PDA

View Full Version : Protect Your Right to Own Firearms



&14ALL
11-06-2012, 01:42 PM
There is a lot of discussion across the political spectrum regarding individual rights. Rights, however, are a benefit that we enjoy when we create and maintain a society which makes them possible. It is through recognition and fulfillment of our responsibilities, both as individuals and as a community, that we build a society where rights can be discussed and protected. Responsibilities will always precede rights because they are essential for even the most basic rights to exist.

As gun owners, we have many responsibilities. We are responsible for the safe maintenance, handling, storage, and transportation of our firearms. We are responsible for ensuring our firearms are used in a conscientious and appropriate manner when hunting or target shooting. We are also responsible for the culture and image of gun ownership we create.

For instance, one of the most polarizing issues that drives gun control is violence against women. We must it make very clear that as gun owners, although we may differ on the solution as it relates to gun ownership, we have sincere concern and commitment to stopping this problem. This should be evident in what we say and how we behave, both online and in everyday life. Even beyond this specific example, it must be evident that we recognize and understand key overall issues and that we are working towards improving Canadian society beyond our desire to own specific firearms.

There is a measure of respect and maturity required from us as gun owners in our conduct and interaction with others. This includes our interaction with and references to gun control advocates and other individuals we view as opposition across the political and social spectrum. There is no place in public discourse for the type trash talk that has become commonplace with kids (young and old) while playing videogames online. It is questionable whether this type of behaviour is ever appropriate, even in private, but it certainly does nothing to improve the appearance or actuality of the culture of gun ownership.

If we want to legally protect our rights to own specific firearms and firearm components, we first need to ensure that we take our responsibilities seriously. Our speech and actions should convey to friends, family, neighbors, and fellow Canadians that we are responsible and socially aware gun owners who they can trust and rely on. We need to be seen as a key component of the solution, not as part of the problem. If we cannot demonstrate sufficient discipline and understanding to moderate our own behaviour, then we will eventually succumb to more constraining forms of external control.

sDot
11-06-2012, 02:42 PM
Ugh. Really?

I remember seeing the stats showing that gun violence against women in a domestic argument or situation in Canada is very very low. There is probably a better chance she will get hit with lightning while baking cookies in the kitchen.

I hate to say it man, but I'm sure the Liberal party left cupcakes on your front porch for this post.

&14ALL
11-06-2012, 04:19 PM
Ugh. Really?

I remember seeing the stats showing that gun violence against women in a domestic argument or situation in Canada is very very low. There is probably a better chance she will get hit with lightning while baking cookies in the kitchen.

I hate to say it man, but I'm sure the Liberal party left cupcakes on your front porch for this post.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I agree wholeheartedly that guns are by far one of the least common instruments of domestic or even civilian violence in general, likely well behind kitchen implements. However, perception is often more powerful than reality, especially when it comes to the direction of laws and public policy.

Marc LÚpine connected violence against women with firearms in 1989 in a very public manner, and in a way that no amount of statistics will ever erase from public memory. If gun owners respond to concerns and criticism from women with abusive, suggestive, or overly agressive responses, then this confirms the stereotype of gun owners being anti-woman. I agree this stereotype is wrong, but it is your fellow Canadians you have to convince, not me.

There is no harm to gun owners, and a great deal of benefit, in condemning and working to eliminate violence against women in general, regardless of the form of that violence. There is a great deal of benefit in conducting ourselves in a manner that does not reinforce arguments made for gun control. There is a great deal of benefit in setting examples as gun owners in our words and our actions of how gun control and violence against women should be viewed as two entirely separate political and social issues.

As for cupcakes, I admit that I have found them tasty on occasion, but I have never developed a taste for any particular political point of view or party, left right or other.

RobSmith
11-06-2012, 04:38 PM
Reality is that the Polytechnique incident happened over 20 years ago and is now merely used by some people as a way to make money off of irrational fears by defining themselves as "victims" (even though they were not present when the incident happened and are for the most part <very> loosely associated with it).

The key here is to introduce as many women as possible to firearm sports and ultimately marginalize those individuals whom make "victims" their business.


Perhaps you misunderstand. I agree wholeheartedly that guns are by far one of the least common instruments of domestic or even civilian violence in general, likely well behind kitchen implements. However, perception is often more powerful than reality, especially when it comes to the direction of laws and public policy.

Marc LÚpine connected violence against women with firearms in 1989 in a very public manner, and in a way that no amount of statistics will ever erase from public memory. If gun owners respond to concerns and criticism from women with abusive, suggestive, or overly agressive responses, then this confirms the stereotype of gun owners being anti-woman. I agree this stereotype is wrong, but it is your fellow Canadians you have to convince, not me.

There is no harm to gun owners, and a great deal of benefit, in condemning and working to eliminate violence against women in general, regardless of the form of that violence. There is a great deal of benefit in conducting ourselves in a manner that does not reinforce arguments made for gun control. There is a great deal of benefit in setting examples as gun owners in our words and our actions of how gun control and violence against women should be viewed as two entirely separate political and social issues.

As for cupcakes, I admit that I have found them tasty on occasion, but I have never developed a taste for any particular political point of view or party, left right or other.

sDot
11-06-2012, 05:25 PM
The more and more we bring up an old incident and try to apologize for violence against women that is not happening by gun owners, we are making people think there is a problem.

How and why are we apologizing for something that is not happening?

&14ALL
11-06-2012, 08:10 PM
Reality is that the Polytechnique incident happened over 20 years ago and is now merely used by some people as a way to make money off of irrational fears by defining themselves as "victims" (even though they were not present when the incident happened and are for the most part <very> loosely associated with it).

The key here is to introduce as many women as possible to firearm sports and ultimately marginalize those individuals whom make "victims" their business.

I absolutely agree that more women need guns. My wife has her own firearms, survival gear, martial arts rank, etc. I try to introduce new shooters to the sport and philosophy of firearms, and I have had a lot of success across a broad range of political and social perspectives. However, the culture and discourse we introduce them to is one we need to consider carefully.

Consideration of gun culture and discourse would be a rational and strategic response to gun control activists when they use tragedy to it's full effect. Emotional and profane responses on the part of gun owners is neither rational nor strategic. This is part of the full effect that gun control activists are counting on.

&14ALL
11-06-2012, 08:32 PM
The more and more we bring up an old incident and try to apologize for violence against women that is not happening by gun owners, we are making people think there is a problem.

How and why are we apologizing for something that is not happening?

I neither stated nor implied that there was any apology involved.

When we post online that we are buying a Mini-14 to make Wendy unhappy, we as gun owners are adding momentum and creedence to her use of past events to generate fear. When we respond to sensational tactics with profanity or abusive posts, and claim publicly that we will buy this gun or that gun, and that will show her, then we are the ones digging up and giving power to the past.

Gun control activists have connected firearms with violence against women. Our words and actions should serve to remove that connection, not reinforce it.

I am glad that members of GOC have taken the time to read and respond to this post, and that the responses are sincere and well-considered.

I am surprised however, that there were no responses to a GOC post referring to the Coalition for Gun Control as "Wendy Cukier and her bitches" apart from the pundit who appreciated the perfect O (I assume a reference to oral sex) made by the poster's face in a picture as he pointed comically to a headstone labelled MORECOCK.

I suggest that it is not unreasonable for us, as gun owners, to consider whether or not we are representing our collective interests in a beneficial way. If, as RobSmith suggests, we need to introduce more women to firearm sports, then we would likely also be introducing them to forums such as GOC. What would their interest be after reading our posts?

sendmorebrains
11-07-2012, 05:50 AM
I neither stated nor implied that there was any apology involved.

When we post online that we are buying a Mini-14 to make Wendy unhappy, we as gun owners are adding momentum and creedence to her use of past events to generate fear. When we respond to sensational tactics with profanity or abusive posts, and claim publicly that we will buy this gun or that gun, and that will show her, then we are the ones digging up and giving power to the past.

Gun control activists have connected firearms with violence against women. Our words and actions should serve to remove that connection, not reinforce it.

I am glad that members of GOC have taken the time to read and respond to this post, and that the responses are sincere and well-considered.

I am surprised however, that there were no responses to a GOC post referring to the Coalition for Gun Control as "Wendy Cukier and her bitches" apart from the pundit who appreciated the perfect O (I assume a reference to oral sex) made by the poster's face in a picture as he pointed comically to a headstone labelled MORECOCK.

I suggest that it is not unreasonable for us, as gun owners, to consider whether or not we are representing our collective interests in a beneficial way. If, as RobSmith suggests, we need to introduce more women to firearm sports, then we would likely also be introducing them to forums such as GOC. What would their interest be after reading our posts?


As stated in my now infamous posting of "Wendy C. and her bitches" .....Bitches as in: The UN, Ron Charach, Adam Vaughn, Olivia Chow, EX MP Mark Holland, EX Mayor David Miller being some of them.

These misguided social engineers are determined to turn Canada into what Australia & England is now. Fortunately Mark Holland is now in political banishment thanks due to a very determined group of gun lobbyists(lol.) in his EX-riding.

No quarter is to be given - EVER.

All these antis have no respect for the the law abiding gun owner - this includes the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
with their undying support for the now defunct LGR.

So before you type again on how to be politically correct you should consider the trash these gun control activists type about the firearms community:

- Cops, doctors, nurses, paramedics, all were in favour of the gun registry because it saves lives. The problem are these Harper Reform Party crackpot paranoid hillbillies who want to be able to pack as many guns and as much ammo up to their eyeballs as possible. The sooner these retread, intolerant, flag-stomping Reform Party worshiping deadbeats croak off, the better. Until then these crackpots will remain utterly convinced the guvmint[sic] is out to steal their land and wardrobes full of plaid shirts, arms, and ammo. Take that focal point away, and their whole worldview collapses into incoherence. These loons have so much guns and ammo on the brain that the lead content in their heads is dragging them down so far they’ll soon need a new planet with less gravity to keep their faces out of the dirt.

As guns owners we had played "nice" for 25 years and look what it got us.

Please tell me how its going to benefit gun owners again if we play political correct decorum as you are suggesting ?

No wait let me answer that. NONE. NADA SQUAT.

I used to enjoy 30 rounds mags. Last time I checked my beta mags ( 100 round drums) they weren't out on a killing rampage. My AKs, FN FALs were all safe and secure in my gun locker.

Yet that was taken away because we all played nice to these "concerned social engineers"

Like I stated before, you want the same thing to happen here like it did in England and Austraila, then by all means lets all play nice.

But as far as Im concerned they can have:

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/morecock.jpg

Grave Dancing, fear mongering, spreading hopolaphobia is their objective and they got the mainstream media to listen in spades .. LOL. What dont you get about that? What dont you get about the CGC and all the ANTIs spreading misinformation for 25 years ? What dont you get being a treated like a criminal and being perceived as a loonie from all this misinformation the ANTIs have spread ?

Wendy and her bitches will continue to vilify inert objects like the Mini 14 and Sniper rifles aka scary looking guns, keep telling mainstream media that handguns are for only killing humans, bullets should be banned, the Sportsman show should not display assault rifles etc. They wont stop there - they will go after everything. Hmm maybe I should also purchase that .50 cal since they (CGC ) mentioned that its capable of shooting down passenger planes.....

Please tell me where they draw the line and I will do the same.

But you see ANTIs have none, not for 25 years and they wont have anytime soon because even they dont trust themselves with firearms so why should they trust & respect law abiding gun owners ?

Being "Nice" and a shiny red apple belongs to your primary grade school teacher.

PS: I am a strong proponent btw in empowering women with firearms.
Tactical Day @ Trenton MFRC - 1st time with a Glock. First shot.
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/DSC09708.jpg
But to even suggest that these women will drop interest due to reading some "controversial posts" on GOC is at the point of ridiculousness complete with shrieking violins followed by the ominous appearance of ravens.

As for your overt concern for the collective becoming tainted by my profane riddled ranting, the numbers of new PAL and RPAL individuals are increasing daily by leaps and bounds. What these new members must be made aware of are the ANTIs that want this hobby crushed and broken.

The sooner that they are exposed to their agenda, the sooner they will take defense to it. As in not wait for 25 years to act.

sendmorebrains
11-07-2012, 06:39 AM
opps double post

sendmorebrains
11-07-2012, 06:47 AM
lol keyboard cat attacking !

Camo tung
11-07-2012, 08:27 AM
I'm on the side of sendmorebrains. After being demonized for the acts of evil people using a tool that I also happen to utilize to harvest game I refuse to give another inch. It shouldn't be about "gun owners" becoming a voice for women's safety and rights, it should be human beings standing up. Gun ownership plays no part in that fight. The partially successfull attempts at social re-engineering have some gun owners now questioning the morality of using lawfully owned tools to hunt with. That is the thin edge of the wedge, the division that they are after.

telecaster
11-07-2012, 10:00 AM
I'm with sendmorebrains. The CGC et al have one aim: take away ALL guns. I don't do "nice" any more. I do belong to the CSSA and the NFA though because I realized that I can't fight this battle on my own. I'm still trying to figure out how to put the NFA and CSSA on here as my signature.

&14ALL
11-07-2012, 10:43 AM
I agree that no quarter should be given when pushing to protect gun owners from government restrictions and the witch hunts of advocacy groups. There is, however, a difference between playing nice and playing into your opponent's expectations, between giving no quarter and giving your opponent the response they are looking for.

I get the fear-mongering, and I get being treated like a loonie or a criminal. What I don't get is the logic behind reactions from gun owners that are vulgar or derogatory to specific groups or individuals. This is the type of behaviour you would expect from loonies and criminals, not from responsible members of society.

I agree that the other side of the debate trash talks and threatens. Do you find that approach makes them seem more reasonable or their point of view more credible? If not, does it make sense for gun owners behave the same way? The best strategic response is not necessarily to "draw the line" with your comments in the exact same place your opponent does. If they have crossed the line, demonstrate that you are better and more reasonable and let them look like the loonies and criminals.

When your opponent angers you, they gain power over you. When you react with anger, you show your weakness, not your strength.

When you use the word "bitch" to describe someone who is not actually a dog, whether they are male or female, you are saying that they are merely an irritating woman who has no real control over her own mind. At least I'm pretty sure this is how the metaphor works. Although women are smart enough not to be put off by a controversial post, they are also smart enough to know when your choice of words insults and belittles them as much as it does your intended targets.

I'm not saying that gun owners need to specifically champion women's rights, but our words and actions should make it clear where we stand on issues such as violence against women. I agree that issues of gun control and violence against women are two entirely separate issues, but what we say and do should make that separation clear, not play into fear-mongering and stereotypes created by gun control activists.

I did not start this thread because I care whether or not gun owners are politically correct, whatever that means. I started it because I, too, have a Tikka T3 Tactical and a Mini-14 in my gun cabinet and I want gun owners to consider whether their words and actions are going to protect my right to own them or actually help gun control activists restrict or prohibit them.

sDot
11-07-2012, 11:10 AM
"Hello kind government, thanks for coming to confiscate my firearms, I will comply promptly without hesitation in a politically correct and non-confrontational way."

sDot
11-07-2012, 11:23 AM
kinda smells like liberal in here..

When the people you are against tell you how to behave, and you do so, it's a dead give away.

The anti's don't see the liberal gunowners, the politically correct gun owners, they don't see female gun owners, or gun owner that are trying to be philosophical and deep.

They like to say, and convey the message that all gunowners are rednecks. They make people think that the only people that use legal guns are rednecks that live in trailers and hunt because they are too stupid and poor to live in the city and be a cubicle monkey.

They love people like you because you own a few guns, but you are a borderline anti, a liberal that thinks guns are cool, but will be compliant to hand in your gun, or vote liberal, because you believe what they say, but you want them to know that you're not like us.

I still don't understand what violence against women has anything to do with this.

Just because I own a car, should I speak up for all car owners and let MADD know that we will all drive Prius' and go into AA so that a drunk driving accident never happens?

If someone is a bitch, and they are called out for being a bitch, I don't think we should be trying to censor everyone so that we can be their nicer "enemies"..

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how polite you are, and how you try to justify being a liberal gun owner because at the end of the day, you are just what they want you to be, and you will always be their enemy. They will never be anti-gun, except for you. Get with the program. You are a "redneck gunowner" like the rest of us that "should never be allowed to own any guns" that lives in a country that should "ban all guns, except for police". Unfortunately, telling them that you knit mittens for cats will not save you.

westislandrifle
11-07-2012, 12:00 PM
Perhaps you misunderstand. I agree wholeheartedly that guns are by far one of the least common instruments of domestic or even civilian violence in general, likely well behind kitchen implements. However, perception is often more powerful than reality, especially when it comes to the direction of laws and public policy.

Marc LÚpine connected violence against women with firearms in 1989 in a very public manner, and in a way that no amount of statistics will ever erase from public memory. If gun owners respond to concerns and criticism from women with abusive, suggestive, or overly agressive responses, then this confirms the stereotype of gun owners being anti-woman. I agree this stereotype is wrong, but it is your fellow Canadians you have to convince, not me.

There is no harm to gun owners, and a great deal of benefit, in condemning and working to eliminate violence against women in general, regardless of the form of that violence. There is a great deal of benefit in conducting ourselves in a manner that does not reinforce arguments made for gun control. There is a great deal of benefit in setting examples as gun owners in our words and our actions of how gun control and violence against women should be viewed as two entirely separate political and social issues.

As for cupcakes, I admit that I have found them tasty on occasion, but I have never developed a taste for any particular political point of view or party, left right or other.


also the firearm used was short lived on the prohib list instead they made the magazine capacity lower thinking that some derenge nut ball is less dangerous with only 5 rounds instead or 10, 20 or 30 but you can have 20 5 round mags the laws are flawed and are only inplace to make the civillians easyier targets for those who terrorise and bully the general population

DOA
11-07-2012, 12:21 PM
The whole point is being lost. Why would anyone want to enhance the profile being placed on gun owners as "aggressive rednecks"? The way people present and hold themselves is what creates stereotypes. Using vocabulary that demeans someone comes off as aggressive and adds to the stereotype. A stereotype I would rather not be included in. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting as much as the next guy. I want to be able to shoot whatever I want where ever I want(safely). Being civil is a trait that is mandatory to accomplish anything involving different views through conversation but integrity determines the value of the civility. That means being civil all the time holds more weight than only being civil when you want something. "Calling someone out" in the manner of the example being used accomplishes nothing more than voicing frustration and fuelling stereotypes by creating examples for people that I believe are fearful of firearms because they don't understand them and in most cases want to blame the tool used in an occurrence that they lost a loved one. Education is the only way to combat fear. People have to want to listen to learn anything. If we want people to be sensible with firearms issues, we need them to want to listen to us. The only way that will happen is through civil conversation. Now, who will listen to whom they perceive as an "aggressive redneck"?

sendmorebrains
11-07-2012, 12:29 PM
I agree that no quarter should be given when pushing to protect gun owners from government restrictions and the witch hunts of advocacy groups. There is, however, a difference between playing nice and playing into your opponent's expectations, between giving no quarter and giving your opponent the response they are looking for.

I get the fear-mongering, and I get being treated like a loonie or a criminal. What I don't get is the logic behind reactions from gun owners that are vulgar or derogatory to specific groups or individuals. This is the type of behaviour you would expect from loonies and criminals, not from responsible members of society.

I agree that the other side of the debate trash talks and threatens. Do you find that approach makes them seem more reasonable or their point of view more credible? If not, does it make sense for gun owners behave the same way? The best strategic response is not necessarily to "draw the line" with your comments in the exact same place your opponent does. If they have crossed the line, demonstrate that you are better and more reasonable and let them look like the loonies and criminals.

When your opponent angers you, they gain power over you. When you react with anger, you show your weakness, not your strength.

When you use the word "bitch" to describe someone who is not actually a dog, whether they are male or female, you are saying that they are merely an irritating woman who has no real control over her own mind. At least I'm pretty sure this is how the metaphor works. Although women are smart enough not to be put off by a controversial post, they are also smart enough to know when your choice of words insults and belittles them as much as it does your intended targets.

I'm not saying that gun owners need to specifically champion women's rights, but our words and actions should make it clear where we stand on issues such as violence against women. I agree that issues of gun control and violence against women are two entirely separate issues, but what we say and do should make that separation clear, not play into fear-mongering and stereotypes created by gun control activists.

I did not start this thread because I care whether or not gun owners are politically correct, whatever that means. I started it because I, too, have a Tikka T3 Tactical and a Mini-14 in my gun cabinet and I want gun owners to consider whether their words and actions are going to protect my right to own them or actually help gun control activists restrict or prohibit them.



Wow. Thanks for that lesson on word definition. Its like droning from a burnt out grade school teacher.

Problem is you forgot the urban dictionary definition: bitch(es)... Modern-day servant; A person who performs tasks for another, usually degrading in status. Now put Wendys name here and simply place those names aforementioned before (ie:Mark Holland, Adam Vaughn etc)...and TADA ! B I T C H E S.

What you erroneously mistake for anger is wisdom. Ive been burnt from bureaucratic bitches and I dont forget. I adapt accordingly. Can I put it anymore simply ?

What seems real thick to you is that the for the past 25 years the firearms community has put on a brave face by being "nice" and make like walking on eggshells and therefore we should demonstrate that we are better and more reasonable.

Heres breaking news to your brain: ANTIs are not reasonable.

Your view is based on what ANTIs consider garbage: its called honour. ANTIs have zero. On the extreme end - do you really think Al-Qaeda would be irrelevant today if nobody water boarded them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay ?

Your cowardly fear of losing your firearms from the words and actions I have instigated is duly noted, I could call you out a derogatory name over that lame concern but I 'll use the word naive instead.

Where you should be concerned are the fear mongers that paint your 2 firearms as things that are evil and scary. How naive of you to think that by me purchasing and posting up the same rifles when C-19 was passed that your "rights" would be possibly thrown under a bus.

This is not about anger issues as you seem to be convinced that it is. It is about debunking those ANTIs that keep dumping out misinformation as irrefutable facts. Like Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda quoted "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Wake up and drink some reality and when you do make sure you know what side you're on.

PS: If you need to consider who will actually throw you under the bus for your Mini 14 and your Tikka.....LOL and a counter ad showing a Steyr 50cal. as a the weapon of choice for the criminally /insane minded taking out passenger planes, cops with kevlar vests and infants breast feeding in a park from 2.5kms away with no scope and no irons. Now thats bitchin pimp skillz. Hey whoa another word definition on bitch !

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/download.jpghttp://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/download1.jpg

Wendys Cukiers awesome fear ca$h generating quote:

Myths surrounding the discussion around gun control tend to focus on the problems of urban violence, gangs, and handguns. This however ignores the fact that most firearm deaths in Canada are suicides and the guns most often used are rifles and shotguns. In addition, referring to harmless "duck guns" masks the truth: if this law passes, police will no longer be able to trace non-restricted firearms including the powerful semi-automatic Ruger Mini 14 used in the Montreal Massacre and sniper rifles such as the L115A3 and the Steyr-Mannlicher HS50 which can pierce Kevlar vests and fire bullets over 2 km with great accuracy.

Wendy Cukier
President of Coalition for Gun Control
May 25, 2010
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/WendyCukier.jpg

Yup ... purchased on the same day C-19 was passed. So powerful, So non traceable ! So inflammatory. Deal with it.... Bitches.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/DSC03064.jpg

RobSmith
11-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Fact is both sides have been slinging feces at each other ever since "gun control" was invented. They have their "catch phrases" and we have ours. When you look at the facts however, the extent of the "gun problem" does not to close to justify the costs associated with trying to "reduce the risks".

sendmorebrains
11-07-2012, 03:59 PM
Here is part of the reason why ANTIs have been successful with their 25 year agenda.
Or ....heres just another one of Wendys Bitches.
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/sendmorebrains/2lw3993.jpg

What you see is a mainstream media photo op. Its also evidence on how misinformation works.

TPS(Toronto Police Services) did not support this yet this Toronto Police constable is legitimizing the ANTIs misinformation campaign by merely using ink. I suppose it holds true that the pen is mightier than a glock !

For those that are just catching up on this, Chief Bill Blair has actual admitted that its not a gun problem in Toronto, its a gang problem. Some have even whispered quietly that it ties in with the immigration problem but that would be a racist issue hence taboo.

Mind you I haven't heard of any Norwegian gang hot tub party shooting problems as of late.

As a side note Adam Vaughn disagrees with the TPS statement citing that its a bullet and gun thing. As far as the firearms ownership in Toronto, too bad so sad.

And yet again law abiding citizens as usual are caught up in the tsunami of stupid cause we happen to legally own firearms.

RobSmith
11-07-2012, 04:35 PM
sendmorebrains: at the end of the day the old adage is still true : follow the money... Gun control advocacy is a very lucrative business for some, and in the case of the police also the source of various funds and budgets, no small wonder that both groups are rabidly opposed to <any> form of "loosening gun control".

ssea77ca
11-07-2012, 07:09 PM
I feel this post is a little off with respect to women being introduced to firearms. In my personal experiences I have hunted and shot with women in our group. There has been "controversial" talk coming from both women and men in our group. The women even sit down and have a beer with the guys after the hunt is over and guns and game are put away. Nobody has expressed feelings of being offended.
The anti's will stop at nothing to take ALL guns out of our hands. They don't care if we are "nice and pollitically correct" or if we tell them all where to stick it. No matter which angle we deal with them. They will adjust accordingly and push ahead with their disarment agenda while feeding the public a bunch of BS in order to have public backing.

sDot
11-07-2012, 10:23 PM
I think we need to start an anti-gun control group and use their own tactics against them. With so much propaganda and misinformation floating about, it'll be a ton of fun.

stevebc
11-10-2012, 03:27 PM
There is a lot of discussion across the political spectrum regarding individual rights. Rights, however, are a benefit that we enjoy when we create and maintain a society which makes them possible. It is through recognition and fulfillment of our responsibilities, both as individuals and as a community, that we build a society where rights can be discussed and protected. Responsibilities will always precede rights because they are essential for even the most basic rights to exist.


Are you suggesting that without a society, I have no rights? Also, I have the right to defend myself- what responsibilities must I first discharge before I may have and exercise that right?

sDot
11-10-2012, 05:40 PM
Unfortunately &14ALL is a fine example of how liberal gun owners work towards destroying us from the inside.

They buy a gun or two because they had fun playing Call Of Duty and then turn on gun owners when they realize real life isn't like XBox Live...

killer kane
11-11-2012, 11:32 AM
The time for us to back off ended decades ago. I owned a mini 14 at the time of the poly tech rampage, had 40 round mags for it too...I know, the horror, only sold it to get a Smith and Wesson 686, but that's another story. To me and more importantly, my wife, firearms are, first, for self defense, second, for harvesting game, third for sport, although sport for me is training for one and two. You could, if a non hunter, swap two with three, if you like. We've seen the lies and scare tactics from the anti crowd, now the U.S. fed. govt. really going for broke, but I guess that's what happens when msnbc is viewed as a credible news source, or if any of the so called reality shows takes the place of reality for you, or if you have no memories of the likes of the Duke, or Clint's man with no name, or Audie Murphy. In other words, a gun's a tool, nothing more, what you get out of your tools is up to you.

Polite? I've practiced polite in the past, with my former leftist friends, they have no concept of anything but what they've been indoctrinated to believe by their profs. Check out the Bezmenov videos, they're very interesting, ( I know, I know.:D). When I'm engaging someone in an attempt to make the pro firearms view known and back it up with the practical example of the "Look, it's a hunk of metal and rubber." arguement and all I get in return, is, "I can see how this would make you feel powerful." my responce was "Not powerful, but safer." That of course fell on deaf ears.

I've been on the pulpit for years, I'll tell you this right from my heart, we need to push back and push back hard, or we're going to have nothing, just like another country, where only a century ago the average citizen packed and the police didn't.

telecaster
11-11-2012, 08:59 PM
sendmorebrains: at the end of the day the old adage is still true : follow the money... Gun control advocacy is a very lucrative business for some, and in the case of the police also the source of various funds and budgets, no small wonder that both groups are rabidly opposed to <any> form of "loosening gun control".

So true.