Ok, so you like your guns, but why do we have to put up with them.

[moyiesledhead]

again what is the purpose of a gun? seems to me it is to kill, unless you can think of something else

I know a number of people that are recreational and competition target shooters that have either stopped hunting or never have hunted. It's also an olympic event. How about trap shooting. Hard to KILL a clay pidgeon!

 

[DRD]

I posted the cartoon slowly so you would understand Larry.
The cartoon wasn't all guns, merely the small amount of deaths actually caused by the "assault rifle" style vs a blunt object. Don't like the numbers, call the FBI, they generated them.
Like it or not, you can't compare gun violence without looking at the socio-economic picture as well. The Swiss have one of the higher rates of evil assault rifle ownership but their gun crime rate is comparatively low. If it was only due to machine guns being in every closet, wouldn't the problem show up for the Swiss as well?

 

[imdoo'n]

Should send him over to Afghanistan.

better yet, send over a troop of drunk, smoking, driving PMS women. should be over in a week.

 

[snopro]

better yet, send over a troop of drunk, smoking, driving PMS women. should be over in a week.

How about a bunch of redneck Louisiana boys and tell them it really was the afghans that killed Dale Earnhardt?

 

[moyiesledhead]

I try avoid Toronto, and always avoid searching dudes on a Friday night.

 

[imdoo'n]

You firearm haters seem to want to bicker,.. go here

CanadianGunNutz.com

I'm sure you could also talk about how tree's shouldn't be harvested, or maybe how the oil should remain in the ground.

again you read more into this than is being posted, don't see anyone hating firearms, like to see some sort of limits on multi fire guns .

don't see anyone wanting the elimination of guns altogether. although sure see a lot of peeps constantly proclaiming the same NRA rhetoric

 

[byronkentgraham]

better yet, send over a troop of drunk, smoking, driving PMS women. should be over in a week.

If you want to round up a group of them go right ahead. You're a braver man than I.

 

[kbrunlees]

Yes, second smoke kills more people and that is being worked on. I quit 13 years ago. After my Grandsons were born, I sold my guns to get rid of the nightmares. NO ONE SAID THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE GUNS. Ok, I said this loud and clear. As it was stated, there is a time and place for guns and cities are not it. As for recreational use, skeet, clay pigeons competitive shooting all have rules on how you use and store your guns. We are talking about controlling guns, at no time have I or anyone else here advocated to banning all guns. This is the knee jerk reaction to the sky is falling by Chicken Little. I applaud people who can hunt for food, I am not one of them. I eat meat, but be happy that you are relying on me to get it for you or you would be unhappy with the dandelions that you might see on your plate( a little humour to reduce the tension). I am not one to bubble wrap the world to keep it completely safe as it is human nature to do something dangerous, I am no different. But why should we arm ourselves to the teeth, If you look at the general mentality of Canadians versus Americans as a whole, our philosophies are different. If you feel so strongly about having the right to carry, perhaps you could move to a place that allows this. We have a certain amount contentment here about our general safety due to knowing that very few people are packing heat. Most Canadians are behind gun control within reason, the long gun registry was a joke and a travesty. It just made criminals out of way too many people overnight. The idea behind it was well intentioned but the implementation was not. I don't believe anyone here said that they hated guns, so I am not sure why that was thrown in. As I said I used to own guns, went out shooting plenty. I even had a handgun, but to be honest, it lost its allure when you can only use it at range. As for being a tree hugger, um, we are all quadders or sledders on here, so we really are not considered part of that ilk.

 

[mick]

you want to be able to carry guns while your loaded on a quad?

Not quite


i sure as hell am against loaded guns on quads period. i can only think of more statistics coming of that. guess common sense definitely isn't that common, and i thought laws were useless.

Playing in a mud hole I agree. Common sense to carry in the high country. You even watched a griz charge someone 30' infront of you and being the good law abiding citizen you are, your gun is in the case unloaded? I have, Not much protection on a quad.

 

[byronkentgraham]

Playing in a mud hole I agree. Common sense to carry in the high country. You even watched a griz charge someone 30' infront of you and being the good law abiding citizen you are, your gun is in the case unloaded? I have, Not much protection on a quad.

Never one in the chamber, but one in the tube or clip is okay by me.

 

[mick]

Never one in the chamber, but one in the tube or clip is okay by me.

Exactly, but that is against the law

 

[Wilk INStheWEST]

Second hand smoke kills more people than guns do.
Drinking and driving kill more people than guns do.

Hey, guess what, laws have changed to mitigate these. I haven't been in a bar/restaurant/public place in Canada that allowed smoking in about 10 years. 40 years ago people were free to smoke where ever they wanted. Smoke on an airplane? Sure, why not. The government realized that a lot of people were dying this way, and they changed the laws, thereby altering people's freedoms, and removed smoking from public places. I'm sure you were completely against those laws as well.
Again, 40 years ago there wasn't much of a problem with people drinking and driving. They changed those laws and cracked down on it, and there is less drunk driving now than there was on the 60s and 70s. Were you against those laws as well?
These things have changed, so why is the US following a VERY VAGUE amendment in their constitution from 236 years ago, and now that it may be controlled, not removed, but controlled people are going crazy about it. Yes, the US was built on war, along with the majority of the countries in this world, but that doesn't mean that their citizens are still at war, as they were when the constitution was ratified.

 

[byronkentgraham]

Hey, guess what, laws have changed to mitigate these. I haven't been in a bar/restaurant/public place in Canada that allowed smoking in about 10 years. 40 years ago people were free to smoke where ever they wanted. Smoke on an airplane? Sure, why not. The government realized that a lot of people were dying this way, and they changed the laws, thereby altering people's freedoms, and removed smoking from public places. I'm sure you were completely against those laws as well.
Again, 40 years ago there wasn't much of a problem with people drinking and driving. They changed those laws and cracked down on it, and there is less drunk driving now than there was on the 60s and 70s. Were you against those laws as well?
These things have changed, so why is the US following a VERY VAGUE amendment in their constitution from 236 years ago, and now that it may be controlled, not removed, but controlled people are going crazy about it. Yes, the US was built on war, along with the majority of the countries in this world, but that doesn't mean that their citizens are still at war, as they were when the constitution was ratified.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is not very vague. Only the democrats can run a dictatorship.

 

[Remoth]

I don't have any guns, but I do enjoy the ones other members of my family have. Use them for target practice and hunting, etc. self defence in the bush is a good idea, but if the country I live in gets to the point where I NEED to carry a gun to protect myself from PEOPLE? I need to find another place to live. I don't agree with people being able to carry pistols for self defence. People are very emotional creatures, we don't need guns all over the place. Teach a monkey how to shoot and it'll shoot another one to get its banana.

But It's not black and white. We shouldn't get rid of all guns, and we shouldn't let guns go wild. We need a compromise. Canada does pretty well IMO.

 

[Wilk INStheWEST]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is not very vague. Only the democrats can run a dictatorship.

Where are you getting a dictatorship, man? I think you might be stretching a little there.
Second amendment written in over 200 years ago, when the US require a militia to protect themselves from the Brits. They have a regulated military now, to maintain the security of their free state.
200 years ago, guns were capable of firing maybe 2 rounds a minute. The world has changed! Weapons have changed.
I will state this again, no one here believes that all firearms need to be removed from the people. I believe that limitations should be put in place on handguns and semi-auto/automatic weapons, and weapons with high-capacity clips. Those of you who seem to be worried that Obama is going to take over the US and turn it into a dictatorship just don't seem to be understanding that.

 

[byronkentgraham]

Where are you getting a dictatorship, man? I think you might be stretching a little there.
Second amendment written in over 200 years ago, when the US require a militia to protect themselves from the Brits. They have a regulated military now, to maintain the security of their free state.
200 years ago, guns were capable of firing maybe 2 rounds a minute. The world has changed! Weapons have changed.
I will state this again, no one here believes that all firearms need to be removed from the people. I believe that limitations should be put in place on handguns and semi-auto/automatic weapons, and weapons with high-capacity clips. Those of you who seem to be worried that Obama is going to take over the US and turn it into a dictatorship just don't seem to be understanding that.


View attachment 147438

He signed an executive order so it doesn't have to pass through congress. One person making decisions that's a dictatorship.

 

[Wilk INStheWEST]

He signed an executive order so it doesn't have to pass through congress. One person making decisions that's a dictatorship.

George W. Bush made 290 Executive Orders while he was president. Guess that was a dictatorship too, and it's not just the Democrats.

 

[byronkentgraham]

George W. Bush made 290 Executive Orders while he was president. Guess that was a dictatorship too.

How many of those were in direct violation of the constitution?

 

[the_real_wild1]

I am not going to read this whole thread. Just checking the site to see what is going on at home. But I am guessing that the people that think Canada is so safe has not had to call the police multiple times throughout the year for someone trying to break down the back door in the idle of the night, or someone trying to burn down the garage or camper. vehicle being broken into etc. Or the one night I was attacked in my front yard some pos drunk indian. Or the drunk indian that I didn't confront trying to get in the garage at 2 in the morning because I was sick. After yelling at him he booted the garage door and slowly left. When the cops finally came about 30 mins later we went out and looked at the door. The foot print was near the top of the 7 foot door. This was a big fawker so chances of me winning a hand to hand fight would have been slim. Police rarely catch these guys. I know I lived in that house for 12 years. Police only show up within ten minutes of calling about 10% of the time. So yes if I need to protect myself I can. I would rather not end up one of those on the news as either dead or in the hospital for the rest of my life. That is great if you live in a house where there is no crime. I do too now. It is a good feeling. But there are many many places where crime happens a lot. Stop saying the Canada is so fricken safe because it really isn't.

 

[Wilk INStheWEST]

How many of those were in direct violation of the constitution?

You do know that there are already been a 'direct violation of the constitution' passed through congress, right? In 1994, the US congress banned the sale of assault rifles. That ban expired in 2004.