Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,368
- Points
- 1,260
ballz said:
Yes it is lol I posted an apology a while back. A guy can change right ? ;D
Im on the hunt for my first AR now... ;D
The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
Yes it is lol I posted an apology a while back. A guy can change right ? ;D
Im on the hunt for my first AR now... ;D
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax Tar said:
PM me tomorrow. I've got some that are collecting dust.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
Jed said:
Whatever you say mate, I am a gun owner so if you can't even convince me why we don't require licensing then you can continue to preach to the peanut gallery.
I will go back to what I originally said, the firearms laws are the way they are because the government has said so, it's the rule of law so if you want to change it why not try lobbying and convincing swing voters who CAN and WILL help you if you do what all shrewd diplomats do.... i.e. compromise.
I am just as upset as you are about the re-classification of the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms Rifle but not for the same reasons as you are. I am upset because it was done by bureaucrats who are un-elected. If it was something that was passed in the HoC then so be it as I believe in the rule of law. We live in a democratic society and if you want to make a change then do it at the ballot box or with some cold hard cash by donating to some lobbying groups. Btw I am a card carrying member of the NFA as well so I've done my part, what have you done lately?
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
Ok, tell that to the cop the next time he pulls you over. Tell me what happens afterwards.
Furthermore, show me where it says that in any provincial DMV act....
Here is what it says on the front page of the Government of NB DMV website:
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/services_renderer.200566.html
Hmmmmmm seems pretty self explanatory to me.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
We are all upset about the changes in classification, you're not a white knight on his trusty steed when it comes to this one.
As to requiring licensing, convince the rest of us why we do need it. You say we need licensing, prove it!
Your sole argument so far has been to state that you need to be licensed and registered to drive on public roads, ergo the same should apply to firearms. Apples and rocks, convince us why.
It's about time you put up or shut up and prove me wrong.
You don't always need a license or registration to drive on a public road. Got that? Your arguement is invalid.
And so is the rest of your discussion.
As to requiring licensing, convince the rest of us why we do need it. You say we need licensing, prove it!
Your sole argument so far has been to state that you need to be licensed and registered to drive on public roads, ergo the same should apply to firearms. Apples and rocks, convince us why.
It's about time you put up or shut up and prove me wrong.
You don't always need a license or registration to drive on a public road. Got that? Your arguement is invalid.
And so is the rest of your discussion.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
I can haul up the other nine provinces if you like :
Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous. Seeing as how you don't like my motor vehicle example I'll switch it up a bit.
In order for restaurants to cook and serve food they need to be licensed by the health inspector, right?
If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food? I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life? But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice? I think you get where I am going with this.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:
As per most that go off half cocked, think they know it all and use it to bolster their misinformation, they conveniently fail to research their subject fully or discount those criteria that do not support their stance.
Besides Provincial laws do not trump Federal ones.
Ever seen a farm vehicle, tractor, bailer, combine, tomato train with a license plate on a county road? Ever seen a road grader or front end loader, bobcat or other piece of construction equipment going down the street, with a license plate?
No employer or sole operator requires a license to drive this equipment on public roads. Permits of competency are provided by the employer. Not a federal or provincial mandated permit or license.
Registration is not required, as the main purpose of the vehicles does not constitute major public use.
So explain again why guns need a license and registration because vehicles do?
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:I can haul up the other nine provinces if you like :
Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous. Seeing as how you don't like my motor vehicle example I'll switch it up a bit.
In order for restaurants to cook and serve food they need to be licensed by the health inspector, right?
If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food? I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life? But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice? I think you get where I am going with this.
You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.
A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
Ever heard of separation of powers mate? It's kind of what our whole system of government is based on? Maybe it's you who doesn't really know what he is talking about?
recceguy said:
Sounds great, will agree to disagree then. Your not the one I am really trying to get my point across to anyways because you are what I would classify as "extremist". Your always right which is why your always going to be barking up a dead tree.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:I can haul up the other nine provinces if you like :
Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous. Seeing as how you don't like my motor vehicle example I'll switch it up a bit.
In order for restaurants to cook and serve food they need to be licensed by the health inspector, right?
If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food? I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life? But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice? I think you get where I am going with this.
You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.
A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
I know exactly where your trying to take this. Into the realm of the left leaning, absurd justification.
Seriously? That's the best you have? I suppose if I ran a nuclear facility, and provided you eectricity, and because that plant may leak or explode, I have to register my guns and be licensed to do something that I was taught and eventually taught others? And have a government license for tracking purposes and tax revenues to the same?
That's the funniest shit I've heard in a few days.
You just keep fighting your good fight, and the rest of us will try preserve our rights.
In spite of your misguided efforts.
I have better things to do than argue semantics with someone who feels they are defending us but, ultimately, are going to do us harm.
I'll give one piece of advice.
Before you enter into a discussion with an anti, educate yourself to the tiny factoids that invalidate most of their extreme rhetoric. Use their own bias against them and ensure, before you open your mouth, you have every angle of your discussion covered and backed up.
That typically makes them a sputtering mess that ends the conversation with "Oh Yeah, that's bullshit" before they storm away.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
We can take this anyway you want to take it, you seem to be a little unsettled? If you ran a nuclear facility the government would expect you to abide by the laws as set fourth in the Nuclear Control and Safety Act as that's the act that governs nuclear safety.
Talking about gun laws again, The government expects you to abide by the laws set fourth in the Firearms Act as that is what the government has told you to do. Again, if you don't like it go vote the present government out or work for a lobbying group. Right now you sound like a child that is crying because he lost his favorite toy.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:
That doesn't justify your premise. You're the one that brought it into the provincial realm with your misinformed, absurd statement of provincial licensing versus federal. Sort your shit out, your the one losing control of your jurisdictions.
So, I'm opposite you, and because I'm for free rights and less government I'm the extremist? I guess, you being opposite make you one of those nanny statist control freaks.
See how those ad hominems work?
I'm not always right, but when someone educates me with fact, I accept it. Even though I may not agree with it.
As for dead trees, I have a wood stove in the Man Cave that requires stoking. I never spend time barking up one when I can burn it.
You have a good one, and I hope your dead before they come for your Cooey .22
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,368
- Points
- 1,260
recceguy said:
Just a quick note on this. From everything I had read firearms ownership in Canada is not a right its a privilege.
Correct me if I am wrong but we have no Second Amendment like article.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
How did I ever do that? I originally was talking about automobiles, your the one talking about combines and heavy equipment? For the record you are partially correct when you say provincial laws are trumped by federal laws but only in certain instances i.e. when the powers of governance are shared. Agriculture is a shared responsibility; thus, federal law trumps provincial law which is why your farm combines don't need licenses. As for heavy equipment, they may not have license plates but the operators still require proper certification to operate the vehicles so again I fail to see your point or how it invalidates mine at all.
Yes you are an extremist, I would classify myself as a moderate, if you want to lump me in with the pinko lefty's then that's your prerogative.
Sure you do
rly:
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
Halifax Tar said:
Correct
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax Tar said:
My rights are the right to improper search and seizure.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,368
- Points
- 1,260
recceguy said:
No worries. No pot stirring intention just an honest question.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:How did I ever do that? I originally was talking about automobiles, your the one talking about combines and heavy equipment? For the record you are partially correct when you say provincial laws are trumped by federal laws but only in certain instances i.e. when the powers of governance are shared. Agriculture is a shared responsibility; thus, federal law trumps provincial law which is why your farm combines don't need licenses. As for heavy equipment, they may not have license plates but the operators still require proper certification to operate the vehicles so again I fail to see your point or how it invalidates mine at all.
Yes you are an extremist, I would classify myself as a moderate, if you want to lump me in with the pinko lefty's then that's your prerogative.
Sure you do
You are the one that said guns should be licensed like vehicles that drove on the road. A provincial law, not federal. You introduced that, not me.
I simply stated you were wrong. You haven't proved otherwise.
You have no concept of provincial vs federal jurisdiction in this matter. Your googlefoo and wiki shit don't count.
BTW, and this is part of my government job, but the only thing an operator needs is proof of training and competency by their employer to operate the equipment. No government certification.
Your argument is invalid.
You still haven't explained how this relates to gun licensing
So please enlighten us, before you try take us further off track with your vehicle and restaurant bullshit. Both of which were that.
Bullshit and deflection from the main.
Typical anti shit.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
You seem to be the one deflecting mate ;D I've provided you with everything you asked for yet you continue to rant and rave. You haven't back up anything you have said with any sort of actual written documentation or sources.
As for "guns should be licensed like vehicles" it's called a comparison dude, in your mind it may be apples and oranges but for others, not necessarily the case. If you want me to bring up more examples of how different levels of government regulate your everyday life then so be it, I can do it all day if you want?
Ever read Hobbes before? You seem very concerned about your "rights" but do you even know what that means? Without regulation and government, we have no rights because we don't have government there to protect those rights that we do have. You want "rights" but rights cannot be unrestricted otherwise we would be living in a state of anarchy.
I view firearms law in much the same way, we have given up some of our "rights" for protection by the government who provide us with a civil society. Without the government the conditions for civil society do not exist; thus, society seeks to function and we enter what Hobbes calls a "State of Nature".
The government has determined that it's in their interest to regulate firearms, as I said before, I am a believer in the rule of law above all else and if that's the way the government want to treat this then so be it. Don't like it well I won't tell you how to get to the nearest election box when the time comes.
With that in mind, I am hitting the hay, need to head South in the am for business... we can continue this tomorrow.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
The typical deflection tactic.
You raise the issue, then leave the opposition to provide opposite proof.
How sad for someone that purports to be intellectual.
Your twists and turns in the last half dozen posts or so are worthy of a whirling dervish.
You should enter politics my friend, with your ability to try obfuscate the situation, without really committing to a platform.
You might feel you've muddied the waters sufficiently to extract yourself without pain.
Rest assured, most have left the conversation because they find you tedious, ill informed, boring and against most of what they believe in.
You enjoy yourself. I look forward to the day when you post "They've Taken My Guns!!" .
Not that I wish any ill will, just don't expect sympathy for your misguided stance.
This is where I disengage, because antis never know when to shut up or understand that they are beaten with simple logic and fact.
You raise the issue, then leave the opposition to provide opposite proof.
How sad for someone that purports to be intellectual.
Your twists and turns in the last half dozen posts or so are worthy of a whirling dervish.
You should enter politics my friend, with your ability to try obfuscate the situation, without really committing to a platform.
You might feel you've muddied the waters sufficiently to extract yourself without pain.
Rest assured, most have left the conversation because they find you tedious, ill informed, boring and against most of what they believe in.
You enjoy yourself. I look forward to the day when you post "They've Taken My Guns!!" .
Not that I wish any ill will, just don't expect sympathy for your misguided stance.
This is where I disengage, because antis never know when to shut up or understand that they are beaten with simple logic and fact.
- Status
Similar threads
