Canada bans 1500 kinds of military style weapons.

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
World Press Freedom Index 2020

...45. United States 23.85
Now you're a huge arms control /gun control advocate, so let me get this straight. You think that America is only the 45th freest nation on earth (barely in the top 25%), but you still think that arms control is a good idea? How are we to protect our freedom, if our right to bear arms is even more infringed than it already is? As it is you and yours like to point out that in any engagement with our own police and military, that American civilians armed only with civilian-permitted weapons cannot hope to stand a chance, because our firepower is dwarfed by that possessed by our government. What if our freedom drops further? What if we drop to only the top 50%? You would still support more restrictive arms control than we already have here? What if we find ourselves in the bottom 25% instead of the top 25% some day? By that time, if you and yours get your way, our chances to resist against our government would be still more depleted, and all because this oppressive government of ours would along with suppressing, censoring, and trampling our other rights (which is how you go from being a free country to being an oppressive one), would have already invaded our right to bear arms, such that we would become as harmless to the government as most of the rest of the world's citizens are to theirs.

Like, Canadians. Harmless. Europeans, even more harmless. In China they're as harmless as a gerbil. The right of resistance, which is alluded to in none other than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, right in the preamble, means near nothing when the people do not have their right to bear arms defended.
 

eider

Well-known member
if you and yours get your way, our chances to resist against our government would be still more depleted, and all because this oppressive government of ours would along with suppressing, censoring, and trampling our other rights (which is how you go from being a free country to being an oppressive one), would have already invaded our right to bear arms, such that we would become as harmless to the government as most of the rest of the world's citizens are to theirs.
Bearing arms against your government?
Apart from the fact that your government is elected, you can remove it at the next election!
And who would you want to kill? Your Police? Your National Guard? Your Civilian Militia? Your own American soldiers?
That would be more than treason, it would be terrorism.
And think of the dreadful errors that bunches of untrained civilians would make.

I recently put a most basic scenario to you for your ideas, and you never did give an answer. How do you think you'd cope in a real situation?
.

The right of resistance, which is alluded to in none other than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, right in the preamble, means near nothing when the people do not have their right to bear arms defended.
Human Rights is not about a licence to murder your own countryfolks, serving their country.
That's terrorism........ it's madness n' all.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Bearing arms against your government?
Apart from the fact that your government is elected, you can remove it at the next election!
And who would you want to kill? Your Police? Your National Guard? Your Civilian Militia? Your own American soldiers?
That would be more than treason, it would be terrorism.
And think of the dreadful errors that bunches of untrained civilians would make.

I recently put a most basic scenario to you for your ideas, and you never did give an answer. How do you think you'd cope in a real situation?
.


Human Rights is not about a licence to murder your own countryfolks, serving their country.
That's terrorism........ it's madness n' all.
Why would a gun shop owner require his patrons to NOT wear masks /face coverings during a pandemic, Eider? Any thoughts?

https://us.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/06/18/florida-gun-shop-owner-bans-masks-nr-keilar-vpx.cnn
 

eider

Well-known member
Why would a gun shop owner require his patrons to NOT wear masks /face coverings during a pandemic, Eider? Any thoughts?

https://us.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/06/18/florida-gun-shop-owner-bans-masks-nr-keilar-vpx.cnn

Yeah. U couldn't open the link but I can think of reasons why.
Firstly, gun shop owners (UK) don't have to wear masks, nor do their customers.
Do your shop staff and customers have to wear masks?

2nd....... this gun shop owner is probably cautious about identity.

3rd...... What has this got to do with Americans turning their guns upon their own police, National Guard, Civilian Militia or American soldiers just because they don't like a government? That would be terrorism and treason of the worst kind.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Americans turning their guns upon their own police, National Guard, Civilian Militia or American soldiers just because they don't like a government? That would be terrorism and treason of the worst kind.


Or revolution against oppression, just like we did in 1776
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Bearing arms against your government?
Bearing arms against anybody. In the US we talk about defending our rights against "enemies foreign and domestic". We know that our most dangerous adversary could be our own neighbors. Not just because it happened in say Nazi Germany not very long ago (historically speaking), but because we remind ourselves that our enemies could be foreign, or domestic. We're explicit about it.

Have you read any of the other writings from the American Founders around the Revolutionary era and following? Concerning the right to bear arms, and why they saw fit to enumerate it in our Constitution? They talked about it, about being able to defend ourselves against the government of the United States.

The ideal is that our government (for you Brits remember that our government is our whole regime, not just the legislative branch like it is in England) defends our rights, that's the whole reason for its existence, along with defending our territory and citizens from foreign invaders or terrorists. That's the plan, and that's what our Constitution sets out to do, but the Second Amendment was included in part to deter our government from ever straying from its duty, and giving We the People a puncher's chance if ever the worst case happened and somehow it goes rogue, as for example the Russian government went rogue and slaughtered tens of millions of Russians without justification.
Apart from the fact that your government is elected, you can remove it at the next election!
Right. In theory. Problem with the theory is that it does not acknowledge that our Supreme Court, which is designed to be the back stop for Unconstitutional laws, is composed of justices that are appointed and not elected, and they can serve for the remainder of their earthly lives, so changing the character of that court isn't entirely in the control of the elected officials.

It's not a problem if the S. Ct. does their Constitutional job efficiently. Right now on this matter of the Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms, the court is abstaining from hearing anymore appeals concerning the right.

Which leads to the other problem, which is that we are basically mired in a populist and fascistic era in our country's life, where we're voting based on what tickles our itching ears, instead of informing our choice from principles. The principles all line up and set out things plainly on guns /weapons /arms, and as you know it's plain as day in our Constitution as well, but with the popularity contest leaning slightly towards increasing restrictions to the right, and the S. Ct. justices abstaining from appeals to flagrantly Unconstitutional arms control laws, the right is getting gouged and its prospects do not look promising.
And who would you want to kill? Your Police? Your National Guard? Your Civilian Militia? Your own American soldiers?
I don't want to kill anybody. Are you out of your mind?
That would be more than treason, it would be terrorism.
It's not treason to defend your rights especially when your Constitution says you've got rights to defend, it's like literally impossible for that to be treason.
And think of the dreadful errors that bunches of untrained civilians would make.
Absolutely. It's incumbent upon our government, by hook or by crook, to right that ship. It's listing.
I recently put a most basic scenario to you for your ideas, and you never did give an answer. How do you think you'd cope in a real situation?
I did not find that to be "a most basic scenario". But then this came across my desk, and this must be what you were trying to get at, a posse, right?

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1278462829838905349

Would I serve, if my sheriff did this? Yes.
Human Rights is not about a licence to murder your own countryfolks, serving their country.
That's terrorism........ it's madness n' all.
Murder is killing without justification and defending rights is justification. How severe of a rights violation justifies killing? Hopefully we don't find out. Hopefully the list on the ship is addressed. It's the government's job to protect our rights. The right to bear arms is how we deter them from ignoring that sacred duty, along with electing people who...well again, we're in a populist and fascist era, so we're electing based on feelings and unrealistic desires instead of good moral principles, so our Overton window is distorted at the moment.
 

eider

Well-known member
Bearing arms against anybody. In the US we talk about defending our rights against "enemies foreign and domestic".......................We're explicit about it.................................being able to defend ourselves against the government of the United States.

Stop you there.
I believe in proper Crim checks, training, testing, licensing, home security and Insurance. How does that mess up your Rights?

And I know you are untrained because you couldn't answer the simplest of scenario questions. You have no confidence in yourself.

Right. In theory. Problem with the theory is .........................
So you don't believe in your country's system.......


Which leads to the other problem, .............. flagrantly Unconstitutional arms control laws, the right is getting gouged and its prospects do not look promising.
You've had arms controls for scores of years.
You need more in the form of mandatory Crim record checks, training, testing, licensing, home security and insurance. You have not got any of those. Most of you wouldn't have a clue in a crisis.

Are you out of your mind?
Are you? Hmmmm?
You need crim checks, training, testing, licensing, home security, 3rd party insurance...... and you don't like it.
You haven't got any of that. You need that.

It's not treason to defend your rights
By killing? Try voting.

you were trying to get at, a posse, right?
I left you, alone, standing in a street. Your other neighbour had cleared off. Trouble was coming.
That ain't a posse situation.


Would I serve, if my sheriff did this? Yes.
Your sheriff wouldn't want an untrained person.
You need to apply for training, and test qualifications. Then at least a Sheriff might be able to guess at your value.

Murder is killing without justification and defending rights is justification.
Wrong.
Defending your rights could be a conversation, or a warning, or better security. If you think your assault gun (whatever) is the first thing to grab then you're a loose cannon.

The right to bear arms ................
You seem to think that crim checks, training, testing, licensing and insurance are against your rights.

What if you got shot by a stupid gun nut who had fired hid gun by accident? Would you want compensation? So push for insurance
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Here's a young man armed to the teeth, talking about why he's armed to the teeth:

https://twitter.com/CharriseLane/status/1278728874042503168

Warning, some language, not too bad. Notice his points here, one being that the Confederate statues are of people who fought against our country. Another is about good vs. evil, with racists (actual racists, not people who use racial slurs or who tell racial jokes) being evil, and the good guys being liberals, who believe all men are created equal, and in liberty and justice for all.

Just wanted to point out for any foreigners itt, unfamiliar with civilians bearing arms, that there is nothing intimidating about how this man presents himself, with a rifle and a pistol in full display. Is he a little heated? Yeah, but again, nothing he's doing is in any way criminal or even threatening.

God bless America, and God bless this guy.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Stop you there.
I believe in proper Crim checks, training, testing, licensing, home security and Insurance. How does that mess up your Rights?
By analogy to all our other rights. We don't, and I doubt that you Brits do either, treat any other rights like that.
And I know you are untrained because you couldn't answer the simplest of scenario questions. You have no confidence in yourself.
Oh stop. Your scenario lacked details, far from being the simplest, it requires more information on your part before it can be analyzed.
So you don't believe in your country's system.......
Did you read what I wrote, that you clipped? I explained it.
You've had arms controls for scores of years.
Which was my point, along with that restrictions are getting more severe. Candidates are talking openly now about confiscations.
You need more in the form of mandatory Crim record checks, training, testing, licensing, home security and insurance. You have not got any of those.
What's crim.
Most of you wouldn't have a clue in a crisis.
Even the most sheltered of us know when to shoot, and when to hold fire.
Are you? Hmmmm?
Nope.
You need crim checks, training, testing, licensing, home security, 3rd party insurance...... and you don't like it.
You haven't got any of that. You need that.
What's crim.
By killing? Try voting.
Read what you clipped above. I addressed it.
I left you, alone, standing in a street. Your other neighbour had cleared off. Trouble was coming.
That ain't a posse situation.
You said something about my local police calling me to serve. That's a posse.
Your sheriff wouldn't want an untrained person.
Sheriff's not deputizing because he's bored. If he had the men, he wouldn't need to deputize civilians.
You need to apply for training, and test qualifications. Then at least a Sheriff might be able to guess at your value.
Have gun, will shoot.
You want it to be wrong.
Defending your rights could be a conversation, or a warning, or better security. If you think your assault gun (whatever) is the first thing to grab then you're a loose cannon.
Read what you clipped, again.
You seem to think that crim checks, training, testing, licensing and insurance are against your rights.
What's crim.
What if you got shot by a stupid gun nut who had fired hid gun by accident? Would you want compensation? So push for insurance
Or, lawsuit. Accidents happen. Negligence is not an accident.
 

eider

Well-known member
Oh stop. Your scenario lacked details, far from being the simplest, it requires more information on your part before it can be analyzed.
Again:-
One morning as you have your breakfast you answer the 'phone and your mayor or a police chief tells you that you (and other neighbours) have to attend the militia and go to the West entrance of your street to protect all your neighbors. You are told that a group of maniacs have entered a nearby town and killed many people in the streets. Thet were shouting slogans and all wearing blavck/white clothing. That's all you know.
You obey, and at 10.35am as you stand with one other neighbour at the West end you both see three big men wearing black/white clothes running towards you about 100 yards off. They are closing quickly and shouting. They are all carrying machetes.
Now........ you don't know it yet (ok?) but no matter what you do they are going to keep coming, shouting etc...... you don't know that yet! ./....... but all I want you to do is to tell me, step by step, what you will do over the next five minutes. OK? There is one initial problem for you.......... your neighbour loses his nerve and runs away, shouting something about only being a bus driver or something ( ) so it's you, mate. !!
Did you read what I wrote, that you clipped? I explained it.
What's crim.
Amazing........ crim record check = criminal record check.
Even the most sheltered of us know when to shoot, and when to hold fire.
Really? Try answering the above scenario
Or, lawsuit. Accidents happen. Negligence is not an accident.
Amazing. You get injured by some nut who was careless or reckless with a gun.
The hospital bills. The loss of wages for many weeks. The injury causing disability for life.
What is that cost in dollars?
Now show me how you'll get any compensation.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You run into trouble with this "Liberalism", when you have a major war or a plague.
Wars waged by liberal nations are in defense of liberalism (liberal nations don't war against other liberal nations). And how is there trouble for liberalism during plagues?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Again:-
One morning as you have your breakfast you answer the 'phone and your mayor or a police chief tells you that you (and other neighbours) have to attend the militia and go to the West entrance of your street to protect all your neighbors. You are told that a group of maniacs have entered a nearby town and killed many people in the streets. Thet were shouting slogans and all wearing blavck/white clothing. That's all you know.
You obey, and at 10.35am as you stand with one other neighbour at the West end you both see three big men wearing black/white clothes running towards you about 100 yards off. They are closing quickly and shouting. They are all carrying machetes.
Now........ you don't know it yet (ok?) but no matter what you do they are going to keep coming, shouting etc...... you don't know that yet! ./....... but all I want you to do is to tell me, step by step, what you will do over the next five minutes. OK? There is one initial problem for you.......... your neighbour loses his nerve and runs away, shouting something about only being a bus driver or something ( ) so it's you, mate. !!
Huh. So I'm standing there by myself, holding my rifle, after my neighbor flew the coop, in defiance of our police chief's in-effect deputization. There are three good sized men, running at me, wielding machetes, so there are three machetes visible. And they're shouting, maybe at me, maybe just shouting, but they are running at me. According to your scenario I have been informed by my chief that there are reports of killings and of people dressed how these men are dressed, and they are running at me, machetes out.

I scan the area quickly, looking for anyone else.

I shout at them as loudly and sharply as I can for them to stop. If they don't stop I yell again, constantly keeping a mental note of something like a 50-yard safety zone around me, thinking that if they do not stop then I'm going to have to fire a warning shot or two in the air, over their heads (way over their heads so as to not accidentally shoot someone else, like a near 90-degree upward angle). And then if they still do not stop, or if even two of them do stop but one of them keeps coming, then I'm going to have to shoot to disable and quick because a sprinting man can cover 50 yards quickly.

Shoot to disable means lethal force, the intent is to disable and not to kill, but in such business, killing is a distinct possibility since disabling means number one actually hitting them, and under such duress as this I'm going to have to aim for COM (center of mass) which is the torso. And if I miss I need to immediately regain site picture and fire again, and just keep firing until the man is disabled so long as he continues to intend to come at me with murder in his heart.

And if two of them keep coming then I really need to start shooting quickly because I might miss them both.

And if all three of them then double the above.

And boy am I glad that my rifle has a "pre-ban" 20-round magazine instead of the "post-ban" 10-round version, and I'm also glad that I've already got more 20-round magazines loaded in case I need them, or even just in case I get a moment to reload a partially depleted 20-round mag with a full one. And boy am I sure glad the gun is semi-automatic instead of a bolt or lever action gun. And boy would I feel better if I had a selective-fire gun instead, which can shoot bursts of rounds one-after-another, but I'll have to make due with the one I've got, that the restrictive and Unconstitutional gun /arms control laws permit me to own.

And if they all stop, which is the best case, then I train my rifle at their feet if they stay put, and if they start to move toward me again I raise the muzzle to aim at their groin area (known to be a stronger deterrent for men than aiming even at their chest or heads) and yell at them to stop again.

And if the dust settles, then I call my chief and tell them I've got hopefully three live and healthy men, and ask what do I do now with them. If at any time while calling, they do anything threatening then I may have to drop the phone and tend to them again. I try to remember to scan my surroundings while all this is going on, to watch anybody else who's come into the area. I cannot imagine the stress that I'm going to be under in this moment, but I've got to try to keep my wits. My priority here is my own safety, because I have a family, and my duty to my fellow neighbors.
....... crim record check = criminal record check.
Currently our practice is to release convicts after they've served their sentence, but sometimes we release men who remain a danger to innocent people. While the idea of preventing these men from arming themselves is well-intended, the only thing that it does for all the rest of us who are no danger to innocent people (which is like 99% of us if not more) is delay the just exercise of our human right to bear arms, so I am against that policy.
You get injured by some nut who was careless or reckless with a gun.
The hospital bills. The loss of wages for many weeks. The injury causing disability for life.
What is that cost in dollars?
Now show me how you'll get any compensation.
You have to sue.
 

eider

Well-known member
Huh. So I'm standing there by myself, holding my rifle, after my neighbor flew the coop, in defiance of our police chief's in-effect deputization. There are three good sized men, running at me, wielding machetes, so there are three machetes visible. And they're shouting, maybe at me, maybe just shouting, but they are running at me. According to your scenario I have been informed by my chief that there are reports of killings and of people dressed how these men are dressed, and they are running at me, machetes out.

I scan the area quickly, looking for anyone else.

I shout at them as loudly and sharply as I can for them to stop. If they don't stop I yell again, constantly keeping a mental note of something like a 50-yard safety zone around me, thinking that if they do not stop then I'm going to have to fire a warning shot or two in the air, over their heads (way over their heads so as to not accidentally shoot someone else, like a near 90-degree upward angle). And then if they still do not stop, or if even two of them do stop but one of them keeps coming, then I'm going to have to shoot to disable and quick because a sprinting man can cover 50 yards quickly.

Shoot to disable means lethal force, the intent is to disable and not to kill, but in such business, killing is a distinct possibility since disabling means number one actually hitting them, and under such duress as this I'm going to have to aim for COM (center of mass) which is the torso. And if I miss I need to immediately regain site picture and fire again, and just keep firing until the man is disabled so long as he continues to intend to come at me with murder in his heart.

And if two of them keep coming then I really need to start shooting quickly because I might miss them both.

And if all three of them then double the above.

And boy am I glad that my rifle has a "pre-ban" 20-round magazine instead of the "post-ban" 10-round version, and I'm also glad that I've already got more 20-round magazines loaded in case I need them, or even just in case I get a moment to reload a partially depleted 20-round mag with a full one. And boy am I sure glad the gun is semi-automatic instead of a bolt or lever action gun. And boy would I feel better if I had a selective-fire gun instead, which can shoot bursts of rounds one-after-another, but I'll have to make due with the one I've got, that the restrictive and Unconstitutional gun /arms control laws permit me to own.

And if they all stop, which is the best case, then I train my rifle at their feet if they stay put, and if they start to move toward me again I raise the muzzle to aim at their groin area (known to be a stronger deterrent for men than aiming even at their chest or heads) and yell at them to stop again.

And if the dust settles, then I call my chief and tell them I've got hopefully three live and healthy men, and ask what do I do now with them. If at any time while calling, they do anything threatening then I may have to drop the phone and tend to them again. I try to remember to scan my surroundings while all this is going on, to watch anybody else who's come into the area. I cannot imagine the stress that I'm going to be under in this moment, but I've got to try to keep my wits. My priority here is my own safety, because I have a family, and my duty to my fellow neighbors.

That took you a long time.
Why?
 

eider

Well-known member
You have to sue.

Originally posted by eider View Post
You get injured by some nut who was careless or reckless with a gun.
The hospital bills. The loss of wages for many weeks. The injury causing disability for life.
What is that cost in dollars?
Now show me how you'll get any compensation.


OK...... so you sue..... you make claim against the plaintiff.
The (High) Court finds that your medical costs and lost wages expenses amount to $275,000 and that costs associated with your permanent disability amount to $690,000.
The Court awards punitive damages as well, and awards all against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff cannot pay, lives in a rented trailer home with no assets and is our of work.

Where is your money coming from?
 
Top