Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Zeitgeist

Handguns and Assault Rifles

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Still got some work too on convincing them that gun control is farcical, I find drawing a parallel between the war on drugs which they despise and gun control which they support helps them see the flaws in the logic of the latter position.

Well my mother is still loyal to the Queen.

Because the Queen is a bulwark against American republicanism.

So in terms of gun control she invokes the Queen's Peace,  so long as you hold a license for a gun, my mother is not opposed, she is a country girl from Hants County after all.

In terms of the shootings in Toronto, my mother would say the same as the U of T criminology professor said yesterday, which is that systemic poverty is the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply extrapolate one step further, which is that the systemic poverty is related to the racist apartheid nature of Confederation itself.

The nanny police state which is in place to keep the Indians down, is now turned against all.

To include the gun control which was first enacted in 1885 for the purposes of disarming the Metis so that Louis Riel could be hunted down and hung from a tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Well my mother is still loyal to the Queen.

Because the Queen is a bulwark against American republicanism.

So in terms of gun control she invokes the Queen's Peace,  so long as you hold a license for a gun, my mother is not opposed, she is a country girl from Hants County after all.

In terms of the shootings in Toronto, my mother would say the same as the U of T criminology professor said yesterday, which is that systemic poverty is the cause.

My parents grew up on the East Mountain, and my parents come at it from the Ignorant Suburbanite angle, they don't really see why anyone would need a gun, and they think if someone does need one, it's because they are voluntarily putting themselves in a dangerous situation. I try to point out that many of those who are pushing The Drug War often apply the same logic to drugs that they are applying to guns, and that angle seems to be effective in slowly reducing their confidence in the effectiveness of gun control by showing the parallels to the ineffectiveness of drug prohibition.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I simply extrapolate one step further, which is that the systemic poverty is related to the racist apartheid nature of Confederation itself.

The nanny police state which is in place to keep the Indians down, is now turned against all.

To include the gun control which was first enacted in 1885 for the purposes of disarming the Metis so that Louis Riel could be hunted down and hung from a tree.

Yeah I should use that angle more often, they love that pitch too. They got a soft spot for the Indians, and despise Canada's attempts to keep them down.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

My parents grew up on the East Mountain, and my parents come at it from the Ignorant Suburbanite angle, they don't really see why anyone would need a gun, and they think if someone does need one, it's because they are voluntarily putting themselves in a dangerous situation. I try to point out the those pushing the Drug War often apply the same logic to drugs that they are applying to guns, and that angle seems to be effective in slowly reducing their confidence in the effectiveness of gun control.

I successfully convinced my mother that even within the context of the World Socialist Revolution disarming the proletariat is misguided.

As Allende rounded up the guns and only allowed his union thugs to have them,  that just made it easier for Pinochet to subjugate the masses.

So now she believes you should have a gun, because these Mass Shooters are actually the onset of Fascism, and they could indeed seize control at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I successfully convinced my mother that even within the context of the World Socialist Revolution disarming the proletariat is misguided.

As Allende rounded up the guns and only allowed his union thugs to have them,  that just made it easier for Pinochet to subjugate the masses.

So now she believes you should have a gun, because these Mass Shooters are actually the onset of Fascism, and they could indeed seize control at some point.

Well played, using the fascist boogeyman to turn her against gun grabbing FTW. My parents have no love for union thugs with guns either or the military, I could use the threat of them seizing control of the government as a boogeyman to convince my parents that disarming the proletariat is misguided because it makes it easier for them to seize control.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeah I should use that angle more often, they love that pitch too. They got a soft spot for the Indians, and despise Canada's attempts to keep them down.

Like Waleis used to say; "Whatever is imposed on the fringes of empire will come home to roost on the center in the end"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Like Waleis used to say; "Whatever is imposed on the fringes of empire will come home to roost on the center in the end"

Unfortunate he never made the jump to the MHF, too many lefties bailed after DC shut down the DCF, wonder what he's up to these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Unfortunate he never made the jump to the MHF, too many lefties bailed after DC shut down the DCF, wonder what he's up to these days.

Don't know, don't care, I always enjoyed arguing with him, but like most avatars on the internet, he was what the Satanic Bible calls a Psychic Vampire.

Always moping about, sapping the morale, trying to leech energy off you to bring you down.

I enjoy life, nec aspera terrent, no time for non hackers cowering in the bottom of their trenches woe is them.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Don't know, don't care, I always enjoyed arguing with him, but like most avatars on the internet, he was what the Satanic Bible calls a Psychic Vampire.

Always moping about, sapping the morale, trying to leech energy off you to bring you down.

I enjoy life, nec aspera terrent, no time for non hackers cowering in the bottom of their trenches woe is them.

Yeah, he was the Eeyore of the DCF, this is true. Even still, I never let that shit drag me down, he was only dragging himself down, and in the meantime, there was some good arguments to be had.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeah, he was the Eeyore of the DCF, this is true, even still, I never let that shit drag me down, he was only dragging himself down, woe is him indeed.

Eeyore, ha! So tru.

He didn't bother me, I just have no interest in seeking those sorts of people out and getting involved in their pitiful little lives, more power to them, just stay off my lawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, in terms of the mass shootings in Canada, almost all those have been revolutionary violence.

For example Marc Lepine was ideologically motivated against feminists.

And both James Rosco and Justin Bourque lashed out at the British Crown by attacking the Mounties.

So what's the problem there?   Disloyal.  

No fealty to the Crown.

Attacked the Queen's Peace.

But what both Mayorthorpe and Moncton demonstrate is that, no, the police cannot protect you at all times, sometimes they have their hands full.

So if a Justin Bourque walks into your subdisivion and starts lighting the place up, I would submit, that is certainly the threshold of armed self defence of lawful possession occupation and in defence of life, in Canada.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Now, in terms of the mass shootings in Canada, almost all those have been revolutionary violence.

For example Marc Lepine was ideologically motivated against feminists.

And both James Rosco and Justin Bourque lashed out at the British Crown by attacking the Mounties.

So what's the problem there?   Disloyal.  

No fealty to the Crown.

Attacked the Queen's Peace.

Attacked Queen's Peace, not "We The People's" Peace. 

Take note Zeitgeist, if anyone are disloyal Canadians around here, it's the Anti-Monarchy crowd.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Attacked Queen's Peace, not "We The People's" Peace. 

Take note Zeitgeist, if anyone are disloyal Canadians around here, it's the Anti-Monarchy crowd.

What they fail to see is that the monarch protects you from totalitarianism.  

Fealty to the Crown is not fealty to the Government of Canada.

I report to the Queen and so does the Government of Canada.   I don't report to the Government of Canada, though as there is no public rule, they don't report to me neither.

The Queen remains above the fray, she is not the tyrant, she is the last line of defence against tyranny.

Doesn't allow the populist overthrow by the masses, but doesn't allow the government to be pretender to the throne neither.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

What they fail to see is that the monarch protects you from totalitarianism.  

Fealty to the Crown is not fealty to the Government of Canada.

I report to the Queen and so does the Government of Canada.   I don't report to the Government of Canada, though as there is no public rule, they don't report to me neither.

The Queen remains above the fray, she is not the tyrant, she is the last line of defence against tyranny.

Doesn't allow the populist overthrow by the masses, but doesn't allow the government to be pretender to the throne neither.

The government of Canada could shut down even the minor symbolic/cultural role of the monarch and might do so after Elizabeth the 2nd passes.  I don’t think that will necessarily happen, but like most Canadians I don’t much care because the monarch has no authority in Canada anymore.  Our Governor General, appointed by the PM (an elected MP) plays that role, which is still mostly ceremonial and symbolic.  I won’t say the GG isn’t important because such practices as recognizing excellence through the Governal General’s awards and Order of Canada, being an honourable person who represents the tradition of our time-tested institutions (which does hearken back to the Magna Carta, limiting government, and preventing tyrannical and non-representative government), is an important stabilizing force.  It reminds us of the hard fought battles for rights and freedoms throughout our history and some of Canada’s origins.  That does not in any way put the monarch in a position of authority over Canadians.  The monarch doesn’t own Crown land and can’t give orders to the Canadian parliament.  In an extreme situation the Canadian GG could dissolve parliament in a clear case of the government turning on its own people.  Fair enough.  

Also, to drive home the point of my Canadian pride and total respect for Canadians’ right and freedom to chart their own course, I like the monarchy and I’m a British dual citizen.  I have nothing against the monarch and have no interest in having a republic.  As Britain charts her own course, Canadians chart theirs.  Whether or not Canadians continue to have a monarch or give him/her so much respect as to place the monarch on the national currency is up to Canadians.  I like the constitutional monarchy which could exist with only the GG.  Quite simply the monarch’s presence or lack thereof doesn’t impact the day to day operations or decision-making of the country.  

I will say that continuing to maintain our constitutional monarchy is symbolic of our non-revolutionary nature as Canadians.  We had no Jacobin Reign of Terror, nor did we tar and feather non-supporters of Confederation as Patriots hounded Loyalists..  We have worked quite peacefully for progress.  We would do it the same way if we gave up the monarch, but most Canadians aren’t calling for that.  I enjoy the ceremony of the monarch and have learned that if you don’t build ceremony into your government, the people create it (e.g. Kennedy Camelot in the US).

Back to guns: https://globalnews.ca/news/5734954/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-united-states/

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The government of Canada could shut down even the minor symbolic/cultural role of the monarch and might do so after Elizabeth the 2nd passes. 

That would require opening up the constitution, which I seriously doubt any party in Canada has the stomach for, except we Pequistes, so go ahead, make our day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywhoo, in the event disloyal Canadians like Zeitgest overthrow our Queen, that is the end of Canada right there, we are not bound to any allegiance to a republic, a republic would be a whole new country, at which point we would be perfectly within our rights endowed by the Creator to wage revolutionary war against this republic of whatever they are going to call it, thus all the more reason to aqcuire your battle rifles now, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

That would require opening up the constitution, which I seriously doubt any party in Canada has the stomach for, except we Pequistes, so go ahead, make our day.

Open up the constitution Zeitgeist, we double dog dare you.
?width=500&version=1708781

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cry havok and let slip the dogs of war, burn in a fire of your own making, disloyal republicans, long live the British Crown in North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Cry havok and let slip the dogs of war, burn in a fire of your own making, disloyal republicans, long live the British Crown in North America.

Bizarre.  You basically take a Republican position on most matters and sing the praises of the US and call Canada a fake country.  You also say you’re waiting for the “World Socialist Revolution”, whatever that means in your head.  You trained in the Canadian military and say you don’t support Canada.  Your positions are very contradictory.  Canada is an independent country and will remain so with or without a monarch.  There really isn’t a big movement in Canada to get rid of the monarch and most Canadians probably don’t care too much either way, but that doesn’t make Canada revolutionary or a republic.  The Canadian people decide the fate of the country, period.  I’m not sure the Queen is especially concerned either, as long as the country is responsive to the people and well governed.  You like the Queen.  So do I.  So what?  Get a grip.

Back to the topic.  From American urban theorist Richard Florida on gun control in Canada (CBC News 2 days ago):

Canada needs to learn from its neighbour's failings and ban handguns before it's too late, argues Richard Florida, an urban studies theorist who heads the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.

"I grew up in the States during the worst period of urban violence; I saw America's great cities turn into killing fields," he said. "Things can go bad — and fast."

While Toronto and other large Canadian cities still aren't experiencing the levels of gun violence seen in places like Chicago or Los Angeles, Florida said the country is now on that trajectory, with the shootings no longer contained to less-advantaged neighbourhoods.

"We need to get ahead of this. We need to ban handguns," he said. "Why does anyone need to carry a handgun in our cities?"

 

 

 

 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Bizarre.  You basically take a Republican position on most matters and sing the praises of the US and call Canada a fake country. 

I defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as a classical liberal limited government conservative, as well as their stalwart ally within the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, as it was they who came to the aid of the British Crown in our darkest hour, and we have been brothers in arms ever since.

None the less, I am bound by solemn oath taken at 17 years of age to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor, as my Sovereign, Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief, and moreover to resist Her Majesty's enemies and defend the Queen's Peace.  Nowhere in that oath  was I bound to any fealty to Canadian Confederation, and this has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada itself.

Thus my republican American half and my monarchist British North American half; are not in conflict, we stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our rights endowed by the Creator, as we are all Americans in the end, I am simply what is called a Loyalist, which is an American who remains loyal to the British Crown.

The war between Canada and America, exists only the heads of a bizarre de facto People's Republic of Canada, which I certainly owe no allegiance to.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as a classical liberal limited government conservative, as well as their stalwart ally within the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, as it was they who came to the aid of the British Crown in our darkest hour, and we have been brothers in arms ever since.

None the less, I am bound by solemn oath taken at 17 years of age to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor, as my Sovereign, Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief, and moreover to resist Her Majesty's enemies and defend the Queen's Peace.  Nowhere in that oath  was I bound to any fealty to Canadian Confederation, and this has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada itself.

Thus my republican American half and my monarchist British North American half; are not in conflict, we stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our rights endowed by the Creator, as we are all Americans in the end, I am simply what is called a Loyalist, which is an American who remains loyal to the British Crown.

The war between Canada and America, exists only the heads of a bizarre de facto People's Republic of Canada, which I certainly owe no allegiance to.

You’re wrong.  It’s fine for the US and Britain to be allies despite the fact that one has a monarch and the other gave up that monarch.  Canada could do the same and she would remain an ally of Britain and the US.  What is not okay is your lack of loyalty to the country you supposedly served.  That’s where you blow it big time.  It’s worse than mercenary. It’s treachery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re wrong.  It’s fine for the US and Britain to be allies despite the fact that one has a monarch and the other gave up that monarch.  Canada could do the same and she would remain an ally of Britain and the US.  What is not okay is your lack of loyalty to the country you supposedly served.  That’s where you blow it big time.  It’s worse than mercenary. It’s treachery. 

It's all testable in court, if you publish to the internet that I am a traitor to the Crown of Canada, that would of course be seditious libel at your own peril.

None the less, as you have pointed out, I take the Queen's Schilling still, here in Wellington County, HM is still paying me, and though retired I remain a member of my regiment, one never leaves the regiment but feet first in a pine box, colors flying, pipes skirling, and furthermore, I remain armed in defence of the Queen's Peace as well, molon labe.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I actually think that stricter gun control would play well with the Canadian electorate. 

You're probably right. It would accomplish absolutely nothing in deterring criminals, of course, and piss off an awful lot of law-abiding gun owners, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be decent election fodder. Gun owners mostly don't vote Liberal anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The government of Canada could shut down even the minor symbolic/cultural role of the monarch and might do so after Elizabeth the 2nd passes.  I don’t think that will necessarily happen, but like most Canadians I don’t much care because the monarch has no authority in Canada anymore.

This is why it won't happen. If it did, most people, like you, would go 'meh'. A tiny number would be happy. On the other hand, a not-insignificant number of people would be enraged to the day they die, and would vote against the party that did it in everything they ever proposed thereafter.

So you make a ton of to-the-death enemies, and for what? To please a few progressives who probably vote your way anyway? Simply not worth it. Which is why no government will try, and if they did, why they'd be very unlikely to ever get the agreement of enough of the provinces to push it through.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...