Trudeau's Gun Ban and Buy Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
RK99 said:
I don't think you undestand how laws and democratic societies work then. "Natural/God given" rights don't apply. Which God? Which religion? We have a separation of church and state for a reason. And in order to keep societies made up of large groups of individuals functioning with some semblance of order and civility we have laws made by people, not gods. In Canada we have laws and rights and nowhere in any of those do you have a "right" to own guns. In Canada it is a privelege that comes with requirements and restrictions. That's how the majority of canadians wanted it and that's how it is and that's what we have to work with. So if you want to maintain said privelege you need to be able to present reasonable arguments and conditions to allow that. Threats, anger and promoting civil disobedience won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
where are you again. the usa is pro god, the god is on their currency, but you knew that didn't you. god is a huge part of the fabric in the usa, whether or not you agree is irrelevant.
 
Neurotoxic said:
Whenever I see these arguments, I remember how it went with my wife when I brought up the idea that I wanted to have my RPAL and buy a handgun.

She doesn't know anything about guns other than: they're dangerous and she doesn't like them. We just had a kid. She doesn't like violent movies. What's going on in the States on a regular basis scares her. She doesn't find it's "manly" to shoot a big gun.

Right off the bat, my chances were near zero.

I had to take some time. Bring up the subject casually. Explain concepts. Explain how strict it is, how safe guns can be when handled properly. Compare with race cars -- they're fun, but they don't belong in the street and it's like with guns, I'll go to the range. I had to be patient. I had to be open to discussion. Most importantly, I had to be ready to reach a compromise.

Just saying it's my right wouldn't have worked. Defending the house isn't a valid argument when the gun is supposedly properly stored in a locked room with a trigger lock -- if that gun is easily accessible in an emergency, our kid could find a way to get to it. She's not dumb either and knows we must live with each other in society -- pretending I have some virile natural right to own guns that surpasses our common laws would have made her laugh.

Now, you see, my wife's view isn't uncommon. And if you plan on using inflexible, hardcore arguments in public in an attempt to protect your privileges, you will fail.

If, ultimately, our goal is to preserve our privilege to own guns and take them to the range or hunting, we need to be ready to accept filling out some more paperwork, go through more rigorous background checks, and tone down quite a bit when we discuss our hobby.

But if this is all about defending non-existing god-given rights, or if you think the Liberals are a tyranny, then I'm out and wish you well on your future BB-gun endeavours.
Click to expand...

bye-bye
 
Neurotoxic said:
Whenever I see these arguments, I remember how it went with my wife when I brought up the idea that I wanted to have my RPAL and buy a handgun.

She doesn't know anything about guns other than: they're dangerous and she doesn't like them. We just had a kid. She doesn't like violent movies. What's going on in the States on a regular basis scares her. She doesn't find it's "manly" to shoot a big gun.

Right off the bat, my chances were near zero.

I had to take some time. Bring up the subject casually. Explain concepts. Explain how strict it is, how safe guns can be when handled properly. Compare with race cars -- they're fun, but they don't belong in the street and it's like with guns, I'll go to the range. I had to be patient. I had to be open to discussion. Most importantly, I had to be ready to reach a compromise.

Just saying it's my right wouldn't have worked. Defending the house isn't a valid argument when the gun is supposedly properly stored in a locked room with a trigger lock -- if that gun is easily accessible in an emergency, our kid could find a way to get to it. She's not dumb either and knows we must live with each other in society -- pretending I have some virile natural right to own guns that surpasses our common laws would have made her laugh.

Now, you see, my wife's view isn't uncommon. And if you plan on using inflexible, hardcore arguments in public in an attempt to protect your privileges, you will fail.

If, ultimately, our goal is to preserve our privilege to own guns and take them to the range or hunting, we need to be ready to accept filling out some more paperwork, go through more rigorous background checks, and tone down quite a bit when we discuss our hobby.

But if this is all about defending non-existing god-given rights, or if you think the Liberals are a tyranny, then I'm out and wish you well on your future BB-gun endeavours.
Click to expand...
Lol... You had to beg and plead with your wife to get into a hobby you wished to partake in. GTFO of here
 
RK99 said:
I don't think you undestand how laws and democratic societies work then. "Natural/God given" rights don't apply. Which God? Which religion? We have a separation of church and state for a reason. And in order to keep societies made up of large groups of individuals functioning with some semblance of order and civility we have laws made by people, not gods. In Canada we have laws and rights and nowhere in any of those do you have a "right" to own guns. In Canada it is a privelege that comes with requirements and restrictions. That's how the majority of canadians wanted it and that's how it is and that's what we have to work with. So if you want to maintain said privelege you need to be able to present reasonable arguments and conditions to allow that. Threats, anger and promoting civil disobedience won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure you read what I typed. I never brought religion into it, but “god given right” refers to a concept of natural law (this is why I used the small “g” and added “natural”, because your response was so predictable). Natural rules do exist, and this is why things like slavery and genocide are wrong, even if the majority of the populace votes for it, and it gets passed. But like I said before, you are more than welcome to try and defend your privileges, and ultimately comply when told to fall in line. Statistics show that most people will also do that, kind of like Germany only 90 years ago. Be well Comrade :)
 
Neurotoxic said:
Whenever I see these arguments, I remember how it went with my wife when I brought up the idea that I wanted to have my RPAL and buy a handgun.

She doesn't know anything about guns other than: they're dangerous and she doesn't like them. We just had a kid. She doesn't like violent movies. What's going on in the States on a regular basis scares her. She doesn't find it's "manly" to shoot a big gun.

Right off the bat, my chances were near zero.

I had to take some time. Bring up the subject casually. Explain concepts. Explain how strict it is, how safe guns can be when handled properly. Compare with race cars -- they're fun, but they don't belong in the street and it's like with guns, I'll go to the range. I had to be patient. I had to be open to discussion. Most importantly, I had to be ready to reach a compromise.

Just saying it's my right wouldn't have worked. Defending the house isn't a valid argument when the gun is supposedly properly stored in a locked room with a trigger lock -- if that gun is easily accessible in an emergency, our kid could find a way to get to it. She's not dumb either and knows we must live with each other in society -- pretending I have some virile natural right to own guns that surpasses our common laws would have made her laugh.

Now, you see, my wife's view isn't uncommon. And if you plan on using inflexible, hardcore arguments in public in an attempt to protect your privileges, you will fail.

If, ultimately, our goal is to preserve our privilege to own guns and take them to the range or hunting, we need to be ready to accept filling out some more paperwork, go through more rigorous background checks, and tone down quite a bit when we discuss our hobby.

But if this is all about defending non-existing god-given rights, or if you think the Liberals are a tyranny, then I'm out and wish you well on your future BB-gun endeavours.
Click to expand...

I can imagine your neighbours 10 doors down can hear the whip crack, when your wife tells you what to do!
 
And if you plan on using inflexible, hardcore arguments in public in an attempt to protect your privileges, you will fail.
Click to expand...

WoW.......

That means rock solid things like Truth and Facts don't stand a chance in this world.

Much less your right of an opinion in case anyone else has one......

Apparently they are now some kind of privilege.....

Sounds like you can carve a better man out of a banana.
 
Neurotoxic said:
Whenever I see these arguments, I remember how it went with my wife when I brought up the idea that I wanted to have my RPAL and buy a handgun.

She doesn't know anything about guns other than: they're dangerous and she doesn't like them. We just had a kid. She doesn't like violent movies. What's going on in the States on a regular basis scares her. She doesn't find it's "manly" to shoot a big gun.

Right off the bat, my chances were near zero.

I had to take some time. Bring up the subject casually. Explain concepts. Explain how strict it is, how safe guns can be when handled properly. Compare with race cars -- they're fun, but they don't belong in the street and it's like with guns, I'll go to the range. I had to be patient. I had to be open to discussion. Most importantly, I had to be ready to reach a compromise.

Just saying it's my right wouldn't have worked. Defending the house isn't a valid argument when the gun is supposedly properly stored in a locked room with a trigger lock -- if that gun is easily accessible in an emergency, our kid could find a way to get to it. She's not dumb either and knows we must live with each other in society -- pretending I have some virile natural right to own guns that surpasses our common laws would have made her laugh.

Now, you see, my wife's view isn't uncommon. And if you plan on using inflexible, hardcore arguments in public in an attempt to protect your privileges, you will fail.

If, ultimately, our goal is to preserve our privilege to own guns and take them to the range or hunting, we need to be ready to accept filling out some more paperwork, go through more rigorous background checks, and tone down quite a bit when we discuss our hobby.

But if this is all about defending non-existing god-given rights, or if you think the Liberals are a tyranny, then I'm out and wish you well on your future BB-gun endeavours.
Click to expand...

Why would you need your spouses permission. Does she ask you for approval when buying makeup. Honest questions. Not trying to troll or come off ignorant.
 
jw8 said:
where are you again. the usa is pro god, the god is on their currency, but you knew that didn't you. god is a huge part of the fabric in the usa, whether or not you agree is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Lat time I checked this was Canada. And even in the US there is a separation of state and church when it comes to their laws. At least there is supposed to be and that's the way their constitution was set up.
 
George Papadopoulos
‏

@GeorgePapa19
Follow Follow @GeorgePapa19

"For anyone who thinks that AG Barr and John Durham are on a fishing expedition around the world following “conspiracy theories”, I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara.
Their findings will change world history.

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1187487414316453888


A criminal investigation has been launched into the fake Russiagate affair against POTUS Trump.

This will lead right into all of Obama's spying on President Trump, all their covered up scandals, including Uranium One which was run through Canada while JT was PM.

Who was that again who interfered in our recent federal election promoting a certain candidate?

Then there is the massive donation in the millions to the dirty Clinton Foundation through JT, i'm hearing from sources lots of kickbacks out of that one alone.

Patriot movement is world wide, nothing can stop what is coming.

Nothing.

Gonna need lots of popcorn for this one.
 
Last edited:
Ah the good ol' whip jokes. That's very mature and I'm sure it helps greatly when people stumble on this thread.

I'm not ashamed of being in a great relationship with someone I love. I'm sorry if that's not your case. Yes, I decided to discuss with my wife out of respect because I know she would have been nervous with a gun around. I also discussed the subject because it is a substantial expense.

If the best you have is to laugh at me for that, I understand why the situation is so terrible right now for gun owners.
 
Forester1986 said:
I’m not sure you read what I typed. I never brought religion into it, but “god given right” refers to a concept of natural law (this is why I used the small “g” and added “natural”, because your response was so predictable). Natural rules do exist, and this is why things like slavery and genocide are wrong, even if the majority of the populace votes for it, and it gets passed. But like I said before, you are more than welcome to try and defend your privileges, and ultimately comply when told to fall in line. Statistics show that most people will also do that, kind of like Germany only 90 years ago. Be well Comrade :)
Click to expand...

Either way, we have our laws and they come from people and legislation, not any sense of "natural rights". It's an irrelevant red herring. But try to fight in court about your natural rights. I wish you luck. And trying to equate is what happened in Germany in WWII is a gross false equivalence. Owning guns in canada is not a basic human right and nobody is being killed over this. Similarly, trying to equate gun owneship to slavery or genocide etc is also gross false equivalence. Geez.
 
Neurotoxic said:
Ah the good ol' whip jokes. That's very mature and I'm sure it helps greatly when people stumble on this thread.

I'm not ashamed of being in a great relationship with someone I love. I'm sorry if that's not your case. Yes, I decided to discuss with my wife out of respect because I know she would have been nervous with a gun around. I also discussed the subject because it is a substantial expense.

If the best you have is to laugh at me for that, I understand why the situation is so terrible right now for gun owners.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Pretty pathetic if their relationship with a partner is so disrespectful and one sided that they feel they can do whatever they want without discussing it, regardless of whether said partner would feel frightened or uneasy. But not surprising given some of the attitudes on display around here.
 
RK99 said:
Exactly. Pretty pathetic if their relationship with a partner is so disrespectful and one sided that they feel they can do whatever they want without discussing it, regardless of whether said partner would feel frightened or uneasy. But not surprising given some of the attitudes on display around here.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is this lack of sensibility to other people's feelings is exactly why gun owners are depicted as the bad guys so easily. I've read some rock-solid arguments here and elsewhere that should be pushed forward in a coordinated manner to the general public.

But to convince them requires some empathy as well. If we act like guns are just like makeup, there's a huge problem.

What a frickin shame. I'm a pussy because I respect my wife and take gun ownership seriously.
 
RK99 said:
Either way, we have our laws and they come from people and legislation, not any sense of "natural rights". It's an irrelevant red herring. But try to fight in court about your natural rights. I wish you luck. And trying to equate is what happened in Germany in WWII is a gross false equivalence. Owning guns in canada is not a basic human right and nobody is being killed over this. Similarly, trying to equate gun owneship to slavery or genocide etc is also gross false equivalence. Geez.
Click to expand...

Sure. Like I said, I’m not saying you aren’t allowed to follow the crowd. In fact, I bet it’s a lot less stressful :)
 
Neurotoxic said:
Sad thing is this lack of sensibility to other people's feelings is exactly why gun owners are depicted as the bad guys so easily. I've read some rock-solid arguments here and elsewhere that should be pushed forward in a coordinated manner to the general public.

But to convince them requires some empathy as well. If we act like guns are just like makeup, there's a huge problem.

What a frickin shame. I'm a pussy because I respect my wife and take gun ownership seriously.
Click to expand...

You can still respect someone and be your own person. You don’t always have to agree with your partner, especially if they lack understanding in a subject. At the end of the day, we all pick our fights, and clearly it wasn’t that important to you, so you let her make the call.
 
RK99 said:
Lat time I checked this was Canada. And even in the US there is a separation of state and church when it comes to their laws. At least there is supposed to be and that's the way their constitution was set up.
Click to expand...

You don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist association in 1802 contained the partial quote "wall of separation between church and state". Read that again, partial quote. Not to be taken alone and out of context.

At that time, most of the founding fathers and the vast majority of early Americans were bible believing Christians, and the founding fathers expected and certainly hoped that America always would be so. There was discussion in early America about whether there should be a state sponsored, state supported official national religion, like England (tax payer funded Anglican church) and Germany (tax payer funded Lutheran church) had.

Jefferson assured the Baptist association in that letter that he was against the establishment of any government selected, government funded national church. He correctly reasoned that a church funded by government would be beholden to government, the hand that feeds them. This opens the door wide to corruption, in addition to discriminating against all the other Christian denominations that were not chosen.

The full context of what Jefferson said was that government must not interfere with church activities so there needed to be a wall of separation between church and state.

Every meeting of Congress began with prayer. It was absolutely not the intention of the Founding Fathers to keep Christianity out of government, it was exactly the contrary. That government must not be involved in the Christian church.
 
RK99 said:
Lat time I checked this was Canada. And even in the US there is a separation of state and church when it comes to their laws. At least there is supposed to be and that's the way their constitution was set up.
Click to expand...

you brought it up. yes this is canada, and that being said, what happens in the USA is not applicable to us. in god we trust.
 
Neurotoxic said:
Sad thing is this lack of sensibility to other people's feelings is exactly why gun owners are depicted as the bad guys so easily. I've read some rock-solid arguments here and elsewhere that should be pushed forward in a coordinated manner to the general public.

But to convince them requires some empathy as well. If we act like guns are just like makeup, there's a huge problem.

What a frickin shame. I'm a pussy because I respect my wife and take gun ownership seriously.
Click to expand...

no one ever died over hurt feelings, get over it.
you sir, are on your way to trolling.
to put things into context, do you sit to pee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom