BndnFe said:
What exactly are you saying? Here in Canada if you really want you can get a gun and protest yourself. Freedom still exists. How are you misinterpreting my statement?
Report this post to a moderator | IP
Report this post to a mod? Ok...
What am I saying? Re-read my previous post.
BndnFe said:
Is that really the law?? I'm sure if it was registered and you used it with due diligence(sp) you would be absolved in a Canadian Court of law. I'm so tired of these ignorant images about Canada and being called hippie etc. The worst I've seen was Canadians being called,"Draft Dodgers". Remember that was your hippies and not Canada. Your citizens escaped here, we stayed put and faught valiantly im WW1,WW11, Korea, Desert Storm, 9/11.
First, let me clear up something. I do not disrespect Canada nor it's citizens. I do not think Canadians are an ignorant bunch to any greater degree than Americans. If anyone tends to stereotype Canadians as weak or their heritage as one without much triumph over adversity they are dead wrong. If anything, in my mind, Canadians are a rugged bunch. Speaking of Canada's military and combat history, you guy's have produced some of the baddest of the bad ass combat units in the modern world.
This is not about Canada, this is about intrinsic human rights.
That being said, let me address your statement "is that really the law?? I'm sure if it was registered and you used it with due diligence(sp) you would be absolved in a Canadian Court of law."
Again, dig into your own law. Handguns are a "restricted" class of firearms and their use is restricted to "target shooting and collecting purposes." In some parts of the law it states that the use of handguns for self-defense is subject to outright banning by the government.
I am a reasonable man. I am sure that in many instances a Canadian citizen who uses a handgun for self-defense will be absolved of charges of wrong doing. However, I would not count on it. I would not gamble my freedom on it. (Have you never seen or heard of a court decision you did not agree with?) Furthermore, why subject this intrinsic human right to self-defense to any degree of governmental regulation in the first place? It sets you up to lose your rights, many of your rights, if the government should so decide in the future.
Did you know that Bill C-68 allows police to enter the homes of gun owners without evidence of a crime? By law, they cannot enter the homes of known rapists, pedophiles, or murderers except immediately pursuant to a crime. But law abiding, licensed and registered gun owners? Yep, they can walk right in.
BndnFe said:
Is that really the answer?
This is in regard to my statement "give your wife a .38 to carry on her trip through the dark ally to her car after work and she is a criminal, guilty of multiple offenses punishable by jail if caught."
The answer to what? The answer to my wife not getting stuffed into the truck of a car by four guys, driven into the woods, raped repeatedly by each of them, stabbed in the throat, and left to die a horrible death? IT CERTAINLY MAY BE!! As a matter of fact, in an estimated 2.5 million
attempted violent crimes per year, citizens with guns
are the answer. We can say attempted but thankfully not carried out thanks to armed citizens.
BndnFe said:
If it is then why do you have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.
This is bullshit on so many levels it’s impossible to address it completely here. It’s largely a cultural issue, and look at our culture! Crime is “cool,” respect for your brother is not. Drugs and money are gods. All the more reason for the average citizen to not have his or her rights to self-protection stripped away.
Look at these simple facts – the communities in America with the highest level of gun ownership among law-abiding citizens are the same communities with the lowest rates of crime. In contrast, in the communities in America where gun ownership among law-abiding citizens is restricted most, crime rates are highest. In those communities where the right of concealed carry of firearms is restored to law-abiding citizens, crime rates plummet.
BndnFe said:
A firearm is only effective when in the hands of a well trained individual, not a trailer dwelling scholar with a 47 IQ that believes he has the god given right to pack heat. If you believe he/she deserves to pack heat then you open yourself to all sorts of subjectivety.
Bullshit. Understand that I am one of the world’s biggest advocates of
QUALITY firearm training for those who wish to use one. However, are you saying that that most basic and precious of fundamental human rights, the right self-preservation, defense of ones family and loved ones,
is to be subject to IQ??
The Nazis had much the same philosophy. So, check “trailer dwellers” of the list of right to effective self-defense. Gotcha, any other social groups who’s rights you’d like to subjugate?
In my book, if you don’t know how to use a firearm effectively and safely you should not have one. However, my book is big and full of all kinds of idyllic restrictions on mankind,
but I just do not have the right to decide who is worthy of this right or that right. THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED RIGHTS!!
BndnFe said:
I still remember seing a few years ago in an urban project,"He dissed me by stepping on my shoe so I wasted him". Is that what you want by freedom to carry. If it is then I'm glad we have some restrictions, atleast if you really want one then resourcefulness will weed out the 48 IQ trailer trash cop show stars. Again, let me say I like guns but to just be able to carry around a high powered handgun is just waiting for trouble.
I believe in humanity. Most people are good. Most people should have option of defending themselves from the kind of scum in your example above.
DON’T YOU GET IT? That type of criminal will NEVER be affected by firearms restrictions and regulations. (Thats why the are called criminals, the don’t obey the law, they break it!)
BndnFe said:
A dumbass being a badass=a bad situation. You have a right to carry but so does the other ticked off dumb fuck.
There is no right to carry for felons convicted of violent crimes. Almost 100% of all violent crimes are perpetrated by felons convicted of violent crimes. So no, chances are that the given ticked off dumb fuck, one who has the capacity to instigate violent acts, does NOT have the right to carry. With or without that right murderous criminals CARRY FIREARMS ANYWAY! The ironic distinction is seen when a law-abiding citizen wishes to carry a firearm with honorable intention and is looked upon as devious by some and criminal by law.
I agree, the right to carry is not perfect. In a perfect society we would not need weapons of self-defense and this whole topic would be a non-issue.
BndnFe said:
And that right does not exist anywhere else?? Good god why is the murder rate so high, I guess because all the draft dodgers went to Canada. God given right, what a joke. I guess we could strap our gun to our leg and go for a midnight ride on our horse across Dodge.
What do you mean the right does not exist anywhere else? It is universal. That’s why I called it a God given right, an idea that you have scoffed at.
Sir, I do not believe that you understand the very nature of freedom. In fact your argument leaves me little doubt that you have very little capacity for higher thought, or at least little exercise thereof. Regardless of my perception of your IQ, I will not support in any way, shape, or form, any attempt of any entity to subjugate your very right to speak your mind. I only pray that in the days of our grandchildren’s grandchildren, when they are having this same argument, they may still be allowed the tools with which to defend these freedoms.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
