Trudeau's Gun Ban and Buy Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Fair enough, glad it all worked out in the end.
 
Forester1986 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We don't agree on this, and we agreed to me having the guns because I took the time to explain it properly.

We run a business together. We manage rental properties together. I know how things work. But guns are different. To her, and to most people, guns shouldn't be owned by civilians.

If you still can't wrap your head around this, if you don't accept this reality, you will never be able to argue efficiently and push your cause forward.

If isn't about being myself. I do fine, thanks for caring. It's about me considering my wife's opinion on an important issue.
 
steamy teabag said:
Fair enough, glad it all worked out in the end.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it worked out as well and I kinda knew from the beginning she would be alright with that, as long as I explained. And what I'm saying is it can work with the general public as well.

The reason I brought this up is that the gun community sometimes seem to forget who we are arguing with. Normal people don't understand why we should have or want to have guns. And it's very easy for them to match gun ownership with unrelated gun crimes.

This is the current situation right now. Diplomacy does a better job than threats of civil disobedience. Especially if civil disobedience comes from macho guys with big guns. That's not exactly a great PR exercice.

It completely baffles me that gun owners are so torn appart and can't come up with a strong, united voice. It seems like, for some, their grandiloquent display of potential violence because they own guns is more important than actually keeping said guns through lawful means.
 
Just to point out, that spanning the entirety of human history, this current phenomenon we are witnessing in the West (people not wanting or needing weapons) is unprecedented and an anomaly.

They are the weird ones.
 
CoonT said:
Just to point out, that spanning the entirety of human history, this current phenomenon we are witnessing in the West (people not wanting or needing weapons) is unprecedented and an anomaly.

They are the weird ones.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. But again, this is not an argument that will help keep your guns.

Neither will talking about an upcoming tyranny and some dystopian future where "they" take away our children because we didn't fight for our guns.

It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. It doesn't matter that the average millenial is a plant-munching, low effort moron. It doesn't matter we should be able to defend ourselves against violent gangsters.

What truly matters is how we defend our side and convince the general population we should have the right to own and use firearms like adults. The rest, the tyranny you imagine, the socialists that piss you off, the pussies like me who respect their wives, none of that matter in the grand scheme of things.

If we are to keep our guns, we need to work on something better than "Libtards are brainless sheeple".
 
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...

The situation right now is so terrible for gun owners because firearm owners did exactly what you are suggesting. Don’t draw attention, don’t come across as inflexible and learn to “compromise”. That resulted in c68 during the 90s where firearm owners got screwed. Compromise was a one way word. Firearm owners thought it couldn’t happen. They wouldn’t betray firearm owners like that! They did. Then Conservatives eventually gained some say and the firearms community rebuilt with new cool non restricted along with new restricted firearms etc.

Then 2015. No they don’t mean our guns when they say getting guns off our streets. They mean criminals. No, they meant ours since they don’t differentiate. Here we are today and some still think it can’t happen or don’t realize they won’t be Grandfathering and that it’s actually a semi auto ban coming our way and not an AR ban. Maybe if we are polite, don’t rock the boat Use logic and appeal to their intellect it won’t happen? That has never been the result in the past, no reason to think it will be this time.

The best chance we have is Alberta and Saskatchewan as firearms are very much a part of life in those areas. Make it part of the divide. It’s a divide in resources, ideology, and lifestyle. Not just resources. I doubt the Liberals really want to push those two provinces any further.

Trying to convince people won’t work. There are three groups here. One has firearms and stands to lose a lot. The other is using this to gain at the expense of the first. The third is the general public with little to no interest other than feeling unsafe and wanting something done. So second group you are appealing to people with a vested interest to ignore the best arguments in order to benefit. The last group is about perceived safety and feelings while also having nothing to lose but thinking they are gaining at no cost.

Here’s an analogy for you. You have two wolves and a sheep at the dinner table. The two wolves say let’s vote on what’s for dinner tonight. You see where this ends.

Pleading, begging, trying not to offend. Trying to rationalize and debate. All done and yet here we are. The reason it’s ineffective is described above. You have to appeal to the public’s vested interest. Make it noisy, expensive and time consuming for those trying to expropriate our property.

In the CCFR interview with Blair, what he said was alarming. The it’s a privledge should concern everyone. Large houses, fast cars and anything you own is therefore a privilege and not a right. This should scare the heck out of everyone. The picture Blair was really painting was that of a police state. From an ex police chief who employed controversial techniques in the G20 protests no less. The argument why do you “need” that should cause concern as it’s also the hallmark of a police state argument. Other than oxygen, some food/water and a roof over your head, what do you actually “need”. Slippery slope.

Cost to tax payers, not being quiet or cooperative, division of the nation which includes major resources which pay for all this social programs along with concerns of a police state is how it should be approached. Unfortunately loudly and defiantly. The time for compromises or trying not to offend is well over. There is a lot more at stake here than just guns. The firearm bans and expropriation are however the symptoms of a much larger problem. The acceptance of taking our property sets a tone and doesn’t stop with firearms. Plus as the Americans like to say, there is no first amendment without the second. in Canada people like Blair make it clear we have few of any rights and only privileges. Again should be scary as heck to anyone. Where in history has disarming the legally acquired firearms in a populace ever turned out to be a good thing.
 
Epoxy7, I absolutely agree with what you say and explain. I know you are right.

What I'm trying to say is that this is a battle that can't be won easily. In the very short term, you risk seeing your guns being confiscated. If the arguments you brought are used to convince the public you should keep your guns, it won't work.

We should be focusing on what's coming next and prepare for it in the hope we postpone and, eventually, eliminate the threat.

As for the rest, it is a massive social issue of a completely different order. It isn't about guns at all. It is about our Western society and values. Not exactly a fight to pick right now.
 
Epoxy7 said:
The situation right now is so terrible for gun owners because firearm owners did exactly what you are suggesting. Don’t draw attention, don’t come across as inflexible and learn to “compromise”. That resulted in c68 during the 90s where firearm owners got screwed. Compromise was a one way word. Firearm owners thought it couldn’t happen. They wouldn’t betray firearm owners like that! They did. Then Conservatives eventually gained some say and the firearms community rebuilt with new cool non restricted along with new restricted firearms etc.

Then 2015. No they don’t mean our guns when they say getting guns off our streets. They mean criminals. No, they meant ours since they don’t differentiate. Here we are today and some still think it can’t happen or don’t realize they won’t be Grandfathering and that it’s actually a semi auto ban coming our way and not an AR ban. Maybe if we are polite, don’t rock the boat Use logic and appeal to their intellect it won’t happen? That has never been the result in the past, no reason to think it will be this time.

The best chance we have is Alberta and Saskatchewan as firearms are very much a part of life in those areas. Make it part of the divide. It’s a divide in resources, ideology, and lifestyle. Not just resources. I doubt the Liberals really want to push those two provinces any further.

Trying to convince people won’t work. There are three groups here. One has firearms and stands to lose a lot. The other is using this to gain at the expense of the first. The third is the general public with little to no interest other than feeling unsafe and wanting something done. So second group you are appealing to people with a vested interest to ignore the best arguments in order to benefit. The last group is about perceived safety and feelings while also having nothing to lose but thinking they are gaining at no cost.

Here’s an analogy for you. You have two wolves and a sheep at the dinner table. The two wolves say let’s vote on what’s for dinner tonight. You see where this ends.

Pleading, begging, trying not to offend. Trying to rationalize and debate. All done and yet here we are. The reason it’s ineffective is described above. You have to appeal to the public’s vested interest. Make it noisy, expensive and time consuming for those trying to expropriate our property.

In the CCFR interview with Blair, what he said was alarming. The it’s a privledge should concern everyone. Large houses, fast cars and anything you own is therefore a privilege and not a right. This should scare the heck out of everyone. The picture Blair was really painting was that of a police state. From an ex police chief who employed controversial techniques in the G20 protests no less. The argument why do you “need” that should cause concern as it’s also the hallmark of a police state argument. Other than oxygen, some food/water and a roof over your head, what do you actually “need”. Slippery slope.

Cost to tax payers, not being quiet or cooperative, division of the nation which includes major resources which pay for all this social programs along with concerns of a police state is how it should be approached. Unfortunately loudly and defiantly. The time for compromises or trying not to offend is well over. There is a lot more at stake here than just guns. The firearm bans and expropriation are however the symptoms of a much larger problem. The acceptance of taking our property sets a tone and doesn’t stop with firearms. Plus as the Americans like to say, there is no first amendment without the second. in Canada people like Blair make it clear we have few of any rights and only privileges. Again should be scary as heck to anyone. Where in history has disarming the legally acquired firearms in a populace ever turned out to be a good thing.
Click to expand...
A very good post. Thank you.
 
Epoxy7 said:
The situation right now is so terrible for gun owners because firearm owners did exactly what you are suggesting. Don’t draw attention, don’t come across as inflexible and learn to “compromise”. That resulted in c68 during the 90s where firearm owners got screwed. Compromise was a one way word. Firearm owners thought it couldn’t happen. They wouldn’t betray firearm owners like that! They did. Then Conservatives eventually gained some say and the firearms community rebuilt with new cool non restricted along with new restricted firearms etc.

Then 2015. No they don’t mean our guns when they say getting guns off our streets. They mean criminals. No, they meant ours since they don’t differentiate. Here we are today and some still think it can’t happen or don’t realize they won’t be Grandfathering and that it’s actually a semi auto ban coming our way and not an AR ban. Maybe if we are polite, don’t rock the boat Use logic and appeal to their intellect it won’t happen? That has never been the result in the past, no reason to think it will be this time.

The best chance we have is Alberta and Saskatchewan as firearms are very much a part of life in those areas. Make it part of the divide. It’s a divide in resources, ideology, and lifestyle. Not just resources. I doubt the Liberals really want to push those two provinces any further.

Trying to convince people won’t work. There are three groups here. One has firearms and stands to lose a lot. The other is using this to gain at the expense of the first. The third is the general public with little to no interest other than feeling unsafe and wanting something done. So second group you are appealing to people with a vested interest to ignore the best arguments in order to benefit. The last group is about perceived safety and feelings while also having nothing to lose but thinking they are gaining at no cost.

Here’s an analogy for you. You have two wolves and a sheep at the dinner table. The two wolves say let’s vote on what’s for dinner tonight. You see where this ends.

Pleading, begging, trying not to offend. Trying to rationalize and debate. All done and yet here we are. The reason it’s ineffective is described above. You have to appeal to the public’s vested interest. Make it noisy, expensive and time consuming for those trying to expropriate our property.

In the CCFR interview with Blair, what he said was alarming. The it’s a privledge should concern everyone. Large houses, fast cars and anything you own is therefore a privilege and not a right. This should scare the heck out of everyone. The picture Blair was really painting was that of a police state. From an ex police chief who employed controversial techniques in the G20 protests no less. The argument why do you “need” that should cause concern as it’s also the hallmark of a police state argument. Other than oxygen, some food/water and a roof over your head, what do you actually “need”. Slippery slope.

Cost to tax payers, not being quiet or cooperative, division of the nation which includes major resources which pay for all this social programs along with concerns of a police state is how it should be approached. Unfortunately loudly and defiantly. The time for compromises or trying not to offend is well over. There is a lot more at stake here than just guns. The firearm bans and expropriation are however the symptoms of a much larger problem. The acceptance of taking our property sets a tone and doesn’t stop with firearms. Plus as the Americans like to say, there is no first amendment without the second. in Canada people like Blair make it clear we have few of any rights and only privileges. Again should be scary as heck to anyone. Where in history has disarming the legally acquired firearms in a populace ever turned out to be a good thing.
Click to expand...

This is the truth in its purest state!! Awesome statement here.
 
Blair and JT will be deep in their hidy holes when the shooting starts, if their plans are actually implemented and if they are foolish enough to actually send their hired goons to start kicking down doors.

This ain't no New Zealand.
 
Pumpjack said:
Blair and JT will be deep in their hidy holes when the shooting starts, if their plans are actually implemented and if they are foolish enough to actually send their hired goons to start kicking down doors.

This ain't no New Zealand.
Click to expand...

Apparently the NZ gun owners aren't being all that cooperative either.
 
RK99 said:
You are still incorrect. We do not have any "right to bear arms" in Canada and you have the right to use "resonable force" to defend yourself. It is up to the police and courts to decide what that reasonable force is and it can vary widely from case to case. Bottom line is you have no right to own guns to defend yourself and trying to promote that mainstream Canadians will probably get you lots of sideways looks. It is not a helpful position in fighting a proposed ban. It will make you look like a paranoid wingnut.
Click to expand...

Evidently you benefit from our patience and good grace. I can't say the same of the other side you most likely serve.
 
Epoxy7 said:
The situation right now is so terrible for gun owners because firearm owners did exactly what you are suggesting. Don’t draw attention, don’t come across as inflexible and learn to “compromise”. That resulted in c68 during the 90s where firearm owners got screwed. Compromise was a one way word. Firearm owners thought it couldn’t happen. They wouldn’t betray firearm owners like that! They did. Then Conservatives eventually gained some say and the firearms community rebuilt with new cool non restricted along with new restricted firearms etc.

Then 2015. No they don’t mean our guns when they say getting guns off our streets. They mean criminals. No, they meant ours since they don’t differentiate. Here we are today and some still think it can’t happen or don’t realize they won’t be Grandfathering and that it’s actually a semi auto ban coming our way and not an AR ban. Maybe if we are polite, don’t rock the boat Use logic and appeal to their intellect it won’t happen? That has never been the result in the past, no reason to think it will be this time.

The best chance we have is Alberta and Saskatchewan as firearms are very much a part of life in those areas. Make it part of the divide. It’s a divide in resources, ideology, and lifestyle. Not just resources. I doubt the Liberals really want to push those two provinces any further.

Trying to convince people won’t work. There are three groups here. One has firearms and stands to lose a lot. The other is using this to gain at the expense of the first. The third is the general public with little to no interest other than feeling unsafe and wanting something done. So second group you are appealing to people with a vested interest to ignore the best arguments in order to benefit. The last group is about perceived safety and feelings while also having nothing to lose but thinking they are gaining at no cost.

Here’s an analogy for you. You have two wolves and a sheep at the dinner table. The two wolves say let’s vote on what’s for dinner tonight. You see where this ends.

Pleading, begging, trying not to offend. Trying to rationalize and debate. All done and yet here we are. The reason it’s ineffective is described above. You have to appeal to the public’s vested interest. Make it noisy, expensive and time consuming for those trying to expropriate our property.

In the CCFR interview with Blair, what he said was alarming. The it’s a privledge should concern everyone. Large houses, fast cars and anything you own is therefore a privilege and not a right. This should scare the heck out of everyone. The picture Blair was really painting was that of a police state. From an ex police chief who employed controversial techniques in the G20 protests no less. The argument why do you “need” that should cause concern as it’s also the hallmark of a police state argument. Other than oxygen, some food/water and a roof over your head, what do you actually “need”. Slippery slope.

Cost to tax payers, not being quiet or cooperative, division of the nation which includes major resources which pay for all this social programs along with concerns of a police state is how it should be approached. Unfortunately loudly and defiantly. The time for compromises or trying not to offend is well over. There is a lot more at stake here than just guns. The firearm bans and expropriation are however the symptoms of a much larger problem. The acceptance of taking our property sets a tone and doesn’t stop with firearms. Plus as the Americans like to say, there is no first amendment without the second. in Canada people like Blair make it clear we have few of any rights and only privileges. Again should be scary as heck to anyone. Where in history has disarming the legally acquired firearms in a populace ever turned out to be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Best post in years.
 
Hey JT, looks like you got a lot of pokers in the fire way over there, in the country formerly known as Canada.

Western Alienation/Separation, scandals that just won't go away, huge debt/deficit and now you want to go and dump gasoline on those fires by stealing everyone's legally obtained property?

That gasoline has a mind of it's own and will blow up in your face, way more than you can ever begin to realize.

Now your buddy Obama is in way over his head, you gonna offer your support, return the favor?

LMFAO!


"Last night was historic. The news coming out on four fronts indicates that the Deep State should be very worried. Those of us uncovering the many corrupt actions taken by President Obama’s Deep State have been looking forward to this day for some time!

Last night it was as if the planets aligned against the Deep State. On four different fronts it’s now clear that the crooks in the Obama Administration should be very worried."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-ahead-will-be-devastating-to-the-deep-state/
 
Well the other side never knows when to cease and desist. They are psychologically void of empathy and merely thrill at poking at good mannered, decent people. They are the deplorables and they've arrived here for shyts and giggles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom