[QUOTE=DOG-GY;29514777]not to be sensational or anything but surprise surprise our government is already like this in quite a few ways[/QUOTE]
Yeah most people in first world countries are quite unwilling to do anything, and with good reason, our armies aren't ragtag like some of the third world in-revolt countries' armies are, they're well armed and "well trained" and they come in huge numbers, not to mention even though our countries are far more tyrannical than they should be, calling a country like the UK or US a tyrannical place just makes you look like a nut. :tinfoil:
As far as I can see in the Criminal Code of Canada and the Firearms Act of Canada, flamethrowers are considered legal in Canada, and I'm fairly sure they're legal in the States too.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29516192]As far as I can see in the Criminal Code of Canada and the Firearms Act of Canada, flamethrowers are considered legal in Canada, and I'm fairly sure they're legal in the States too.[/QUOTE]
Flamethrowers fall under Class3 or higher I think.
Canada, not the States, there's no such thing as a Class 3 in Canada.
Nevermind, just realized I included the States in that post too...
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29517024]Canada, not the States, there's no such thing as a Class 3 in Canada.
Nevermind, just realized I included the States in that post too...[/QUOTE]
Nice
Also, while the CFA specifically, by name bans the Barrett .50 calibre guns, others made by manufacturers such as Steyr are perfectly legal to possess and are considered [b]non-restricted[/b], which I just now realized means that if the long-gun registry is abolished, they'll have no way of knowing who owns an anti-materiel rifle.
Makes me re-think the issue a bit...
This thread is ripe with both informed individuals and total dumbasses, I'm not convinced on either side of the argument because this doesn't affect me too much personally. Go ahead Facepunch, convince me to your side.
Is anyone even going to say anything?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29513697]So? Should we take away the ability just because people don't take to the idea like they did in the 18th century?
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
I dunno if Canada was founded by a congress of beavers or something but America started with a bunch of people shooting at their rulers because they didn't like them. We like the idea that if it really came down to it we could tear it all down and remake the entire government. Or maybe it's just me who likes to have that ability.[/QUOTE]
You are not alone and people who think it is an absurd concept "in this modern world" just don't understand the tactical or political realities.
Madison in 1788 offered ratios of armed citizens vs "standing army" and said the army would be opposed by armed citizens by 17 to 1. Today we gun-crazy Americans have widened that to 25 to 1 or more.
In 2006 in Iraq, American forces outnumbered insurgents 20 to 1 and they were getting their teeth kicked in in the opinion of many.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
[QUOTE=kaine123;29517437]This thread is ripe with both informed individuals and total dumbasses, [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kaine123;29517437]I'm not convinced on either side of the argument because this doesn't affect me too much personally. Go ahead Facepunch, convince me to your side.[/quote]
Read the damned thread so.
If I were in charge: people who weren't police officers/government/military/etc would need a license before owning any, a background check each time you purchase a gun, and all of your guns would be taken away as soon as you have criminal charges against you.
[QUOTE=kaine123;29517437]This thread is ripe with both informed individuals and total dumbasses, I'm not convinced on either side of the argument because this doesn't affect me too much personally. Go ahead Facepunch, convince me to your side.
Is anyone even going to say anything?[/QUOTE]
I am capable of advocating the USA pro-gun rights side on multiple planes, philosophical, historical and legal. I am firmly against constitutionally illegitimate gun control laws and believe there are many laws on the books now that are unconstitutional and should be repealed or overturned.
I view gun control as a "canary-in-the-coal-mine" issue in the USA. It is an excellent benchmark to establish a person's commitment to the core US tenet of liberty and whether they honor and respect the most important and fundamental and inseparable principles of USA government, those of conferred powers and retained rights.
The question is not, do the citizen's have the right to own guns . . . The question is, does government have the power to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen?
The answer is no.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29517406]Also, while the CFA specifically, by name bans the Barrett .50 calibre guns, others made by manufacturers such as Steyr are perfectly legal to possess and are considered [b]non-restricted[/b], which I just now realized means that if the long-gun registry is abolished, they'll have no way of knowing who owns an anti-materiel rifle.
Makes me re-think the issue a bit...[/QUOTE]
you're probably not going to hear of someone going on a killing spree with a 25 pound rifle especially since 1 round for a barret is like 10$ or some shit
There should be courses you'd have to take. Just like you have to learn how to drive a car, you should also learn how to handle a firearm.
I have nothing against guns, but banning them is not going to change anything. Stricter controls is what is needed.
Oh, and all guns should be kept in some safe, or at least somewhere safe. I've heard plenty of places where you can just toss your firearms wherever you want in the house. This is retarded if other people are living with you, especially kids. My father has all his firearms locked up in a safe, and he's also the only person with a key.
[QUOTE=Moose;29518293]you're probably not going to hear of someone going on a killing spree with a 25 pound rifle especially since 1 round for a barret is like 10$ or some shit[/QUOTE]
No, but you could take someone out through a wall from 2km away with it, great for assassinations.
And yes, .50BMG is fucking expensive and hard to find in Canada, only place I know where to find it is somewhere in Alberta.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;29491610]Ideal: Guns are hevily restricted, only hunters or people working for the government should be allowed, exceptions for people who are in situations where they would need a gun in case they need to portect themselves, i.e protecting a witness of a crime from some gangsters or some shit.[/QUOTE]
or you know
people that want to protect their life and liberty
I'm sure this has been said a thousand times by now but banning all guns isn't going to stop criminals, it won't slow them down at all, and they won't give a flying fuck about what's legal and illegal: if they're planning on murdering someone/robbing a place why the hell would they be deterred by the illegality of buying weapons? A system like that just buttfucks the average joe, they can't defend themselves and every criminal knows that. A system like that just empowers criminals, they don't need to be afraid of civilians at all anymore. A system like that is completely unreasonable, irrational and just wrong.
in other news, I personally want to see if college students being allowed to legally carry guns with them in school would decrease the number of school shootings or decrease the amount of casualties from them. Obviously the school shooters will be able to get small weapons in without suspicion but just imagine if everyone was actually able to defend themselves with more than a no. 2 pencil and a ruler.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Carne;29518441]There should be courses you'd have to take. Just like you have to learn how to drive a car, you should also learn how to handle a firearm.
I have nothing against guns, but banning them is not going to change anything. Stricter controls is what is needed.
Oh, and all guns should be kept in some safe, or at least somewhere safe. I've heard plenty of places where you can just toss your firearms wherever you want in the house. This is retarded if other people are living with you, especially kids. My father has all his firearms locked up in a safe, and he's also the only person with a key.[/QUOTE]
afaik in the US you already do have to take gun safety courses for all firearms and psyche evaluations for anything bigger than a 9mm pistol and in some states gun safes are becoming required by law
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Orca;29491955]Do you have a reason? A reason other than our horridly outdated constitution?[/QUOTE]
I really, [b]really[/b] fucking hate the "it's old so it doesn't apply anymore" mindset most of facepunch has
the more you know
Also, what's with the Barrett panic fest a couple years ago? Sure, the .50BMG is a large round, but no one would try to rob a convenience store with a rifle that's 30 lbs and almost 6 ft long.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29516192]As far as I can see in the Criminal Code of Canada and the Firearms Act of Canada, flamethrowers are considered legal in Canada, and I'm fairly sure they're legal in the States too.[/QUOTE]
I think that's because it would be impossible to ban flamethrowers without accidentally banning welding and cutting torches at the same time
[QUOTE=Shostakovich;29521336]Also, what's with the Barrett panic fest a couple years ago? Sure, the .50BMG is a large round, but no one would try to rob a convenience store with a rifle that's 30 lbs and almost 6 ft long.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the recoil and the noise.
The amount of sheltered nanny state Euro's in this thread is really worrying.
I don't see how you find firearm prohibition as a good thing
It is your government stripping you of your right/way to defend yourself and if need be to rebel against the government.
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29517406]Also, while the CFA specifically, by name bans the Barrett .50 calibre guns, others made by manufacturers such as Steyr are perfectly legal to possess and are considered [b]non-restricted[/b], which I just now realized means that if the long-gun registry is abolished, they'll have no way of knowing who owns an anti-materiel rifle.
Makes me re-think the issue a bit...[/QUOTE]
What the fuck kind of logic is that?
You realise how much those cost right?
They run in the range of $5000 ish, and ammo is expensive as fuck.
Why in hell would a citizen who DOES NOT break laws and follows them and jumps through all the legal hoops to obtain said gun just to rob a store with it?
Your logic:
A person who pays for a blazing fast internet speed MUST be torrenting child porn/illegal content! Why else would they want a fast connection!? I want to know every person who has a fast internet connection and have their names on a list so we can get big brother to watch them!
I'm too lazy to read the pages in between the OP and my post but did anybody make the car analogy yet?
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29521803]I'm too lazy to read the pages in between the OP and my post but did anybody make the car analogy yet?[/QUOTE]
Of course!
doesn't "I don't see how you find not having firearms as a horrible thing" mean "not having firearms isn't a bad thing", and wouldn't that contradict the second part of your post? I can't tell which side you're on :v:
just going to take a wild guess and say most of you only care because of your video games
[QUOTE=cccritical;29521850]doesn't "I don't see how you find not having firearms as a horrible thing" mean "not having firearms isn't a bad thing", and wouldn't that contradict the second part of your post? I can't tell which side you're on :v:[/QUOTE]
I think I fucked up the sentence.
I am strongly supportive of ownership.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29521238]afaik in the US you already do have to take gun safety courses for all firearms and psyche evaluations for anything bigger than a 9mm pistol and in some states gun safes are becoming required by law[/QUOTE]
no
where'd you hear that from?
[QUOTE=Mon;29521874]just going to take a wild guess and say most of you only care because of your video games[/QUOTE]
just going to take a wild guess and say you've never been mugged
without my usp .45 I would be dead right now, I handled it in a way that nobody got harmed and what right do you have to tell me it'd be better if I didn't have a firearm on that day, and what right do you have to say I'd be better off dead?
[QUOTE=cccritical;29521932]just going to take a wild guess and say you've never been mugged
without my usp .45 I would be dead right now, I handled it in a way that nobody got harmed and what right do you have to tell me it'd be better if I didn't have a firearm on that day, and what right do you have to say I'd be better off dead?[/QUOTE]
according to some people in this thread probably yeah.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29521932]just going to take a wild guess and say you've never been mugged
without my usp .45 I would be dead right now, I handled it in a way that nobody got harmed and what right do you have to tell me it'd be better if I didn't have a firearm on that day, and what right do you have to say I'd be better off dead?[/QUOTE]
anecdotal story that you probably falsified or exaggerated to support your point of view
[QUOTE=JDK721;29521919]no
where'd you hear that from?[/QUOTE]
different person posted that, I'll ask
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JDK721;29521994]anecdotal story that you probably falsified or exaggerated to support your point of view[/QUOTE]
I've heard about you and your "everything you say is probably a lie so I'm just going to ignore it" method :v:
[QUOTE=cccritical;29522002]different person posted that, I'll ask
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
I've heard about you and your "everything you say is probably a lie so I'm just going to ignore it" method :v:[/QUOTE]
post a pic of your USP brah
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
