Ain't gun control wonderful???

Status
Not open for further replies.
MrBishop said:
I suppose the same can be said for any law.

Drug control only controls law abiding people. Criminals who want crack will have crack.
Click to expand...

I didn't know crack actually had any use other than to be consumed for self gratification .

I'm not sure what your point is with your comparison of a gun to cocaine.

Can you you explain it to me?
 
Professur said:
Did you get that from your contact at the RCMP too? Because it's about as accurate as your last tidbit. Try talking to someone familiar with the new firearms regs instead. Air weapons rated at 400fps are classed as firearms for all legal purposes, including import from the US. That's from the guy who clears them through the US/Canuck border. I was looking to get a smaller air rifle for V2.0 and stopped at the border to inquire as to the regs. He told me that ANY air weapon would have to pass a chrono before crossing. And he had it right there for the purpose. While what I was looking at 'spec'ed at well under that, he'd still have to test it. He said he regularly saw paintball guns at over 90m/s. You don't need me to tell you the difference in mass between a paintball and a .177 pellet. My old single pump is 130f/s. Dad's 20 year older CO2 pistol far surpasses that. New high pressure guns ...? If the border guards are checking for them, they're obviously there.
Click to expand...
Your numbers are off...
Under new section 84(3)(d)(i), a weapon not designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules is deemed not to be a firearm (for the listed purposes).
Faster than that can cause serious bodily injury or even death.

!>500fps - Get her a Daisy
Winchester 500 x .177 calber 490 fps
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I didn't know crack actually had any use other than to be consumed for self gratification .

I'm not sure what your point is with your comparison of a gun to cocaine.

Can you you explain it to me?
Click to expand...

It's the law..either follow it or become a criminal. Why complain about only criminals are allowed to break the law? If you want to do so..go right ahead, just as long as you understand the consequences of your actions.

Right now, the law restricts who can own/buy a gun and which types of guns can be owned/bought. Pretty much the same way as it is in the USA.

Our list of no-go guns is longer than yours - granted.
We've got some idiotic registry thing which our current GVT is trying to repeal.

That's about it.
 
MrBishop said:
It's the law..either follow it or become a criminal. Why complain about only criminals are allowed to break the law? If you want to do so..go right ahead, just as long as you understand the consequences of your actions.

Right now, the law restricts who can own/buy a gun and which types of guns can be owned/bought. Pretty much the same way as it is in the USA.

Our list of no-go guns is longer than yours - granted.
We've got some idiotic registry thing which our current GVT is trying to repeal.

That's about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in our country there is a law that says "....shall not be infringed."

Funny, some people believe the purpose and intent of that law is about to re-examined.
 
And some people feel that the law was badly written in the first place. :shrug:

All for the sake of a comma.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Click to expand...
 
The one passed by congress reads WITH the comma...the one passed by States, without.

With the comma in place, it's the right of having a well-regulated militia that shall not be infringed.
 
The thing is, a militia is not the same thing as a military. In order to have a militia, you need a bunch of citizens with guns that you can round up to be in the militia.
 
MrBishop said:
And some people feel that the law was badly written in the first place. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And those people should move to somewhere that better fits their personal ideals, like say Canada. In the first place there were those that disagreed, we called those people loyalist. The rest were called Patriots.
 
Inkara1 said:
The thing is, a militia is not the same thing as a military. In order to have a militia, you need a bunch of citizens with guns that you can round up to be in the militia.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're saying our military is not Constitutionally mandated? Interesting.
 
spike said:
Ah, so you're saying our military is not Constitutionally mandated? Interesting.
Click to expand...

No, that's your butter brain reading it from an indoctrinated preconceived liberal point of view. He said nothing of the sort.

I may be wrong, but I think what he is saying is: A militia is not the same thing as a military. In order to have a militia, you need a bunch of citizens with guns that you can round up to be in the militia.

Yeah, I think that is what he was trying to say. Pretty straight forward and clear.
 
spike said:
Ah, so you're saying our military is not Constitutionally mandated? Interesting.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said at all. Article 1, Section 8 states that Congress has the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. Militias are addressed separately.

NOMC_Spring_2007_Straw_Man.jpg
 
Inkara1 said:
No, that's not what I said at all. Article 1, Section 8 states that Congress has the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. Militias are addressed separately.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but they're kinda addressed in the same section.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This Militia is supposed to be given arms and trained and employed and officers appointed.
 
spike said:
This Militia is supposed to be given arms and trained and employed and officers appointed.
Click to expand...

"Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

Actually what that means is that "parts" of the standing militias "may be employed in the service of the United States" .

A militia is something our forefathers believed in. Militia are the final boss in these United States.
 
But I don't dream about progressive socialist utopias. And if I did I certainly make a militia the end boss right after the narwhals with lasers stage.

I like how when you're wrong you only respond to part of a post r don't respond at all. It's not obvious or anything.
 
spike said:
But I don't dream about progressive socialist utopias. And if I did I certainly make a militia the end boss right after the narwhals with lasers stage.

I like how when you're wrong you only respond to part of a post r don't respond at all. It's not obvious or anything.
Click to expand...

lol. I'm not wrong, your just not very bright. You rarely answer a question, you much prefer to go off with some oddly related loosely woven misdirection.

Have you ever said the word "nigger?"
 
ResearchMonkey said:
lol. I'm not wrong, your just not very bright. You rarely answer a question, you much prefer to go off with some oddly related loosely woven misdirection.

Have you ever said the word "nigger?"
Click to expand...

No, when you're wrong you ignore the post. I answer questions. You don't. You still haven't answered mine from days ago.

You do troll a lot though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top