Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Zeitgeist

Handguns and Assault Rifles

Recommended Posts

The British right to bear arms in allowance of the law by the Bill of Rights 1689 is not about hunting, it's about self protection. At the time Protestants protecting themselves from the Papists.

Canadians have a constitutional right to security of the person, which is the first court challenge which will come in the event of Canada trying to impose what they have in New Zealand, New Zealand not having a charter at all.
 

Due to the Canada Act 1982, Canada is more Americanized than the UK and NZ, what they can do there wouldn't necessarily fly here.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


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

The British right to bear arms in allowance of the law by the Bill of Rights 1689 is not about hunting, it's about self protection. At the time Protestants protecting themselves from the Papists.

Canadians have a constitutional right to security of the person, which is the first court challenge which come in the event of Canada trying to impose what they have in New Zealand, New Zealand not having a charter at all.

There’s no Charter right to own a gun, thankfully.  Gun laws can be changed through parliament.  

Share this post


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

There’s no Charter right to own a gun, thankfully.  Gun laws can be changed through parliament.  

It will be asserted in court that the right to security of the person is null and void if the person cannot have reasonable means of protecting themselves.

Telling old ladies and single moms they have to be black belts wouldn't fly in court.

A law that says guns are only for hunting and nothing else, therefore you can't have a handgun nor a repeating rifle, is not constitutional.

The right to protect yourself includes not having to do it with your bare hands, guns are for self defence in Canada as well.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the fear of being killed in a mass shooting, it's naive to think that shotguns and bolt action rifles are less lethal.

The Armalite is just easier to use, it's not more lethal.

The shooters are usually committed, they've prepared for it, they can easily bring themselves up to speed with a shotgun as a more than effective substitution.

It's like the guy in Dayton had hundred round drum repetition, but he only killed 9, because five-five-six doesn't actually pack that much punch and he didn't know how to use the weapon to maximum effect. 

If restricted to shotguns and bolt actions, these shooters will adapt, they will train, they will get better at it, they will overcome the regulation, they are resolved to mass murder, so they will put the work in.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


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

It will be asserted in court that the right to security of the person is null and void if the person cannot have reasonable means of protecting themselves.

Telling old ladies and single moms they have to be black belts wouldn't fly in court.

A law that says guns are only for hunting and nothing else, therefore you can't have a handgun nor a repeating rifle, is not constitutional.

The right to protect yourself includes not having to do it with your bare hands, guns are for self defence in Canada as well.

Guns generally raise tensions.  It’s not just the ability to store and secure a legal firearm or making sure people don’t have criminal pasts that I worry about, it’s the psychology of packing heat and people having the power over the life and death of others.  Forget black belts, knives, or vigilante protections.  People can call the police.  We often end up with additional problems when civilians try to use weapons or physical means to deal with threats themselves.  No doubt we all do what we can to defend ourselves in the heat of the moment, but when there aren’t already a lot of handguns in circulation, do we really want people to arm themselves in case other people have firearms in Canada?  

I actually think in some US cities there are reasonable arguments that having a weapon is necessary for safety.  What kinds of policies and social conditions led people to that point of desperation?  In Europe people would never make that argument because firearms are so few and far between.  Let’s have policies that curtail or eliminate weapons meant for killing people or soon we’ll have a reason for people to arm themselves.  That’s the point of no return we don’t want in Canada.  

Share this post


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

Guns generally raise tensions.  It’s not just the ability to store and secure a legal firearm or making sure people don’t have criminal pasts that I worry about, it’s the psychology of packing heat and people having the power over the life and death of others.  Forget black belts, knives, or vigilante protections.  People can call the police.  We often end up with additional problems when civilians try to use weapons or physical means to deal with threats themselves.  No doubt we all do what we can to defend ourselves in the heat of the moment, but when there aren’t already a lot of handguns in circulation, do we really want people to arm themselves in case other people have firearms in Canada?  

I actually think in some US cities there are reasonable arguments that having a weapon is necessary for safety.  What kinds of policies and social conditions led people to that point of desperation?  In Europe people would never make that argument because firearms are so few and far between.  Let’s have policies that curtail or eliminate weapons meant for killing people or soon we’ll have a reason for people to arm themselves.  That’s the point of no return we don’t want in Canada.  

I don't trust the police and I don't trust people who trust the police.

I trust in the Lord, no fears on earth, the God of the Hebrews is with me, always.

Share this post


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

Guns generally raise tensions.  It’s not just the ability to store and secure a legal firearm or making sure people don’t have criminal pasts that I worry about, it’s the psychology of packing heat and people having the power over the life and death of others.  Forget black belts, knives, or vigilante protections.  People can call the police.  We often end up with additional problems when civilians try to use weapons or physical means to deal with threats themselves. 

The guy in Ohio shot thirty people in under a minute. In most URBAN areas the police are at least 5-10 minutes away even for an emergency. In rural areas they can be an hour or two away. Canada is a very under-policed nation, with far fewer police per 100k population than most of our western allies. Self defense is not an antiquated idea.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

The guy in Ohio shot thirty people in under a minute. In most URBAN areas the police are at least 5-10 minutes away even for an emergency. In rural areas they can be an hour or two away. Canada is a very under-policed nation, with far fewer police per 100k population than most of our western allies. Self defense is not an antiquated idea.

Canada has fewer gun homicides per 100000 people than the US, and there are various reasons for this, including less economic disparity between rich and poor, wider availability of firearms to people in the US (especially automatic/semi-automatic weapons), and the focus on community-based policing in Canada that makes police more trusted and likely to be contacted when people need help.  It’s interesting that the places in Canada with the highest homicide rates are places with social issues like Saskatoon.  Also, police presence doesn’t have a clear correlation with number of gun homicides, as Toronto had the most gun homicides in 2018 yet also one of the highest per capita forces.  

More importantly, it’s the access to fast-action rounds, rather than having to reload each bullet or two manually, that steals precious time from people trying to flee.  What are you arguing. that having everyone armed makes us safer in Canada, protecting us from the few mass murderers who appear once in s blue moon?  I can promise you that more people with handguns and assault riffles spells more gun homicides, period.  That’s where they are in parts of the US.  The cat’s out of the bag and some are arguing that everyone she be armed. WTF!   Shut this potentiality down while we can.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


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

I don't trust the police and I don't trust people who trust the police.

I trust in the Lord, no fears on earth, the God of the Hebrews is with me, always.

God helps those who help themselves.  He demands that we use out talents and not make stupid choices.  I happen to believe in God, but I have a problem with religious people who think they don’t have personal responsibility because God will take care of everything.  We’re called to do our best.  

Share this post


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

God helps those who help themselves.  He demands that we use out talents and not make stupid choices.  I happen to believe in God, but I have a problem with religious people who think they don’t have personal responsibility because God will take care of everything.  We’re called to do our best.  

Hence why I am armed and ready for all contingencies, up to and including war, as an eternal soldier of the Crown, in defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor.

God and my right.  No fears on earth.  Onward Christian Soldiers.

Share this post


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

 People can call the police.  We often end up with additional problems when civilians try to use weapons or physical means to deal with threats themselves.  No doubt we all do what we can to defend ourselves in the heat of the moment, but when there aren’t already a lot of handguns in circulation, do we really want people to arm themselves in case other people have firearms in Canada?  

 

I live in a "city: of 10,000 served by the RCMP.  A few years ago, I caught a guy robbing the contents of my chore truck (he broke door handle and couldn't get out).  My wife called the police.   I opened the door and pinned the guy, really, REALLY wanting to beat the shit out of him, but I live in Canada and have no right to defend my property - and I need the passport.  Then, his accomplice pulled up jumped me from behind, allowing the felon to escape.  15 minutes later, the RCMP arrived....duh!!   Fortunately, I had knocked his wallet out of his back pocket while holding him down against the driver's seat, and the cops immediately let slip that they knew exactly who he was.  Even though they arrested him, he got off with probation and was no doubt back at it overnight.  Had it not been for the incredible good fortune of him losing his wallet, there would not even have been the minor inconvenience in continuing his criminal career.

We have dozens of facilities with easily stolen assets in remote areas of WY.   EVERYONE in WY carries a rifle in their pickup, and many carry handguns.  We simply do not have any theft from any of our facilities, since potential thieves know they are far more likely to get a bullet from the owner than a visit from the cops.

Now, I also have a farm in SK.  If you think 15 minutes is bad in the city, just imagine how long it would take to get a cop to respond to an armed robbery and assault out there?   Ask Gerald Stanley.

No, you are not getting my guns.   You (the Royal "You" that includes police forces) can not be everywhere, and are far more likely to be in the doughnut shop than where I need you and when I need you.  At least I can cling to the last hope of throwing a round into a 12 gauge if my family is ever threatened.  I am not prepared to die for your principals and fears, but I am in no way ever going to submit to a threat and feel I have the right to whatever it takes to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why the twelve gauge slide action shotgun is the optimized personal defence weapon in Canada.

In the event of contact, you just press the thumb safe release on your Remington 870 Express Tactical and grab your bandolier.

No magazine capacity required, once you master hand loading by the breach.'

With the Armalite, if you leave your magazines loaded, it wrecks the springs, so the Armalite is not actually best for no notice point blank.

For no notice point blank; twelve gauge pump, pocket full o' shells.

 

Share this post


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

More importantly, it’s the access to fast-action rounds, rather than having to reload each bullet or two manually, that steals precious time from people trying to flee.  What are you arguing. that having everyone armed makes us safer in Canada, protecting us from the few mass murderers who appear once in s blue moon?

I'm arguing that your 'just call the cops is simply not applicable to many situations. If someone is breaking down your door you don't want to call a cop and hope he gets there before you get throttled or stabbed. A lot of people keep guns for that very reason, including me.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not actually hesitant to engage other apex predator males in unarmed combat, I have a bloodlust for that, I am drawn to close quarters fighting by nature.

The issue is that,  first and foremost, I am responsible for protecting my wife.

Secondarily, as the Landed Gentry, I have a duty to protect my neighbors.

Thus it becomes a no fail mission, decisive use of force to end the engagement at the earliest opportunity.

That's the threshold of twelve gauge pump pocket full o' shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm arguing that your 'just call the cops is simply not applicable to many situations. If someone is breaking down your door you don't want to call a cop and hope he gets there before you get throttled or stabbed. A lot of people keep guns for that very reason, including me.

You seem like a responsible person, but do you honestly think it’s necessary in Canada to have armed protection?  Don’t you worry about what might result from most people keeping arms in their homes?  Again, however, it’s different in the countryside, where many farmers keep rifles for practical reasons.  Being secure in a remote area is a good reason.  That’s why distinctions are important.  Handguns in cities are a different story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having grown up in downtown Toronto myself, I understand why Torontonians are gun grabbers.

Canada is a big country tho, north Saskatchewan is not like the 6ix at all.

You can feel empathy for the Indians,  you can wish for reconciliation.

None the less, Canada is a racist apartheid state, it breeds violence, and on the fringes of the British Empire, there are bandits, same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, the Liberal one party state running things entirely at the whim of downtown Toronto, is what is going to bring the Confederation down in the end.

Thus why I vote Liberal.

Vive le Quebec libre, good riddance to the pretenders to the throne in their Ivory Towers in Toronto.

Share this post


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

Having grown up in downtown Toronto myself, I understand why Torontonians are gun grabbers.

Canada is a big country tho, north Saskatchewan is not like the 6ix at all.

You can feel empathy for the Indians,  you can wish for reconciliation.

None the less, Canada is a racist apartheid state, it breeds violence, and on the fringes of the British Empire, there are bandits, same as it ever was.

Explain how the breakup of Canada serves Indigenous.  What do they get out of the deal?  It would remove the provinces from their obligations.  I think that’s what excites you.  The bilingualism ends.  The people of the North are abandoned.  Canadian obligations to Indigenous and the poorer provinces end.  And what where would Ontario end up, on its own or in the US, with US federal policies in which Ontario had no hand.  That’s a big come down for the province that has been the economic lead in Canada and central to Confederation.  It sounds very “jump the shark” to me.  

Share this post


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

Explain how the breakup of Canada serves Indigenous.  What do they get out of the deal?  It would remove the provinces from their obligations.  I think that’s what excites you.  The bilingualism ends.  The people of the North are abandoned.  Canadian obligations to Indigenous and the poorer provinces end.  And what where would Ontario end up, on its own or in the US, with US federal policies in which Ontario had no hand.  That’s a big come down for the province that has been the economic lead in Canada and central to Confederation.  It sounds very “jump the shark” to me.  

Upon de-Conederation, I will continue the fight to honour the obligations of the British Crown, to free the Iroquois from the racist apartheid police state upon their necks.

Freeing Upper Canada from Confederation is not end, it's a beginning.

Share this post


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

Reporting scandals is irrelevant,  the CBC state propaganda arm indoctrinates Canadians from birth, fed to them like mothers milk.

Doesn't matter how many scandals the Liberals are outed for, indoctrinated Canadians do not question the narrow agenda of the Elite Consensus, which is a de facto Liberal one party state.

Canadians who reject the indoctrination have no recourse anyways, the CBCelite consensus prevails, no matter who you vote for, because Canada has a fake opposition to go with its fake free press and fake charter of rights, the opposition are just props.
 

The CBC is never going to lay out the big picture, which is that Canada is lawless, the elites are above the law, and that the CBC is fine with that, because the elites ensure the CBC doesn't get defunded, the CBCelites are senior in the pecking order of the Canadian Elite Consensus.

The vast, vast majority of CBC "news", is really just Libdipper talking heads editorializing on behalf the Libdipping, because everybody at the CBC is a Libdipper, then they truck out Andrew Coyne  as their fake "conservative", Andrew Coyne's job is to just tell people that the Libdipper's are right, don't bother to resist, just let them have their way, because the right is yucky.

Do you have any examples of this or is this just an opinion?

The Liberal party, when you look at their foreign policies and natural resources policies are pretty much the same as the Conservatives. They just gift wrap it differently.

I would say that the CBC's commentators and coverage are more aligned with the NDP policies than the Liberals.

Share this post


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

Upon de-Conederation, I will continue the fight to honour the obligations of the British Crown, to free the Iroquois from the racist apartheid police state upon their necks.

Freeing Upper Canada from Confederation is not end, it's a beginning.

Like how the Americans’ Manifest Destiny ended Tecumseh’s hope for an Indian homeland, which British North America (pre-Confederation Canada) tried to help him create.  The Brits don’t need more problems.  They have enough of their own, and as Brit dual citizen, I’ve lived the dream over there, and let me tell you, it’s a lower standard of living than what we have in Canada.  Wait until you get your water and utilities bills over there.  Everything is a la carte and nothing is cheap.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


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

Do you have any examples of this or is this just an opinion?

The Liberal party, when you look at their foreign policies and natural resources policies are pretty much the same as the Conservatives. They just gift wrap it differently.

I would say that the CBC's commentators and coverage are more aligned with the NDP policies than the Liberals.

It's just my opinion,  bear in mind, to even have a state funded media, is an anathema to me, as a classical liberal limited government conservative.

The NDP is just the unionist wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada is a de facto one party state, with a fake opposition.

And because the CBC is the state propaganda arm for that, they are the enemies of freedom, may their children go blind.

Share this post


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

It's just my opinion,  bear in mind, to even have a state funded media, is an anathema to me, as a classical liberal limited government conservative.

The NDP is just the unionist wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada is a de facto one party state, with a fake opposition.

And because the CBC is the state propaganda arm for that, they are the enemies of freedom, may their children go blind.

Who gives the CBC their communiques?  I’d love to know who’s in charge of propaganda in Canada.  

I know a CBC journalist.  I can tell you that he worked his ass off as a correspondent. He lives like a priest.  You have to be very committed to your profession for that kind of work.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


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

Like how the Americans’ Manifest Destiny ended Tecumseh’s hope for an Indian homeland, which British North America (pre-Confederation Canada) tried to help him create.  The Brits don’t need more problems.  They have enough of their own, and as Brit dual citizen, I’ve lived the dream over there, and let me tell you, it’s a lower standard of living than what we have in Canada.  Wait until you get your water and utilities bills over there.  Everything is a la carte and nothing is cheap.  

The United Kingdom has already fallen to the Bolsheviks, I wrote the UK off some time ago.

I do not report to my Commander-in-Chief by way of the English, I have a direct chain of command, from Elizabeth Windsor, straight to me here as her Landed Gentry in Upper Canada, United Empire Loyalist Orangeman.

In terms of American Manifest Destiny, I fight to bring that to the Iroquois, I fight to free them from the racist apartheid police state, so they can live as free as Thomas Jefferson himself.

Striving for a more perfect union, same as it ever was.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


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

The United Kingdom has already fallen to the Bolsheviks, I wrote the UK off some time ago.

I do not report to my Commander-in-Chief by way of the English, I have a direct chain of command, from Elizabeth Windsor, straight to me here as her Landed Gentry on Upper Canada.

In terms of American Manifest Destiny, I fight to bring that to the Iroquois, I fight to free them from the racist apartheid police state, so they can live as free as Thomas Jefferson himself.

Ha ha.  Read about US prison riots and native activism, the reserves down there, and of course the atrocities against Indians in the Indian War and in other incidents.  Far worse than anything done by Canada.  

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...