Federal politics | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Federal politics

Rob MacLennan said:
A weapon is a weapon whether it's used on people, game, or targets. To consider it anything but is to not give it the respect it needs to receive, for safety.

Pot should be decriminalized and controlled. There is little reason to treat it any differently than alcohol and many of the arguments that are levelled against it (how it will cause developmental problems in children/teens with use for example) apply quite well to alcohol also. To think that children can't already acquire it is tantamount to sticking ones fingers in ones ears and say, "Lalalalalalala." Also the argument that legalizing it will make it more available to children seems to assume that they can't already get hold of alcohol, which is controlled.

I constantly hear people refer to Liberals as "paternalistic." How is the Conservative party any less so? The way that i see it they simply want to control us in subtly different ways.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your misconception of what a weapon is, and so do online dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon

1. any*instrument*or*device*for*use*in*attack*or defense*in*combat,*fighting,*or*war,*as*a*sword,rifle,*or*cannon.

2. anything*used*against*an*opponent,*adversary,or*victim:
Click to expand...

And it has nothing to do with disrespecting the power my guns have. I don't use my guns for any sort of combat, nor are they used against any opponent. Unless my ar500 steel gongs are opponents now.

I agree with Canada's licensing requirements, I don't agree with fun registration.

Many guns are more powerful and can be broken down to be more concealable than an ar15, but ar15s need to be registered and only used at a range? It makes no sense.
 
Just my opinion: no citizen outside the military and special police forces should even be allowed to own an assault type rifle like the ar15. Or any pistol. Hunting type rifles with max. 5 rounds can be rationalized, but not pistols and assault rifles. These are people killers. Like I said: just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Diesel, a weapon doesn't stop being a weapon simply because it goes into storage. It retains its function, even if it isn't in use.
 
This is proving to be a very interesting diversion. Food for thought, certainly. My baseball bat, I wonder what that is today?
 
Rob, what Diesel is saying - and I agree with, is - a firearm is not considered a weapon, unless it is used offensively - or defensively against a person. (deer and moose may offer a dissenting opinion, but it won't stand in a court of law). I have a couple of firearms and they are used solely for target shooting - nothing else (so the deer and moose can relax). They could certainly be employed as weapons, I'm quite sure - same as half a dozen different articles (baseball bat, axe, hammer, knives, steel pipe, long pointy stick) that are available to me. Right now however, they are just little pieces of machinery that I take to the range, to makes holes in paper.
 
Doug Tait said:
Rob, what Diesel is saying - and I agree with, is - a firearm is not considered a weapon, unless it is used offensively - or defensively against a person. (deer and moose may offer a dissenting opinion, but it won't stand in a court of law). I have a couple of firearms and they are used solely for target shooting - nothing else (so the deer and moose can relax). They could certainly be employed as weapons, I'm quite sure - same as half a dozen different articles (baseball bat, axe, hammer, knives, steel pipe, long pointy stick) that are available to me. Right now however, they are just little pieces of machinery that I take to the range, to makes holes in paper.
Click to expand...

Just semantics. A gun is a weapon. vs A gun can be a weapon.
 
Schneller said:
Just my opinion: no citizen outside the military and special police forces should even be allowed to own an assault type rifle like the ar15. Or any pistol. Hunting type rifles with max. 5 rounds can be rationalized, but not pistols and assault rifles. These are people killers. Like I said: just my opinion.
Click to expand...

To be honest the difference between a a big black scary ar15 and a hunting rifle is the look, functionally they are the same, one just happens to look like a m16 (how ever it doesn't function like one). would it make you feel better if they painted the "assault rifles" to be wood coloured?

The gun that sparked the whole gun registry and tightened up gunlaws isn't even restricted. - the Mini 14.
 
CruisnGrrl said:
To be honest the difference between a a big black scary ar15 and a hunting rifle is the look, functionally they are the same, one just happens to look like a m16 (how ever it doesn't function like one). would it make you feel better if they painted the "assault rifles" to be wood coloured?

The gun that sparked the whole gun registry and tightened up gunlaws isn't even restricted. - the Mini 14.
Click to expand...


Im just not up the the functional capabilities of different gun models. It looks like an m16/assault rifle.
 
Schneller said:
Im just not up the the functional capabilities of different gun models. It looks like an m16/assault rifle.
Click to expand...
So why do you have an opinion on their classification if you don't understand their mechanics or functionality. Black doesn't equal more dangerous. A .308 bolt action is potentially far more dangerous at a far greater range than any ar15.
 
Schneller said:
Im just not up the the functional capabilities of different gun models. It looks like an m16/assault rifle.
Click to expand...


Looks like but isn't. Just because it looks like a big scary m16 doesn't make it one. Just like any repeating hunting rifle in Canada magazines are limited to 5 rounds. Functionally they are the same, they work exactly the same and have the same parts inside, there is no logical reason why an ar15 can not be used for hunting. Being restricted it's like paying for insurance on a race bike and not being able to use it on the road when you have a sport bike because it looks like a race bike...
 
Hunters don't require pistols or assault rifles with high capacity and automatic action.
 
Schneller said:
Hunters don't require pistols or assault rifles with high capacity and automatic action.
Click to expand...


Automatic rifles are currently prohibited. An ar15 is not an automatic, it's repeating rifle like many other hunting rifles and depending on what you are hunting sometimes it is needed. as for pistols, also depending on what you are hunting it is sometimes needed, unfortunately sometimes rifles jam or you've used the last shot in your rifle. Your ignorance of firearms is perfect reason why your opinion shouldn't be policymaking, you're much like the nephew of the Fords who was voted in as a school trustee. He's a college dropout making policy on education.

I'd recommend you take a minimum of a safety course and a hunting course to learn about your fears
 
CruisnGrrl said:
Automatic rifles are currently prohibited. An ar15 is not an automatic, it's repeating rifle like many other hunting rifles and depending on what you are hunting sometimes it is needed. as for pistols, also depending on what you are hunting it is sometimes needed, unfortunately sometimes rifles jam or you've used the last shot in your rifle. Your ignorance of firearms is perfect reason why your opinion shouldn't be policymaking, you're much like the nephew of the Fords who was voted in as a school trustee. He's a college dropout making policy on education.

I'd recommend you take a minimum of a safety course and a hunting course to learn about your fears
Click to expand...

Well said CruisingGirl, but attitudes like Schneller's are one of the biggest reasons I will never vote for anyone remotely left-wing... or even Liberal for that matter... they love to tell other people what to do even when they don't have a clue about the subject at hand.

Although I suppose that can be said about pretty much anyone in power -- or what is the quote from Adams:
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not speaking from a place of personal fear, I'm just one of that segment of the population that thinks citizens owning guns is not a good thing in a civilized society. To support that view, I point to a comparison of murder rates in countries where guns are highly regulated, to rates where guns are loosely regulated.

But I'm done with gun control discussion.
 
Since we're on that topic, I'd like to add a few words before we close. Why aren't we allowed to defend ourselves? What is wrong with using a pistol for self defense?

Let's say I'm a very attractive woman at home alone. Why can't I have a pistol at home for potential rapists?
 
Schneller said:
But I'm done with gun control discussion.
Click to expand...

This whole thread was asking about Federal Politics (which control firearms) and people were wondering why would anyone support the Conservatives -- and I told you why -- because only the Conservatives don't want to take my guns away, so I won't vote for anyone but them.
 
Schneller said:
I'm not speaking from a place of personal fear, I'm just one of that segment of the population that thinks citizens owning guns is not a good thing in a civilized society. To support that view, I point to a comparison of murder rates in countries where guns are highly regulated, to rates where guns are loosely regulated.

But I'm done with gun control discussion.
Click to expand...



Ok, so what about motorcycles? More people die or injured from riding than guns.

We can argue about how each (guns and motorcycles) are used safely and enjoyed by many law abiding citizens. Both also happen to be dangerous and used criminally. Innocent people been injured or died because of both.

So, we regulate and govern how they are to be used. Seems reasonable.
 
RockerGuy said:
Since we're on that topic, I'd like to add a few words before we close. Why aren't we allowed to defend ourselves? What is wrong with using a pistol for self defense? Let's say I'm a very attractive woman at home alone. Why can't I have a pistol at home for potential rapists?
Click to expand...
According to bozo Biden all she needs to do is fire a round or two out the window and scare them off, sounds like a perfectly safe thing to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom