• 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- 2.0

Kat Stevens said:
Four recurves, two compounds, and a crossbow here. Don’t get the practice time I should as I’m away working in the nice weather, but I generally hit what I’m pointing at. I’m a fan.
Click to expand...

Nice. Archery can quickly turn into…

Tipping Jim Carrey GIF
 
torg003 said:
WTF does any average citizen need to own body armour? :rolleyes: Should only be for police (and possibly, registered security personnel).
Click to expand...

Why would an average citizen need to lock they car door when they go to work? Have cameras they can view on their phones for a “doorbell”, or a home security system?

Gangs might want them for obvious reasons. Some hunters might like them for peace of mind too. Not me, personally but if I was in a province where blaze orange wasn’t a requirement during General Deer Season and the Orange Army hits the woods, I’d consider wearing plates while moving around on foot. Just an insurance policy of sorts…like a seatbelt in a car.
 
torg003 said:
WTF does any average citizen need to own body armour? :rolleyes: Should only be for police (and possibly, registered security personnel).
Click to expand...
Because this is Canada. At least for a little longer. It's legally available on the market and if someone wants it, they can buy it. Why should their buying habits be determined by your bias? Why do you care so much about what other people legally own? What is the inherent risk to you, posed by someone that owns it? Why should it only be allowed for certain professions of your choosing? This is a thread about draconian government overreach of items that, purchased legally, the government wishes to steal from the owners for a fake agenda. And here you are advocating for the red and orange liberals plan to do just that.
 
Yeah.....okaaayyy. :rolleyes: Rage on buddy. :p Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
It's not the gov't you need to be worried about, it's the aliens that control them behind the scenes. ;);)
 
torg003 said:
Yeah.....okaaayyy. :rolleyes: Rage on buddy. :p Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
It's not the gov't you need to be worried about, it's the aliens that control them behind the scenes. ;);)
Click to expand...
Sooooo...
Can't/won't answer the questions I guess. :sneaky:
Nice leftist deflection. Attack the poster. No surprise there.
I don't know where you see any rage. I just asked you some questions (which you won't answer) and made some comment on the government.
No problem, I know you can't back your assertion without digging yourself deeper. We have the cut of your jib now.:cool:
No need to respond and drag this further off the path.:salute:
 
torg003 said:
WTF does any average citizen need to own body armour? :rolleyes: Should only be for police (and possibly, registered security personnel).
Click to expand...
WTF does the government fear private citizens owning it? Now if you want to make that someone who is prohibited from having firearms are also automatically prohibited from body armour, then I am all for that. Frankly I think the government is the paranoid one.
 
torg003 said:
Yeah.....okaaayyy. :rolleyes: Rage on buddy. :p Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
It's not the gov't you need to be worried about, it's the aliens that control them behind the scenes. ;);)
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone raging at you, I just see some questions that got asked to why not.

Let’s get rid of life jackets, airbags, seatbelts and governors on engines (beside you don’t need a car that can go over 100kph anyways)


Common Law societies are built on the principle that everything is legal unless it affects society negatively.
One could make a much bigger point about alcohol and drugs than firearms, as firearms by themselves and there lawful use are not an issue.

If you already have laws against assault, murder etc, why then more laws?
 
Just to set things straight, I meant "rant", not "rage" (bit of a brain fart), the poster was seeming to be having a bit of a rant (was even telling me what political party I supposedly support, thanks buddy didn't realize that). :p
Anyway, not need to reply, not really interested in a big debate. I stated I didn't see any reason the average person should own a BP vest, just my personal opinion. If anyone owns one or wants to own one, good for you, I don't really care.
 
torg003 said:
Anyway, not need to reply, not really interested in a big debate. I stated I didn't see any reason the average person should own a BP vest, just my personal opinion.
Click to expand...
You asked 'WTF does any average citizen need to own body armour?' People responded and now you don't want to support your statement. Sounds a little like you're trying to troll the thread.
 
torg003 said:
Just to set things straight, I meant "rant", not "rage" (bit of a brain fart), the poster was seeming to be having a bit of a rant (was even telling me what political party I supposedly support, thanks buddy didn't realize that). :p
Anyway, not need to reply, not really interested in a big debate. I stated I didn't see any reason the average person should own a BP vest, just my personal opinion. If anyone owns one or wants to own one, good for you, I don't really care.
Click to expand...
Not ranting either. Just trying to figure why you took that stance. That is accomplished by asking questions. Not my fault you can't/ won't answer them to give us a better understanding of your position. I also never said what party you were or should support. I simply intimated that you were in lockstep with them on this point and towing their line.😜

You asked a question, I answered. Then I asked some questions and you went all up in that, trying to deflect.

'Because' is not a great answer in and of itself. However, if that's the best you got, I'll accept that.
 
It's not going to happen before the government rises. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it just got shuffled to the bottom of the pile because of his bully tactics. The grits are getting real desperate and I think Mendicino sees his legacy evaporating into failure. This also may indicate that we will be going to the polls earlier than expected. The bill dies when one is called and they are desperate to have it passed. It can be taken up again by the new government, depending of course on who wins.

 
suffolkowner said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1681787886306459648

interesting to compare this to other recent self defence claims and charges
Click to expand...
So many unanswered questions.

The accused shooter has a long criminal history. Was the firearm legally owned and stored?
The business owner and his friends armed themselves. No charges for that?
According to the articlle, one of the aggressors is said to have struck a camper in the head with a baton. No charges for that?
 
It sounds like the lawyers just engineered the whole thing to go away. Public safety be damned.

So much wrong with this, even on the face, without even getting into the weeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
QC Muslim 1st woman charged under 9/11 terror law for shipping wpn parts to LBN
Replies
2
Views
9K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Ex-Dragoon
Wierd But Supposedly True News Stories:
Replies
0
Views
6K
Ex-Dragoon
Ex-Dragoon
Mike Bobbitt
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla (Book review)
Replies
2
Views
11K
Mike Bobbitt
Mike Bobbitt
Back
Top