Elias Pettersson Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Satchmo said: Oh good one Petey. I'm crushed now. As you will know you can always just believe anything anybody says on the internet without bothering to fact check. For the record, I don’t believe you would ever do that to your computer. Some of the others though, I’m not too sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 2 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: I always thought you called them "conspiracy theorists" because they didn't believe the latest thing the government/media said. That's the definition nowadays Well yeah they don’t really believe in anything Trudeau says. One time my friend called me and said there was a helicopter overtop her house just humming around. She thought they were coming to get her!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: There is a difference. If he was not a legal owner then he was a criminal possessing a gun hence gun laws wouldn't have effected anything. Legal gun owners have to be extra careful with what they do because the police can seize their guns for not following the laws. I even heard of someone having trouble renewing their PAL because of excessive speeding ticket Your other post I don't really agree with either because in life the only "need" is food and water. You "need" food and water to live. Not running shoes or a car or whatever. Remember the cave men Again, not all legal gun owners are careful. Just because they have to be more careful, it does not mean they are. I gave you a concrete example of this. If you take away your running shoes, you have trouble walking outside and getting around. Your mobility is lowered. If you take away your car, you have to rely on other transportation. If you take away your guns... well, you can't go to the gun range??? One of the above is far less important than the other 2. While food and water are the 2 essential needs, there's still a hierarchy. You need running shoes and a car (or a way to get around) generally if you want to have a life worth living. A gun on the other hand isn't that essential. If you think your gun is as important as running shoes and a car, please seek help. Edited June 2 by The Lock 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said: No Canada is not a communist country and if people are vetted they should be allowed to own firearms. If that bothers you so much feel free to move to one of them except thats not how it is. You have no right to arms under our constitution. So if it's a huge part of your life to own them, the US may be good option. Or Nicaragua maybe, I'd need to check. The whole problem with the gun debate in Canada is you guys think you have US style rights. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 17 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: There is a difference. If he was not a legal owner then he was a criminal possessing a gun hence gun laws wouldn't have effected anything. Legal gun owners have to be extra careful with what they do because the police can seize their guns for not following the laws. I even heard of someone having trouble renewing their PAL because of excessive speeding ticket Your other post I don't really agree with either because in life the only "need" is food and water. You "need" food and water to live. Not running shoes or a car or whatever. Remember the cave men this is curious to me, you keep saying "legal gun owner" as if you have some other choice? why do you think you deserve special status because you don't break the law? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 5 minutes ago, Bob Long said: except thats not how it is. You have no right to arms under our constitution. So if it's a huge part of your life to own them, the US may be good option. Or Nicaragua maybe, I'd need to check. The whole problem with the gun debate in Canada is you guys think you have US style rights. Too much Trump MAGA moran crap bleeds across the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 1 minute ago, The Lock said: Again, not all legal gun owners are careful. Just because they have to be more careful, it does not mean they are. I gave you a concrete example of this. If you take away your running shoes, you have trouble walking outside and getting around. Your mobility is lowered. If you take away your car, you have to rely on other transportation. If you take away your guns... well, you can't go to the gun range??? One of the above is far less important than the other 2. While food and water are the 2 essential needs, there's still a hierarchy. You need running shoes are a car (or a way to get around) generally if you want to have a life worth living. A gun on the other hand isn't that essentially. If you think your gun is as important as running shoes and a car, please seek help. No you didn't give me a concrete example. It was more of a "trust me bro". Whatever I believe you. Although more people wear shoes than go to the gun range doesn't change the fact that you could survive without them and really it's not up to other people to decide what you "need". What about Olympic athletes? Do they need guns? Probably for the events I would say. IPSC shooters? Yep need them. Duck hunter? Too hard to take down a bird with a rock. I'm not here saying guns are more important than shoes but there really needs to be less people deciding what you need Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Alflives said: Too much Trump MAGA moran crap bleeds across the border. its like that border protestor moron in Alberta that was talking about his "first amendment rights" 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Spring Salmon said: I'm not here saying guns are more important than shoes but there really needs to be less people deciding what you need but its a settled issue. It's not a right, it's a privilege. Why is that hard to understand? you have no right to 1) own a gun, or 2) demand that you be able to own a certain style of gun. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 8 minutes ago, Bob Long said: except thats not how it is. You have no right to arms under our constitution. So if it's a huge part of your life to own them, the US may be good option. Or Nicaragua maybe, I'd need to check. The whole problem with the gun debate in Canada is you guys think you have US style rights. Gun owners in Canada are well aware the laws here and the difference from the states. Its the uniformed who think differently. The laws are so much stricter here it's not even possible that we would change them to be like the Americans. Not even with conservatives in power or how much the media misleads you it would happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: No you didn't give me a concrete example. It was more of a "trust me bro". Whatever I believe you. Although more people wear shoes than go to the gun range doesn't change the fact that you could survive without them and really it's not up to other people to decide what you "need". What about Olympic athletes? Do they need guns? Probably for the events I would say. IPSC shooters? Yep need them. Duck hunter? Too hard to take down a bird with a rock. I'm not here saying guns are more important than shoes but there really needs to be less people deciding what you need Again, it's a hobby. Shoes are not a hobby for most. Cars are often just bought to go from point A to point B. Shoes and cars can be hobbies, but for most people who use them, they're essentials. Guns on the other hand, you want to go duck hunting? Duck hunting is a hobby. It obviously could be a profession for some as duck meat I'm sure can fetch a pretty penny, but duck meat's not exactly needed for survival either. I'm into music. I like guitars. I'm not going to ever say my guitar is a need and compare it with shoes and cars. The same thing goes with guns. And look, I get you have a hobby and a passion with guns. That's fine, but choose your arguments in such a way that doesn't give you a weird sense of entitlement. It sucks that people are out telling you what to do with guns, but you have to realise there are reasons for it. You might not like those reasons, but that does not legitimize those reasons. I'm personally all about balance with this because I can see both sides. Again, I have guns. I'm not saying any of this lightheartedly. I just know that my guns are no different than my guitars. Edited June 2 by The Lock 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 7 minutes ago, Bob Long said: its like that border protestor moron in Alberta that was talking about his "first amendment rights" Although that guy was a dumbass you mocking someone for wanting first amendment rights is sadder. Free speech bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Although that guy was a dumbass you mocking someone for wanting first amendment rights is sadder. Free speech bad? He has the free speech to mock someone for wanting first amendment rights just as much as the person who has free speech to want first amendment rights. Free speech doesn't prevent someone from being ridiculed. Same with your reply to him. Same with my reply to you. Edited June 2 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 44 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Chief superintendent Marty Cheliak the director general RCMP Canadian firearms center. Click on screenshot to see it clearer Not sure why I did - because I have wasted too much time on this already - but I had another glance at the linked document before closing the tab. While the document begins with a Cheliak quote, and then describes things he 'extolled', by the time it gets to closing with the lines we are fussing about they can't be attributed to anybody in particular. That might explain why I could find no proof of Cheliak actually saying them. They seem only to exist in a document produced by the NFA, which leads me to believe they were written by the NFA and not stated by the RCMP. https://nfa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RCMP-ATI-Licensed-Gun-Owner-Crime-Statistics.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 2 minutes ago, The Lock said: Again, it's a hobby. Shoes are not a hobby for most. Cars are often just bought to go from point A to point B. Shoes and cars can be hobbies, but for most people who use them, they're essentials. Guns on the other hand, you want to go duck hunting? Duck hunting is a hobby. It obviously could be a profession for some as duck meat I'm sure can fetch a pretty penny, but duck meat's not exactly needed for survival either. I'm into music. I like guitars. I'm not going to ever say my guitar is a need and compare it with shoes and cars. The same thing goes with guns. And look, I get you have a hobby and a passion with guns. That's fine, but choose your arguments in such a way that doesn't give you a weird sense of entitlement. It sucks that people are out telling you what to do with guns, but you have to realise there are reasons for it. You might not like those reasons, but that does not legitimize those reasons. I'm personally all about balance with this because I can see both sides. Again, I have guns. I'm not saying any of this lightheartedly. I just know that my guns are not different than my guitars. Look I have many hobbies but enacting gun laws for easy votes is BS. That's all my point is. The liberals know that most gun owners vote conservative and most liberals don't like guns so it's an easy choice for them. It's unfortunate more people don't see that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Spring Salmon said: Look I have many hobbies but enacting gun laws for easy votes is BS. That's all my point is. The liberals know that most gun owners vote conservative and most liberals don't like guns so it's an easy choice for them. It's unfortunate more people don't see that Define "easy votes", because last I checked the CPC in the lead anyway. The Liberals are (in an ideal world) going to enact policies that the majority of the people voting for them want. It's no different than the CPC doing what you want. This is why parties exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 3 minutes ago, The Lock said: He has the free speech to mock someone for wanting first amendment rights just as much as the person who has free speech to want first amendment rights. Free speech doesn't prevent someone from being ridiculed. Same with your reply to him. Same with my reply to you. That's right jimmy can ridicule him all he wants but it's kinda weird that hes making fun of the guy for wanting free speech like it's a bad thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Spring Salmon said: That's right jimmy can ridicule him all he wants but it's kinda weird that hes making fun of the guy for wanting free speech like it's a bad thing Is that your words though with the "free speech" part or his? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 14 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Although that guy was a dumbass you mocking someone for wanting first amendment rights is sadder. Free speech bad? I'm mocking him because he's a moron. Freedom of expression is great. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Bob Long said: I'm mocking him because he's a moron. Freedom of expression is great. That's what I thought. lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, The Lock said: Define "easy votes", because last I checked the CPC in the lead anyway. The Liberals are (in an ideal world) going to enact policies that the majority of the people voting for them want. It's no different than the CPC doing what you want. This is why parties exist. Trudeau waited until the nova Scotia shooting to enact bill c21. The shooter was not allowed to possess firearms legally and they were smuggled from the states. So why did he ban AR-15s when they had absolutely nothing to do with it? He immediately pounced on this tragedy with new laws that wouldn't have done shit just to make it look like he was doing something productive. It was right before the 21 election if I remember correctly. Now the buyback amnesty is extended to Oct 25 another election. Coincidence eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 3 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: That's right jimmy can ridicule him all he wants but it's kinda weird that hes making fun of the guy for wanting free speech like it's a bad thing No, that's not it. The joke is the Canadian guy asking about his first amendments rights in a Canadian court of law. It's a dumb enough statement to garner laughter. Nobody here has said anything against our right of freedom of expression as promised by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 17 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Gun owners in Canada are well aware the laws here and the difference from the states. Its the uniformed who think differently. The laws are so much stricter here it's not even possible that we would change them to be like the Americans. Not even with conservatives in power or how much the media misleads you it would happen and thats a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Just now, Spring Salmon said: Trudeau waited until the nova Scotia shooting to enact bill c21. The shooter was not allowed to possess firearms legally and they were smuggled from the states. So why did he ban AR-15s when they had absolutely nothing to do with it? He immediately pounced on this tragedy with new laws that wouldn't have done shit just to make it look like he was doing something productive. It was right before the 21 election if I remember correctly. Now the buyback amnesty is extended to Oct 25 another election. Coincidence eh one of the biggest issues with Nova Scotia is there isn't a safe way for people to report these psycho's with caches. The RCMP needs to be able to act on information from credible people, we could have easily prevented this tragedy. But you'll get furious arguments from gun owners on here that their rights would be trampled if the RCMP could act on info like this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 3 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I'm mocking him because he's a moron. Freedom of expression is great. Yes he is a moron but free speech is better than freedom of expression 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.