"What is wrong" was already asked....

No one is paying for my healthcare. Believe you me that I pay my fair share in taxes that fully funds my healthcare. I imagine I do pay for some other poor person's health care though. And if that means some poor kid gets a life saving operation that they otherwise could not have afforded, I have no qualms with that seeing as I am a compassionate, decent human being.
So its not free health care!
 
What rights were taken away from me? I own guns and I also have the right to free healthcare so as I see it ..I have more rights than you. But priorities right? So long as you can walk into your local Wal Mart and buy a gun on a whim, all is good. ‘Merica. Yippy Kay Yay!

I'm not so sure about that.

M103 was the first step in eroding your freedom of speech. It passed as a landslide in Parliament even though a majority of Canadians were against it.

Additionally, you may legally own your firearms in Canada but should you ever have to use your firearm for self defense and kill the intruder breaking into your home, you could find yourself charged with attempted murder, intent to discharge a firearm, intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless, careless use of a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Just fighting the charges are enough to bankrupt most people.
 
The rate is the rate you can't play it down because the pile of bodies isn't huge.(like in the US?)

My point is rates or percentages can be misleading. If there were 1 this year and 2 next year, that is a 100% increase. The percentage would be misleading...
 
I'm not so sure about that.

M103 was the first step in eroding your freedom of speech. It passed as a landslide in Parliament even though a majority of Canadians were against it.

Additionally, you may legally own your firearms in Canada but should you ever have to use your firearm for self defense and kill the intruder breaking into your home, you could find yourself charged with attempted murder, intent to discharge a firearm, intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless, careless use of a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Just fighting the charges are enough to bankrupt most people.

I don’t know what the chances are of someone invading my home, but it’s probably somewhere between highly unlikely and never gonna happen.

Boater 420 did you know that come this summer, pot will be legal throughout Canada? ;-)
 
What rights were taken away from me? I own guns and I also have the right to free healthcare so as I see it ..I have more rights than you.

There is no 'free'. Along with the fact your healthcare isn't free you don't even know what it's actually costing you. As if that isn't bad enough, you might have to seek treatments outside Canada 'cause you don't have time to wait for the 'free' service even if it is available. Sometimes 'free' things aren't 'quality' things, maybe that's why there's an increasingly large number of Canadians going elsewhere for healthcare.

No one is paying for my healthcare. Believe you me that I pay my fair share in taxes that fully funds my healthcare. I imagine I do pay for some other poor person's health care though. And if that means some poor kid gets a life saving operation that they otherwise could not have afforded, I have no qualms with that seeing as I am a compassionate, decent human being.
How would you know? Somebody paying much more in taxes is probably picking up the tab for both you and the poor kid. That rich guy is probably looking in a mirror right now thinking, 'not only am I handsome and irresistible, I'm compassionate and a decent human being too'.



But priorities right? So long as you can walk into your local Wal Mart and buy a gun on a whim, all is good. ‘Merica. Yippy Kay Yay!
This is some douche nozzlery for sure.
 
This is some douche nozzlery for sure.

Just calling it like I (and much of the rest of the world) see it. Sorry if that strikes a nerve.

Some fair points on healthcare. I’ll give you that. Subsidized would have been a better word. So far as seeking treatment elsewhere because of waits? Friend of mine needed a life saving operation a few years back (I’ll spare you the details). He got his operation and 3 weeks in the hospital right away ..and the cost to him was nothing. The wait times/seeking healthcare out of country you speak of sound like something off Fox News really. Not trying to offend, but I’ve heard those words out of Sean Hannity’s mouth plenty of times. And it’s BS. Anyway we can argue about healthcare all day and get nowhere. I’m happy with the system here, and I’ll end with that.
 
Last edited:
I have no issues with paying a little extra so a little kid can have life saving surgery. What my issues is (and most Americans) are the 'free loaders' that are perfectly capable of working just like me and every other member of this forum, but decide they would rather play video games all night and sleep all day. I know a few like that. They get a paper cut and go to the emergency room and don't get charged a penny.

And as far as how often will your house get broken into? Well it only takes once. Happened to me. A Sunday afternoon at home with wife and then 12ish year old son. Drug addict tried breaking into the attached garage door. He ran when I got to the door but point being if he had been able to get in and walked into my living room who knows what might have happened. Oh, and in December about 2 miles from my home (and 100 yards from my mother-in-laws-you can see the house from her front porch) 2 men broke into an elderly mans home at about 1:00AM. The old man had a gun under his pillow. 1 bad guy left in a body bag. Better than being the homeowner in a body bag.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/12/08/ellport-home-invasion-shooting/

Similar incident about 10 miles from here a few years ago. Homeowner shot and killed the intruder. So it happens quite a bit more than you might think.

Heard a good one the other day. Saying we don't need a gun because we have the police is like saying we don't need a smoke detector because we have a fire department.
 
Go, I have a question and it's one that I would ask my dad if he was still with us. He too was a lifetime member of the NRA and like you was very involved.

Folks this isn't to start a battle, it's just a simple question.

Why would the NRA be against changing the legal limit to purchase to 21yo? Now that asked I know that requirement in MD did no good at all.
 
My answer to that would be, if an 18 year old can join the armed forces and be trusted to handle a weapon , then why not in civilian life ?
 
Sooo.......how should we protect the kids?

Remember, a majority of these kids protesting aren't of voting age (In the US). None of them can legally carry a pistol and most can't legally purchase a firearm (assuming a state mandated 21 years to carry and 18 to purchase). With that said, let's ignore their arguments for the sake of brevity and logic. ( I understand that we teach them to engage and to be proactive. But logically, if they can't vote, and can't participate in training to save their own lives what basis do they have.) So let's ignore them, or change the laws. This is where the danger of hypocrisy comes into play. Be careful which way you argue. If we listen to them and cower to their demands then we must also assume they are able to defend themselves and no longer need protection from others. Slippery slope to say the least.

We all agree that kids shouldn't be in danger at a place they're forced to attend. We all understand that guns aren't inherently evil. To argue otherwise would open up the discussion to other inanimate objects possessing qualities only assignable, by humans, to thinking beings. Any reasonable person would be silly to argue that not defending the defenseless is cowardly at best so, where should we go from here?

Seriously! Forget what the kids want! They don't get to make decisions! That is actually half of the problem. We need to decide how to protect the kids. Now that we all agree on that, lets decide how to defend them against crazies with guns bombs, knives, cars, and offensive words.
 
Last edited:
Go, I have a question and it's one that I would ask my dad if he was still with us. He too was a lifetime member of the NRA and like you was very involved.

Folks this isn't to start a battle, it's just a simple question.

Why would the NRA be against changing the legal limit to purchase to 21yo? Now that asked I know that requirement in MD did no good at all.


I'm not sure really. I can argue that if there is an age at which you're capable, qualified, legal, etc... then it can always be changed at the whim of men. I like the argument that if you're old enough to fight for the country, you're old enough for anything else. Those guys/gals come back way more grown up than I was at their age. (thanks for your service all)
 
My answer to that would be, if an 18 year old can join the armed forces and be trusted to handle a weapon , then why not in civilian life ?
You might be on to something. If an 18 year old joins the armed forces and is trained to handle a weapon he certainly should be allowed one in civilian life, otherwise not until 21yo.
 
You might be on to something. If an 18 year old joins the armed forces and is trained to handle a weapon he certainly should be allowed one in civilian life, otherwise not until 21yo.


How about smoking and voting? What about becoming President?

Side note: many military bases are weapons free. I think that's strange.
 
Soooo .... 14 pages ... Have you guys got this figured out yet?
 
Last edited:
Soooo .... 14 pages ... Have you guys got this figured out yet?
Blue, I'm not sure it's a matter of winning or losing. Rather, it's more of a matter of an open exchange of ideas, of being able to hear and understand an opposing opinion. Maybe this discussion will change someone's mind, maybe not. At our ages we're pretty set in our opinions and beliefs.

Now, after this thread has gone well over 200 posts, let me pose a question to all of you:

Given that criminals, by their nature, have shown they are not likely to obey laws, what common sense anti-gun legislation would you propose that (a) would not unduly hinder the lawful acts of lawful citizens; and, (b) the criminals would likely obey.
 
My response to Creekwood was sooo long i gave up, ill just say i thank GOD himself that Killary didnt make it.
 
Blue, I'm not sure it's a matter of winning or losing. Rather, it's more of a matter of an open exchange of ideas, of being able to hear and understand an opposing opinion. Maybe this discussion will change someone's mind, maybe not. At our ages we're pretty set in our opinions and beliefs.

Now, after this thread has gone well over 200 posts, let me pose a question to all of you:

Given that criminals, by their nature, have shown they are not likely to obey laws, what common sense anti-gun legislation would you propose that (a) would not unduly hinder the lawful acts of lawful citizens; and, (b) the criminals would likely obey.

It can't be fixed. Its too late. Too many guns out there in too many hands. The only solution is more guns. And a law that says that you can kill someone that is a criminal or might be a criminal. Then after a few years, no more problems. Sure, a few mistakes will be made.............
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,942
Messages
1,422,701
Members
60,927
Latest member
Jaguar65
Back
Top