again Law 101. Burden of proof - The obligation to produce evidence to prove facts necessary to establish a cause of action or a defence. It normally rests on the person who asserts a particular matter. The burden of proof requirement is designed to ensure that legal decisions are made based on facts rather than by conjecture. Liberals are the one making the claim that spending 600 million on a buyback program for the AR Is an effective way to spend tax dollars. Therefor the burden of proof is on them or anyone else in alignment with that decision to “provide facts and evidence” to support your claim. So far the only facts posted are ones that shut down that idea. Now because you know that there are no facts to support your claim, you are attempting to shift the goal posts by moving the burden of proof on those against. It’s a very weak attempt, an furthermore your adjusting the criteria to support why owning X is a legal right, which is a pure strawman to the topic at hand. If you and the liberals or anyone else wants to support the idea of spending 600 million on removing the AR then provide evidence and facts that explain why. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Again Law 101. Burden of proof - The obligation to produce evidence to prove facts necessary to establish a cause of action or a defence. It normally rests on the person who asserts a particular matter. The burden of proof requirement is designed to ensure that legal decisions are made based on facts rather than by conjecture. I find it amusing a conservative, the sect of the political spectrum who tends to be the most loose with the facts is making this statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now