What are /k/'s thoughts on the NRA?
New funs owner here wanting to join but hearing mixed things. Regardless I'm supporting the fun candidate whom tends come from the right.
Basically, whats the best group to get behind nowadays besides /k/
>>30060158
The NRA has the foundation in place but are full of bullshit.
The GOA would be the way to go if they had better footings.
The NRA is all to happy to take peoples money. scream "OBAMA GUNNA TUUK UR GUNZ!!! GIB MO MONEY SO WE CAN STOPZ HIM!!!" but behind closed doors push to keep everything the same.
Under the NRA we will never get full fun. there are too many richfags that have too much money tied up into full funs that would loose a fortune if they opened up the list. and those richfags give tons of money to the NRA to make sure their investments dont loose value.
Didn't they support the Russian import ban?
>>30060158
These threads are great bait for all the anti gun lurkers. Mention the NRA and they ooze out of the woodwork to talk trash.
NRA Life Member since 1995. TSRA Life Member since 1998.
They're not perfect but if you value gun rights you should be a member.
>>30060158
You ought to support the NRA and your state rifle association.
>>30060189
The NRA is the only org with the muscle & lobbying expertise to match nofuns at the Federal level. Don't fall for their constant gold-shilling, but overall it's a well-run org that deserves support.
The NRA is the biggest game in town.
SAF and state-level associations are also good. I'm not impressed with GOA thus far, but if Hollis v. Holder goes well I may change my mind.
>>30060158
You should consider joining the following:
NRA
2nd Amendment Foundation
Your state group (Gun Owners of SC)
Knife Rights
No, none of them are perfect, but there is a pretty obvious war on gun ownership, or more specifically, a war on self determination.
Do you want to be able to protect yourself, or do you believe that the Government should manage your security?
>>30061968
I shouldn't have to join a special interest group to protect my fucking Constitutional rights.
It's saddening.
>>30060158
When push comes to shove in Washington, the NRA are the only people really pushing back against groups like the Brady campaign and mothers against gun violence.
They deal with the Washington shitheads so we don't have to, and they have the power to make politicians sweat.
Plus if you are a life member you get 10k in gun insurance for free, what's not to love?
>>30061984
>constitutional right
a piece of paper doesnt grant you rights lmao
>>30061999
Which is why they let I594 pass without any fuss in WA, right? Or that mental health bullshit in CA? :^)
>>30062008
>haha so funny xD
My point is that the Bill of Rights tells the Fed what they are not allowed to mess. They are infringing on the right to bear arms every single day.
It's disgusting.
>>30060158
Even I believe the NRA is to extream going against even perfectly reasonable laws being proposed
>>30060158
all in all a good thing,OP.
not without faults, but worth your support.
>>30062070
>Even I believe
so you are a extremist, a moderate or what?
>>30060229
Because you're definitely an unbiased source.
>>30062008
The Constitution literally grants the government legitimacy. If they act against the Constitution, then they act against their own legitimacy as a governing body.
>>30062008
Jesus grants AKM rights?
>>30062070
I genuinely want to know 2 things:
How is the NRA too extreme?
What is reasonable gun control legislation?
>>30060158
It absolutely deserves the support of every gun owner and freedom loving American.
Is it perfect? Hell no.
All the douchebags that bitch and whine about them are just trying to justify not donating, though.
How about instead you become a member and donate enough to vote for the board and steer it in the proper direction?
I support my state's org, NRA, SAF and GOA
>>30062396
>if you don't want to give $10 to the NRA, it's because you can't AFFORD TO!!!!!
you are a fucking cuck dude
>>30062070
>>30062295
Are you for real? OK, I'll bite...
Well, actually, you could say that.
God given or natural rights, which ever you prefer.
And of course, the constitution doesn't GRANT 2A rights, it serves to protect those rights from gov't infringement, or at least it is supposed to.
>>30060158
The NRA and the moonbat anti-gun lobby create each other.
They're like batman and the joker -- they justify each other's existence.
When the NRA says 'THEM LIBRUHLS WANT UR GUNS' it's plausible because they can point to the brady campaign which wants to ban all guns.
When the brady campaign says 'THOSE WINGNUTS ARE VIOLENT XENOPHOBES WITH A TOTAL DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE' it's not hard to find to find an NRA member or lobbyist which is exactly that.
So both camps can point at wackos in the other camp and say "See! See! They're all like that and that's why we need to ban/deregulate ALL GUNS FOREVER."
Extreme polemic opinions in the opposition justify extreme polemic position in your own camp....
and interestingly, by justifying their own existence, both organizations get to suck up donations to pay to their executives and lobbyists.
It's an industry. They're making money, they balance each other out, and gun laws don't really change much one way or another.
>>30060229
basically this fampai
there are a lot of trolls that will talk shit to get people fired up and a lot of anti faggots pretending to be proguns trying constantly to derail progun efforts and divide and conquer.
the NRA has made mistakes but the mistakes were based on being overly cautious.
best option is to contribute to NRA 1st and thenalso GOA
Additionally, being active in the community and a good ambassador to the firearms culture by being knowledgeable, well spoken, and calm while also dressing well, having good hygeine and being godamn ruthless will be good for us.
also remember, we stand together or we hang alone
>>30061984
>constitutional rights
they are human rights granted to you by the creator upon your creation, the constitution merely enumerates them and the only thing that affirms them is the willingness of people to kill others to see that it stays that way
>>30062500
>"The NRA and the moonbat anti-gun lobby create each other."
This is absolutely untrue. The NRA's existence isn't what drives the anit-gun lobby. The anti-gun lobby is funded by the people in power who want to disarm the population. They want power, and they can't have as much power when the people can revolt against their bullshit.
>>30062500
the NRA was founded in 1871 dipshit.
that's 70 years before james brady was even BORN
>>30062641
>The anti-gun lobby is funded by the people in power who want to disarm the population.
This is wingnut conspiracy theory nonsense.
The brady campaign and all its batshit craziness exists because of people like *you*.
The notion that firearms owners can't be trusted is supported by the existence of the miniature Ted Kaczynskis of the world.
When you sit in your basement with your AR-15 wrapped in a gadsen flag and spout crap on the internet about statist conspiracies and jews... well you're not exactly inspiring trust. Or respect. Or anything but abject horror.
Emma Watson bending over is a movement I could get behind
>>30062686
Surely you're capable of understanding that keeping the same name doesn't make an organization, it's goals, or it's methods the same.
Do you think Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's Republican party is that same as George Bush's?
Right now we're talking about the NRA of 2016, which is a modern lobby group.
>>30062715
I'll take Bloomberg for 500, Alex.
>>30062715
>Muh jew hatin'
I'm sorry but /pol/ is that way. If you want to get a rise out of that, at least know who you're talking about.
>>30062758
Oh come now. There's a enough of a bleedover between /pol/ and /k/ to make it partially true.
I know there's responsible decent, (not batshit insane) gun enthusiast. I count myself among them.
I also know that most of them (us) are more than a little disillusioned with the NRA and it's method of lobbyism.
Polemic zero tolerance positions and statements don't help your-side -- what they do is bolster the opposition and give them quotable sound-bytes.
And contrary to the NRA rhetoric, not every person in favour of some gun control is an incrementalist with an eventual goal of total bans.
Granted -- the brady campaign is like that, but they are not the mainstread of gun-control supporters.
You know what I want out of the NRA? I want them to represent the mainstream gun owner, and not resort to extreme bullshit in an attempt balance an opposing lobby that is definitely *not* mainstream.
If both lobbies push themselves to the wings, and say even more and more inflammatory garbage, then they find themselves alienating voters, elected representatives, and ultimately the stakeholder citizens they're supposed to be speaking on behalf of.
Essentially, they doom themselves to becoming totally irrelevant.
And then you know what will happen? The centrist neo-libs/neo-cons will make decisions without any input from anybody -- which in all likelihood will be no-decison at all. The status quo.
>>30062758
Dude there is a lot more fucking overlap between this board and /pol/ than I want to admit
>>30062751
New York is less of a case of statist elites vs the people, and more like Urban vs Rural. NYC is a massive population, with a massive vote. They outnumber the rest of the state and therefore get much more political power.
The truth of the matter this: is what works for a paved-over gentrified high-population urban landscape with multi-million dollar condos is very different from what works everywhere else. These people are rich as balls and the molten-hot real-estate market keeps the riff-raff out. As a result, they don't suffer anywhere near the same social-economic conditions that cause violent random crime. This means that they're plenty safe with a decent police force and no one is really jonesing to carry a gun to protect themselves. They already feel safe. Next, issue: they're urban. They're not exactly going to go hunting in central park.
So once you rule out those two uses of firearms, all that leaves us with is the 'revolt against the tyrannical government' angle. Now I'm sure there's some in the city who are sympathetic to that, but it's much less common in a place where the quality of life is actually pretty fucking good.
So yes. An urban population that has no real need or use or want for guns, doesn't really give a fuck -- go figure.
Shame that they screwed over everyone else in the state.
>>30061968
Is the NAGR any good?
>>30060229
>>30062573
Can't tell if fuds or NRA shills.
>>30062719
Don't forget the miniskirt and power puff girls panties...
>>30062573
This is literally a tripfag telling people that anyone with less than 100% NRA support is secretly the enemy sent by the liberals to corrupt you.
I can't make this shit up.
>>30062898
GUN CONTROL DOESNT WORK IN BROOKLYN EITHER!!!!!
>>30060158
NRA has clout that no other organizations can match. They're not the almighty king makers that the antis wave around to raise funds for themselves, but they're very often the only group a) paying attention, and b) having the financial wherewithal to act.
There's a lot to dislike about the NRA. They're far from perfect. Read 1 election season issue of any of their publications and you'll see what I mean. They ARE fearmongers. But we do need then around. Hell, we need them to do more.
Your local orgs and GOA are usually more active, and therefore better info and planning sources, but don't count on them taking a case to the Supreme Court.
>>30062070
>Even I believe the NRA is to extream (sic) going against even perfectly reasonable laws being proposed
Picrelated. I'm not saying that it's impossible that someone could gin up some legislation that would put a burden on gun owners, but be worth it from a societal standpoint; what I AM saying is that these "reasonable" laws, or what progressives are now CALLING reasonable laws, don't actually provide the benefits to society that they're claiming. They do, however, put an unnecessary burden on gun owners, and any burden that does not actually result in benefits to society as a whole is wholly unjustified, regardless of how much safer it makes people FEEL.
I got in an argument once about UBCs and May Issue vs Shall Issue with a guy, and his penultimate argument was "I have a right to feel safe!" The truth is, he doesn't. No one does. No one has a right to FEEL safe. What they do have is a right to BE safe. How they FEEL is between them and their therapist; who, if their feelings are that disconnected from the objective reality of their environment, they need to be seeing WAY more often.
>>30062949
^^^This guy gets it.
>>30062949
>Picrelated
The fallacy that the NRA uses to keep itself alive is that *all* gun control supporters are incrementalists.
Some are. Perhaps even many are.
But the majority are not.
Do you support the idea that a private citizen should not own howitzers? Congratulations! You now support gun control. But that doesn't make you an incrementalist.
>>30060158
I've never looked back upon joining the NRA. Been a member for 6 years now. I enjoy the magazine I get monthly with my membership (American Rifleman or bust, ya faggots) and you get insurance on your weapons included with the cost of your membership dues.
I will admit that I used to get calls for a period of time always asking for money, but I simply asked not to be called and they stopped calling me.
Membership is inexpensive and it's worth it. But also support GOA and your major state gun association.
>>30062898
Bloomberg and George Soros bankroll anti-gun orgs both within the US and internationally and it's fucking disingenuous to claim otherwise. These are people with armed guards at all times.
>>30062987
When was the last time you saw a politician suggest outright banning guns and ever get any traction?
Now, look at New York where they passed back-to-back gun control laws starting from ammo to the may-issue CC permits to the outright ban of certain weapons by name. The most dangerous Gun Control advocates ARE incrementalists
>>30062949
What do you consider an unnecessary burden?
A license? Really?? I'd feel a lot better at the public range if some of this shithead were forces to write a test to get their license.
>>30063026
Then make a constitutional amendment instead of passing unconstitutional laws, dipshit.
>>30063021
You're missing the point.
Most ordinary supporters of gun control might be susceptible (for a short time) to incrementalism, but they are not *themselves* incrementalists.
Plenty of ordinary folks simply feel that it's reasonable have things like basic licensing requirements and are fine with it ending there. A person that says 'I support gun control' doesn't necessarily mean 'I want to ban guns'. But some of them do.
>>30062987
Gun control supporters can eat shit and die. You want to own a howitzer, can afford to buy it, operate it, repair it, and feed it? Have fucking at it. Laws restrict your ability to lob shells into a populated region, so you better have some large plot of private land to have fun with.
Want to own your very own ICBM? I hope that you're a multibillionaire that can afford to hire the necessary specialists to weaponize the uranium, safely store the missile and warhead, and pay the upkeep on it. Unless you're the richest man in the world or a well off state, you're going to have a fun time going bankrupt in order to own one.
Want to own a full retard M16? Be my guest. I prefer shooting in semi because i'm going to hit more shit and my ammo will last longer, but that's my preference. I would enjoy being able to at least have the option at owning a newly produced full retard gun without bending over for the ATF and paying a premium for it. If I want to own that, it's not any of your fucking business.
>>30063037
Hold on. Are you actually against licensing, or are you just against the method by which it's legally implemented?
>>30062735
>different time, different org
...informing members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975
your original point is wrong, and its still wrong, and your new point is wrong too,
>The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills, after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.
so the legislative and lobbiest branches of the NRA (the ILA) were created and expanded directly due to political influence from the left, NOT the other way around.
Further the NRA didnt go full steam until the anti gun liberals from the 60s began pushing anti-gun legislation in the 70s
its not a tit-for-tat "you scratch my back ill scratch yours war of harsh words so we can both make a buck", its a direct and continuing political chess game brought on by the erosion of fundamental liberty where people have both gained and lost rights.
>nothing really changes
gun rights have changed DRAMATICALLY over the past 30 years since 34 and 68 GCA and then with the FOPA and now with several SCOTUS rulings that corrected a prior ruling by the court.
within our lifetimes we could see simencers and machine guns for sale at the LGS if we continue our current path and stick together
>>30063026
If the range wants to ensure people their go through a test before they can join then that's up to them. But, and I'm speaking as a Canadian who has to deal with licensing, licenses do jack shit in prevent retards from getting guns and shooting.
>>30063073
More like they THINK they are not incrementalists, but they eventually harken to the latest and "greatest" calls for "reasonable" gun control and end up falling in with those new calls.
Or they habitually vote Democrat every time, and the Democrats have been incrementally chipping away at the second amendment for decades. Which by extension has those voters supporting gun control.
Ever wonder why most gun owners are sick and tired of having to explain why we aren't willing to "compromise' anymore and why we aren't behind your so called "common sense gun safety reform"? Because we're fucking done with it all. It has never been about "safety" and it still isn't. If you keep pushing bullshit "safety" measures which don't do anything to promote safety, then why would we support your efforts to fuck us?
>>30063086
As a Canadian, I can tell you that licensing is pretty bullshit.
If you want to reduce the occurrence of negligent discharges without having to do a constitutional amendment in the US, then just teach basic firearm safety (ACTS, PROVE) as part of the normal school curriculum.
Fuck. Even in a province as anti-gun as Quebec, my parents BOTH had firearm safety courses as part of phys. ed. and people didn't go around shooting each other with the shotguns and .22's they'd keep in their school lockers so they could go hunting or sport shooting after class.
>>30062987
>The fallacy that the NRA uses to keep itself alive is that *all* gun control supporters are incrementalists.
>Some are. Perhaps even many are.
>But the majority are not.
Intentionally? No; but they become incrementalists because of the forces of history, and are used by the incrementalists. People who don't have a dog in the fight assess any individual change not by its merits, but by how much of a deviation it is from the norm. Incremental changes ARE used to alter the norm, and thus pass laws which the majority of the population would reject.
Take marriage equality for instance. 10 years ago, Hillary Clinton strongly opposed gay marriage, and party moderates supported her stance. Now she supports it, and party moderates support her again, because her stance is not an excessive deviation from the current norm.
Pic is the one I almost accidentally posted instead of >>30062949, due to bad screen glare. Sob...
>>30063086
>let's force gun owners to register with the state with a licensing program
>it's not registration because we don't always know exactly how many or what guns you own (depending on the state) but we will know who owns them
>this information is purely benign and it will never be used poorly and we don't confiscate your guns
>just like we never illegally confiscated guns during Katrina
>just like no government throughout history has "benignly" required firearm owners to register with the state before coming to take those guns
Seriously, get out of here and go back to rebbit with your statist bullshit.
>>30063026
>I'd feel a lot better
>I'd
>feel
Well, I feel like you missed the point. Feelings don't matter, and shouldn't be the basis for regulation. Objective realities should be.
As a Canadian it's amusing to see people try to claim that the incrementalist disarmament agenda is significant, or that taking zero-tolerance-for-regulation positions somehow protects them from it.
I come from a country where we *don't* have extreme lobbies on either end, and we've ended up with a medium set of gun laws that no-one on any side of the argument is angry enough about to change in any meaningful way.
Hell, we tried a long gun registry, and after a couple years decided it didn't do much, and got rid of it.
Yeah, tell me all your stories about slippery slopes. It's bullshit. If you remove the shit-flinging rhetoric and you have a function democracy, and actually involve everyone in the legislative process the people will settle on a set of laws that are acceptable to the vast majority, and then you can put an issue to bed and stop talking about it.
>>30062987
Private citizens should be able to own literally any ordinance they can afford to buy.
>>30063086
Different guy; I'm against anything other than Shall Issue licensing which imposes virtually no burden on the licensee, on constitutional grounds. And once you're at that point, you might as well just do a way with it, b/c you don't derive any benefit from it.
>>30063186
I also feel safer knowing that everyone agrees driving should be done on the right side of the road.
It makes me feel safer. It also literally makes me safer.
>>30063195
I'm glad folks like you live in Canada and don't immigrate here
>>30063199
Does this apply only to small arms? Or should everyone have access high explosives and cannons as well?
>>30063195
>and after a couple years decided it didn't do much, and got rid of it.
Yeah after much public screaming and the people who advocated for it are still bitter over it killed. Quebec is now also building their own LGR. All this not to mention idiotic laws, like prohibitions on specific models (AK family, FALs, SPAS 12s), and magazine capacity limits. Our laws are far from idiocy free, and recently we have had an attempt to promote even stronger gun control, see S-223, that would've made things far stricter. C-42 passed in 2015, and gun control advocates has aneurysms across the country despite it not really doing much. So fuck off with your "not that bad" mentality.
>>30060158
Lifetime member! It was a christmas present from my grandfather. They most certainly do fight for our rights, maybe not to the extent we wish they would but it beats a zero.
Besides, the NRA life sticker on my truck absolutely triggers the shit out of liberals, just like flashing my membership card which I keep on me at all times. That in itself is probably worth the 500 bucks.
>>30063195
As an American I find it amusing that people living in America's hat think their opinion matters
>>30063212
The feeling is mutual, buddy.
>>30062942
>this is literally a troll
>posts with less than 100% NRA support
but moobs said
>best option NRA AND ALSO GOA
>is secretly the enemy sent by libruls
but moobs said
>also trolls
>I cant make this shit up
dont be so down on yourself, you're doing a bang-up job so far...
>>30063224
Hear, hear.
I'm sick and tired of the RCMP fucking over citizens and businesses because they were given nigh unlimited powers over many aspects of firearm regulations. Confiscation without compensation, blatant lies (See: the whole "variant" debacle), arbitrary changes without justification other than "because we said", the complete lack of transparency (See: original importation of Type-97's)...
I'm sick of it and I'm sick of assholes like >>30063195 saying how perfectly fine it all is, because it's not what the Americans do! What kind of bullshit justification is that?
>>30062949
when security theater comes to gun ownership, that is when things really get fucked up.
t. britbong
>>30063223
Yes
>>30063259
>because it's not what the Americans do!
This is pretty much the ultimate argument against gun ownership. The nebulous "American style of doing things" which of course is inherently terrible. Ignoring that each state is different. The crazy bitch who started S-223 absolutely hated America, to the point where she basically said that the seal hunt was a good thing essentially because it pissed of the USA.
>>30063278
The seal hunt is a good thing because they are massively overpopulated and destroy lobster nets. It also means an extra source of food and revenue for the poor-ass fishermen on the east coast that have already been legally buttfucked enough.
>>30063224
Quebec is a basket case and doesn't really count for much.
At the end of the day, the federal government retains control of the criminal code, and no province can alter that.
The specific model prohibitions are so old and outdated that they effectively do nothing, and there's no real reason to do much about it.
Why create a wedge issue over an AK when I can just go out and buy a VZ58 or a Type 81?
> S-223
Private member senate bills?? Are you serious? Do you have any clue how Canadian politics works? That was dead before it started.
>magazine capacity limits
Which have been completely circumvented by loophole mags and no-one gives a damn.
The RCMP straight up says, it's legit and A-okay.
There's always skirmishes and dog-whistle politics on the issue. What you need to understand is that actual laws are not passed without a majority government that collectively gives a damn. And even with liberals in power, they're not monolithic on the issue. Many come from rural ridings, and most don't consider an important enough issue to make a wedge issue over.
At the end of the day, the public who want guns can get what they need, and public who are nervous about guns are reasonably content.
We've managed to do it without outright bans (britain) expensive registries (90's Canada) bloated multi-tier classification and licensing bureaucracies (france) or a total clusterfuck of contradictory and ineffective laws that change when you cross an internal border (USA)
Honestly, with a couple of tweaks here and there, I'm good with our gun laws.
>>30063294
Yeah, I know, but the anti-gun Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, said it's main positive quality was that Americans didn't like it.
>>30063303
>Quebec is a basket case and doesn't really count for much.
"It doesn't count because I say it doesn't."
>The specific model prohibitions are so old and outdated that they effectively do nothing, and there's no real reason to do much about it.
Ignoring that they prohibit, senselessly, a large number of rifles, shotguns, and handguns so we can't have any of them, including some of the most popular firearms in the world. It most certainly is still an issue, considering it is pointless and emotionally/ideologically driven restrictions.
>Private member senate bills?? Are you serious? Do you have any clue how Canadian politics works? That was dead before it started.
Written by a series of lawyers, it encompasses everything the current administration would love to do if they thought it wouldn't cost them another 4 elections.
>>magazine capacity limits
>Which have been completely circumvented by loophole mags and no-one gives a damn.
They haven't been though, I still can't get 30 rounds in my VZ58. Congrats, you can fit 10 in a pistol mag, in your AR15 or other STANAG rifle, but they most certainly aren't completely circumvented. Once more, they are shitty emotionally driven restrictions.
>Honestly, with a couple of tweaks here and there, I'm good with our gun laws.
It's people like you why the laws won't actually improve. They've never done anything to protect us here anyways, why do you support them? http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract
>>30063259
>I'm sick and tired of the RCMP fucking over citizens and businesses because they were given nigh unlimited powers over many aspects of firearm regulations.
Hah. Is that what you think it is? There is a grand total of one chief firearms officer for each province. That's fucking it.
This isn't some gigantic organization with an evil plan.
This is a lone bureaucrat that they stuffed into an office and said "take care of the gun paperwork stuff, but don't piss of the locals and listen to the premier. DO NOT spend any money at all. Have fun." When they choose the guy for the job, they usually select someone who shoots outside of work.
Aside from that, you've got a 'classification lab' which I'm pretty sure is also just one guy with a tape measure and similar instructions not to piss off the prime minister.
The T97 thing wasn't started by the RCMP. It was started by incompetence with border control services who them dumped it on the RCMP's desk after they opened a can of worms they didn't know how to deal with.
You know why I think the RCMP firearms lab was dragging it's feet on approval for stuff like the CZ958?
I think it was on instruction from the conservatives.
They probably got the gun in the lab. Inspected it, did all the measurements and checks and said it looks good, and put it in the 'looks good to go' pile.
But it's politically inconvenient for a high profile approval of something like that while the conservatives were waning in power. This just gives ammunition to anti-gunners in the opposition.
So what do the cons do? They slow it down so that the decision either gets passed when they have more political clout, or until the next party gets in.
Now with the liberals in, the gun has already been waiting in the queue for so long, they either have to let it pass through the system according to the laws in place, or rewrite the laws.
Like I said -- they just don't care enough to make an issue out of it.
>>30063138
Does anyone have that picture where it explains "common sense compromise" but showing a cake and how the gun control keep getting more and more until there's nothing left?
>>30063401
It's no coincidence that within a month or so of the liberals coming into power, both the CZ958 and the type 81 were both approved by the RCMP.
Libs came into power. RCMP asked them if those guns they're sitting on are still on-hold.
Libs find out there's no legal reason they shouldn't be approved.
The guns pass through the system and the libs don't have anyone to attack over it, unless they immediately want to draft new gun laws (which they don't)
This is how bureaucracy and public institutions work in Canada.
Bureaucrats like those have no real power of their own: they operate apolitically and strictly on regulations in deference to legislation from government itself.
The only partisan with has any power to directly influence the operation of bureaucracy is a cabinet minister.
In this case, either a justice minister, or a public safety minister -- and those instances interference are just as likely to be political chess games as partisan meddling.
If you actually think the RCMP as has a stake in this game and that it directly influences the people who run classifications, you're mistaken.
There's politics going on there, but it's not for the reasons you think.
>>30063352
>Written by a series of lawyers, it encompasses everything the current administration
The fact that you're calling it and 'administration' just shows you ignorance of Canadian politics.
It's both a senate bill (toothless) and private-member (no support from party establishment) There's an equal number of pro-gun private members bills out right now which will also go nowhere.
The house of commons and the prime minister rules Canadian politics. If they don't want it, it doesn't happen.
> would love to do if they thought it wouldn't cost them another 4 elections.
>IF
When you need to couch your statements in qualifiers and secret agendas, they don't really count for much. If there's anything I've learned watching Canadian politics, it's that our politicians care about the here and right-now and that's it. Firearms act of 1995 was passed under right-here right-now knee-jerk conditions. Without something like that, the libs don't really care. It simply isn't the topical issue of the day. Housing markets are topical. Economy is topical. Weed legalization is topical. Guns simply aren't the wedge they used to be.
>It most certainly is still an issue, considering it is pointless and emotionally/ideologically driven restrictions.
Those issue become more apparent every day that new guns with the same features are approved. The specific prohib laws have built shelf-life: the ammount of time that people give a shit about those models. Eventually no one will give a damn about a 100 year old AK anymore and those laws will be an odd footnote that everyone forgets.
OH no! Grandpa couldn't have an AK back the in the day! I really give a shit about that in 2035!
>>30063138
>More like they THINK they are not incrementalists, but they eventually harken to the latest and "greatest" calls for "reasonable" gun control and end up falling in with those new calls.
On what data do you base this generalization?
>>30060189
Because I'm tired of typing it every time
>>30063154
Hillary is Democrat in name only. Same with bill. They are hawkish jingoistic neoconservatives. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
And Hillary in particular is in favor of whatever her audience wants at any particular moment. She's a hollow flip flopper.
>>30060158
Well, the NRA are the punching bag of anti gun types and draws their attention but honestly the NRA doesn't do much because if they did, the bull shit happening California, Colorado and New York would have never happened...they like the status quo and love living under constant threat to keep up fear to get money and members but they never charge over the rampart to try and win the war.
They are war profiteers not saviors or conquers...and you should support other pro gun groups or your local gun groups, as much as cuck fudds Calguns is, they actually put forth some lawsuits against these gun laws such as the handgun roster and the 10 day waiting period...while the NRA...has done...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_PMab-SGgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjL1aiZoeOA
>>30063120
>mgs, suppressors, and rpgs for sale in LGS in my lifetime.
All of my yes.
>>30060189
>those richfags give tons of money to the NRA to make sure their investments dont loose value.
You're an idiot if you think that makes any financial sense.
>>30063601
>The fact that you're calling it and 'administration' just shows you ignorance of Canadian politics.
Oh, so you don't get that I'm referring to the Liberal majority government?
>It's both a senate bill (toothless) and private-member (no support from party establishment) There's an equal number of pro-gun private members bills out right now which will also go nowhere.
The house of commons and the prime minister rules Canadian politics. If they don't want it, it doesn't happen.
Senate bills and private members bills both pass. Senate bills have the same strength as HoC bills, in this case it would have required almost all guns be stored in a central repository and be range toys only. Also the repeal of the LGR came about from a private member's bill, because, once again, they pass all the time. The only even slightly pro-gun bill going through parliament that I've heard right now is C-230, which isn't even that great.
>When you need to couch your statements in qualifiers and secret agendas, they don't really count for much.
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/guns/
>Eventually no one will give a damn about a 100 year old AK anymore and those laws will be an odd footnote that everyone forgets.
First off, I still care about 100+ year old guns, second I still want an AK even though I own a VZ58 and plan on buying a Type 81, third the mechanism that prohibited them is still in place and could continually be used to prohibit new guns should the governing party decide to do so. So eat shit. Just because you aren't personally affected doesn't mean the laws aren't retarded as shit and shouldn't be repealed. I've posted you a link to a study that straight up says they've done nothing to help with crime rates, therefore they're literally just there for feels.
>>30062033
>Which is why they let I594 pass without any fuss in WA, right? Or that mental health bullshit in CA? :^)
Every single fucking time I have to post this. THOSE ARE THE JOBS OF THE STATE LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS. Everyone just joins the NRA and expects them to do everything for them. No, fuck no. The NRA has its hands busy with stuff at the federal level. The NRA state level affiliates are who you need to give money to and work with to prevent these kinds of things.
>>30062715
>Y-you're a conspiracy theorist if you think there are powerful people who want to take your guns! Why do you hate DA JOOOS!?!?
>T-the NRA and the Anti-gun Orgs depend on each other guys! They couldn't exist without each other, I swear!
Holy kek, get your story straight kid. You've already made an ass of yourself, so you might as well quit.
>>30063242
***** (5 star) post.
>>30062987
>Do you support the idea that a private citizen should not own howitzers? Congratulations!
Holy fucking shit, did you nor know this is perfectly legal in most states? You're very obviously a concern troll, so how about you go fuck off.
>>30060158
I don't care if they're the biggest game in town, if they don't fully support my rights then I don't support them.
>muh ss109!
>7N6? wat that
When they start standing for the rights of everyone and not just fudds, ie opposing the NFA and GCA, then I'll support them.
>>30064001
>third the mechanism that prohibited them is still in place and could continually be used to prohibit new guns
Wrong. They are prohibited by name in the original legislation. There is no mechanism in the firearms act to add to that list without writing new legislation. It was a one-time ban on a specific list of guns. There is no lasting regulatory framework aside from the classification requirements which we all know.
>So eat shit. Just because you aren't personally affected doesn't mean the laws aren't retarded as shit and shouldn't be repealed.
I never stated anywhere that I belive that the laws are correct or shouldn't be repealed.
What I said was that the status quo where our laws have settled (and all political players in positions of power are content to let them lie) is largely an acceptable level of gun control.
Pay close attention to that wording.
I don't argue for 'more' gun control or 'less' gun control. I argue for better gun control.
Better gun control would remove by-name prohibitions and stick with barrel length classification requirements.
Something like this would not be "less" gun control because it effectively makes no difference to the effect of the law -- there are equivalent models that are legal and do the same things,
It also doesn't qualify as "more" gun control either, because let's be real here: it's un-banning guns.
So it's not more, it's not less -- it's different. The same level of gun control, but a more logical, workable and transparent version of it.
As I stated earlier: barring some quirks and some inconsistencies in implementation, the set of gun laws that we've ended up with is largely acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians, gun-owners included.
Make the tweaks and improvements and minor adjustments as needed to make it understandable, sensible and consistent... but we don't need more and we don't need less.
>>30064174
>Wrong. They are prohibited by name in the original legislation. There is no mechanism in the firearms act to add to that list without writing new legislation. It was a one-time ban on a specific list of guns. There is no lasting regulatory framework aside from the classification requirements which we all know.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm Under Prohibited firearm point d: any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm.
>>30064174
>What I said was that the status quo where our laws have settled (and all political players in positions of power are content to let them lie) is largely an acceptable level of gun control.
Once again, the entire system has failed at it's stated purpose (IE to reduce crime, and specifically homicides) and so should be repealed in it's entirety. Once again, the classification by name is garbage, magazine capacity limitations are silly, registration of restricted firearms does nothing, same with the entire ATT system, again with preventing restricted firearms from being fired anywhere but at a range, and the storage laws don't do anything either.
>>30064244
>http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm
While that technically qualifies as a regulatory framework, it relies on anything being added to the prohib list being directly added in legislation -- which is politically unfeasible. Parliament has better things to do than pass a list of guns once a year. Under this legislation, the bureaucracy has no power of it's own to ban guns.
So no -- as I stated: >There is no mechanism in the firearms act to add to that list without writing new legislation.
Without.
Writing
New.
Legislation.
>to let them lie) is largely an acceptable level of gun control.
Once again, the entire system has failed at it's stated purpose (IE to reduce crime, and specifically homicides) and so should be repealed in it's entirety. Once again, the classification by name is garbage, magazine capacity limitations are silly, registration of restricted firearms does nothing, same with the entire ATT system, again with preventing restricted firearms from being fired anywhere but at a range, and the storage laws don't do anything either.
So you're an inflexible zero-tolerance no-exceptions extremist.
The good news is that this is a democracy and you are quite far outside the majority. Call it the tyranny of the majority if it makes you feel better, but it won't change shit.
You can shake your fist and yell incoherently while the rest of use use dialectic to form public policy. You know -- doing something useful.
>>30064333
>While that technically qualifies as a regulatory framework, it relies on anything being added to the prohib list being directly added in legislation -- which is politically unfeasible. Parliament has better things to do than pass a list of guns once a year. Under this legislation, the bureaucracy has no power of it's own to ban guns.
Once again you are wrong. The entire regulatory framework is via Orders In Council issued by the Minister of Public Safety. That's how the first 2 large groups were prohibited, by 2 separate governments no less (Progressive Conservatives and Liberals).
>>30064333
>So you're an inflexible zero-tolerance no-exceptions extremist.
Part of democracy, included in the stated goals of legislation in Canada, is to provide laws that succeed at their stated purpose, and should they fail they are repealed and considered to be useless. The entirety of the Firearms Act has failed at it's stated purpose and therefore should be repealed, but it won't because people feel, despite scientific studies, that it's good. I've provided this study for you already, and I'm going to do so again. So to reiterate, the Firearms Act is a failed experiment being propped up purely by ideology and logic free emotional thinking. http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract
>>30064390
>Orders In Council
That is by definition, legislation, you jackass.
Orders in council are literally subordinate legislation that cannot exceed the what is laid out in the act that they're attached to
Because the firearms act of 1995 only prohibited a specific list of firearms by name, an order in council can't exceed what's on that list.
Not without new legislation.
So no, when you suggest that cabinet can just add to the prohib list any time they feel like it without passing a bill through the house of commons, you're dead wrong.
Not without new legislation.
>>30064390
>should they fail they are repealed and considered to be useless.
Democratically. But you are a person who refuses to take part in democratic process, so you don't really have any right to complain.
>>30064141
That because 5.56 was exempted from the AP ban and the proposed regulatory changes needed to go through the rule making process. This allowed the NRA to kill it in the public comment phase. 5.45 had no such exemption and did not leave the NRA or any other organization any ground to challenge the ban short of new legislation amending policy mandates. That is why the NRA is supporting H.R. 2710
>>30064597
>That is by definition, legislation, you jackass.
Doesn't need to pass a vote, nor be debated, only signed by the Governer General
>Orders in council are literally subordinate legislation that cannot exceed the what is laid out in the act that they're attached to
Which in this case is exactly what they would be doing.
>Because the firearms act of 1995 only prohibited a specific list of firearms by name, an order in council can't exceed what's on that list.
No, the act itself makes no reference to any specific firearm by name, it allows for the prohibition of models and their variants by name via the OIC system
>Not without new legislation.
Wrong, as explained above.
>So no, when you suggest that cabinet can just add to the prohib list any time they feel like it without passing a bill through the house of commons, you're dead wrong.
This is wrong.
>Not without new legislation.
This is wrong.
>>30064625
Except I do take part, where did I suggest otherwise. I frequently contact my MP regarding matters important to me, and I vote at every election.
>all these people supporting licenses and shit
I hope you are put down like a dog with your own guns.
>>30064597
"117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.
Marginal note:Restriction
(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes."
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-49
Meaning that the Governor in Council can't prohibit hunting guns or anything determined to be related to hunting, but otherwise has free reign to prohibit as they please.
"prohibited firearm means... (d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm; (arme à feu prohibée)"
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-19.html#h-38
The firearms are prescribed as prohibited via Orders in Council.
>>30064597
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-462/FullText.html
"His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to the definitions “prohibited ammunition”Footnote a, “prohibited device”Footnote a, “prohibited firearm”Footnote a, “prohibited weapon”Footnote a and “restricted firearm”Footnote a in subsection 84(1) and to subsection 117.15(1)Footnote a of the Criminal Code, hereby makes the annexed Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted.
Return to footnote aS.C. 1995, c. 39, s. 139"
>>30064731
>Meaning that the Governor in Council can't prohibit hunting guns or anything determined to be related to hunting, but otherwise has free reign to prohibit as they please.
Hunting OR sporting.
Considering that the Firearms act of 1995 itself was passed alongside the tacit admission that three-gun and related activities as legitimate sports (which is why the AR-15 is restricted not prohib in the first place)
Means that anything you can use for three gun that meets barrel requirements cannot be reasonably prohibited by regulations (orders in council).
There is a long list of exactly what the governor in council is and isn't allowed to apply regulations to, and it;s baked right into the firearms act.
The list that got banned in en-masse at the outset had its own exemption because the list itself was negotiated in parliament as the act was being passed
Everything else is is covered by restrictions in what regulations can cover.
They literally cannot add more by-name prohibitions without new legislation.
>>30065074
>They literally cannot add more by-name prohibitions without new legislation.
Except, once again, that's wrong. See >>30064744
>>30065125
This was an order in council from 1995 attached to an Act From 1995! This is basic administrative legislation. Every law that gets passed has regulations that go with it that are restricted by provisions in the act.
If you're trying to prove that you've never taken a poli sci or civics course, you're doing a good job.
>pursuant to the definitions “prohibited ammunition” a, “prohibited device” a, “prohibited firearm” a, “prohibited weapon” a and “restricted firearm”a in subsection 84(1) and to subsection 117.15(1) a of the Criminal Code
These are regulations. Subordinate legislation.They are restricted by conditions set in the act -- which in this case are tight.
There was an exception for the initial batch, because that list was negotiated in the house of commons, but everything else needs to meet the requirements.
Section 117 and 118
Talk all about where governor in council can and can't apply regulations
There are like 45+ subsections of specific purposes conditions where he is allowed to make regulations to carry out the act, including restrictions on where he explicitly *isn't* alowed to regulate.
Orders in council are not secret fascist powers. They're just the nuts and bolts of the political machinery.
>>30064731
>Marginal note: Restriction
(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
Yeah, guess what? when you copy paste from the database, it copies the marginal notes too. Your argument would be real effective if you'd left that part out.
>>30065260
>Orders in council are not secret fascist powers.
I never said they were, I said they are the process through which the Minister of Public Safety can prohibit firearms by name. If you read through this link http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-462/FullText.html it lists every OIC by title that is currently in effect (Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13, with 11 and 13 being the ones specifically about firearms, the rest dealing with the assortment of non-firearm prohibited weapons).
>Yeah, guess what? when you copy paste from the database, it copies the marginal notes too. Your argument would be real effective if you'd left that part out.
So hunting and sporting weapons are immune from OIC based prohibition? Sure, but who determines what firearms are for hunting and sporting? Depending on who's in charge you could easily argue that AKs are for hunting and sporting or that only single and double barrel shotguns count.
>>30062008
This guy isn't wrong.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It enumerates rights you already have by birthright as an American citizen. The only rights it grants are to the government, which has no rights except those given to it.
>>30065474
Should also mention that Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No.s 11 and 13 were written and came into effect under 2 seperate PMs from 2 separate parties. 11 was the smaller of the 2 and came into effect under the PC party shortly after the legislation came into effect, and 13 came into effect with the Liberals as they tried not to be outdone by the PCs in pushing gun control. All in all the entire system is emotion based fear mongering at the expense of the general populace.
>>30064641
7N6 was banned on the premise of being used in pistols as AP ammo. Total bullshit that they let slide. No big money backers want more imports when they're trying to sell their own ammo.
>>30065474
>So hunting and sporting weapons are immune from OIC based prohibition? Sure, but who determines what firearms are for hunting and sporting?
Here's your answer:
Laying of proposed regulations
118 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the federal Minister shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.
Marginal note:Idem
(2) Where a proposed regulation is laid pursuant to subsection (1), it shall be laid before each House of Parliament on the same day.
Marginal note:Report by committee
(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.
Your answer is public consultation with stakeholders and reference to legal precedent.
And as I stated earlier, the AR-15 was marked as restricted (not prohibited) on the basis that it was a 'legitimate sporting firearm'.
If the governor in council is passing regulations, he needs to justify them with consistency.
He can't justify prohibition of one gun without that same justification applying to all the rest.
And this is without even mentioning the fact that the moment he lays the regulation before the house, he effectively re-opens the issue with everyone in the house -- including those who oppose it from within his own party.
Yes, there was liberal opposition to the firearms act -- this is exactly why OICs are restricted as they are in the firearms act in the first place, despite the fact that the liberal party had a majority at the time.
So yes, while technically, the Justice minister has power to do this, it would immediately kill his party and there would be no point unless he was intending to ban pretty much ALL guns -- a move that would almost certainly bring down the government.
>>30062500
>>30062715
>>30062813
>there is literally zero difference between good and bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron.
>>30063080
Strongly agree.
I give money to the NRA, ACLU, Heller Foundation, and Libertarian Party. All rights matter.
>>30065623
Also, believe it or not, our elected representatives actually believe in justifying power with a legitimate mandate, more often than not.
A justice minister ramming through firearms prohibitions with an order in council would require a majority government 100% commited to such a thing happening.
But if that's how the party feels, then it makes far more sense to just pass the legislation directly, in which case the law would be directly justified by the democratic process.
You can hem and haw about the exact semantics of 'legislation' and 'regulation' but at the end of the day, none of this happens without strong political will -- political will, which as I have argued in this thread, simply doesn't exist -- in any party.
Fuck even the NDP has pro-gunners in large enough numbers to kill something like this if they formed a government.
>>30062637
What a weak fucking argument, man.
>huh huh we get guns because god said so!
>>30065623
So your argument is that while I'm right, the government probably won't do the thing, therefore it's ok? They also consistently fucked up. The AUG is prohib but the T97 is legal. The AK is prohib but the SKS, VZ58, and T81 are legal. You are saying that functionally identical firearms are classified differently and it's ok because the government said it's ok. Also remember that the original act allowing prohibitions was passed under the PC party, and the original OIC prohibiting firearms was ordered by the same party. After the election, the Liberal government passed another OIC, prohibiting even more firearms.
>>30065668
>Heller Foundation
How do you like these guys? Dick Heller seems pretty based, but I don't know much about what the foundation does except being involved in Hollis v. Lynch.
>>30060158
If you're a dirty commie lovin' slavaboo, don't expect them to protect your right to buy guns from foreign hordes.
Otherwise, they're the best we have for lobbying against bans.
>>30065737
It's probably a lost cause now that Scalia died, but it's fun to imagine a world with machineguns
>>30065723
>You are saying that functionally identical firearms are classified differently and it's ok because the government said it's ok.
The specific prohibitions at the outset were covered by a different exception where the need to show that it was a 'sporting firearm' was not necessary.
So while it's stupid, it's legal. I don't like it either but in practice, it matters less and less every year as new firearms are approved for sale.
I don't see the point in repealing those regulations because attempting to do so re-opens the gun debate on the political playing field, and draws attention to it -- bad idea.
By simply waiting and doing nothing, more and more guns are approved making the specific prohibs list looks stupider and stupider in a way that no one can ignore. Eventually they'll be removed from the prohib list...
but now is not the time. You do it too early and there's a chance that someone 'correct the inconsistency' by banning more guns until the regulations make sense. Unlikely, but possible.
Time is on our side. The way things are going we don't have to do shit.
I'm a political pragmatist. What matters to me is not what's formally on paper, but the practical and real effect that it has on real ordinary people, and whether the government is behaving in the spirit of respecting the mandate of the people and the constitution.
I think this meshes well with the way Canada has always functioned as a country.
Many of our laws are draconian or even authoritarian on paper, but lax in enforcement.
Contrast to the USA, which has a ton of freedoms on paper -- but treats its people like shit in practice.
What we do matters more than what we say.
>>30065737
>a gun vending machine
>redglox
i can see it now...
>>30065868
Your entire premise is "wait for things to get better and hope nothing happens to make it worse" rather than actually trying to make things better. If you don't control the narrative and show how idiotic the legislation is, then the other side will just being able to control the narrative and present it in the terms they want. Should a major shooting happen then draconian gun laws would come into effect, but if the momentum is already against that, even with the emotional toll it would still be difficult to do so. That's why the USA has largely avoided (outside of NY and Cali) more restrictions on firearms. They have the control of the narrative and they spread true information rather than allowing emotional thinking to pop up when it does. You want to just hope nothing happens that gun control becomes the political issue of the day, but if it does, and it very well could, then it would fuck everyone over. Drawing attention to the gun laws is good when we do it, because we can show our side of things and we have a much better chance of convincing people when we do it on our terms.
>>30066076
I disagree. The way the political landscape lies right now, the ball is in the anti-gun court.
Quick recap of the game over the past years:
Liberals passed long gun registry. Deeply unpopular. Costs them elections. Unpopularity is leveraged by the cons to form majority government and do a bunch of other shit that the liberals find far more distasteful than a simple repeal of the registry.
Of course the harper eventually fucks it up by letting his inner neo-con hawk too far out of the bag, offending even the libertarian right with his anti-terror bill and the liberals win their way back by out-flanking the left on economics and social policy.
Liberals have had opportunity to use a grisly public spectacle as leverage for gun legislation. Justin Bourque. The Parliament shooting. Ecole poly-technique anniversary. They passed every time.
Where it sits right now is the pro-guns have a victory. A popular victory. One which the public supports right across partisan boundaries.
You don't throw away goodwill like that. You let the other guy break the silence and you respond to it.
The ball is in their court and the longer they let it sit there without doing anything the less import gun control seems in the eyes of the public.
>>30066252
I disagree with you, they lost their shit over the last few shootings, and the only reason the Liberals haven't done anything is that they weren't in power and by the time they got in power the emotional wave had passed. Now we have the opportunity to educate people about how the gun laws are complicated, arbitrary, and generally not helpful, and to get more people interested in owning guns or at least less interested in supporting gun control measures. By remaining silent you drop any and all political power you may have, and allow the anti gunners a fresh start to control the narrative whenever they're ready to do so. Because gun control is an emotional issue, when it's not important nobody gives it a second thought, but when it shows up because of an emotional event, it becomes very hard to talk it down if you aren't educated on the subject and aren't emotionally inclined to be against it. If gun owners both educate people on laws and safety, while getting people emotionally invested in promoting or maintaining gun ownership then there is a logical and emotional barrier to overcome if you want to pass more gun control. A piece by piece dismantling of the more arbitrary sections of the Firearms Act, wherein we take away something like the prohibitions of firearms by name, and then after a year say "look at all the non existent increases in crime" before moving onto the next section is the best way to do it. No drastic leaps, but not twiddling our thumbs while our opponents build up cases against us either.
>>30062813
Okay, I don't fully support the NRA, but you can't just say that you and people like you are the mainstream. It doesn't work like that, bud.
>>30062898
>Cities have a low crime rate
Holy fuck are you delusional?
>>30062987
>Do you want to own a cannon?
Pierce pls go
>>30065560
>The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It enumerates rights you already have by birthright as an American citizen
Correct
>The only rights it grants are to the government, which has no rights except those given to it.
Wrong, it does not grant rights to government, it protects what God given rights you have from government interference
>>30066451
NYC is pretty safe
>>30063026
How many retards do you run into on the road and think "WOW, I'm glad at least they have a license!"
NRA life member after they had it at a discount. And I've still given money after that. Of course they could be better, but I do support them.
Haven't given anything to GOA, yet. I would have given some cash to the Pink Pistols after their recent court success against DC, but there wasn't any donation link oddly enough.
>>30066498
>NYC is pretty safe
>All of NYC is Manhattan
>Ergo NYC is pretty safe
Go fuck yourself.
>>30066501
I usually don't run into people on the road
>>30066578
NYC has a lower murder rate than the US as a whole, which is pretty impressive for an urban area.
>>30066597
>NYC Murder rate 2014: ~4/100,000
>US Murder rate 2014: ~4/100,000
It may have been lower in 205 but they're overall crime rate has been increasing, which is against the national trend. Also, the fact they have a shit ton of population in the safe boroughs, e.g. Manhattan and Queens, counteracts the fact they have higher crime rates in the shitty boroughs.
>>30066649
>205
*meant 2015
>>30066649
>Also, the fact they have a shit ton of population in the safe boroughs, e.g. Manhattan and Queens, counteracts the fact they have higher crime rates in the shitty boroughs.
That applies to the country as a whole as well. It is a reasonably safe place by national standards, and a very safe place by urban standards.
>>30060158
Bunch-a uneducated fuddlord shits who think that their dinky ASS SALT RAFFLES will "Scare the Government" into.... Something or other. They seem to be too dumb to have figured out the next part of their "Scare the Gubment" plan out.
But I'm Canadian, and look at the NRA as an extension of American culture as a whole. Maybe they're more tame and sensible than I think, and really are just an association of sport shooters, hunters, and enthusiasts.
But somehow I doubt it. I've never met an american with a LE SCARRY BLACK LE GHOST GUN :^) who wasn't an asshat who's only not a terrorist because he's too much of a lazy, fat, piece of shit pussy.
>>30060158
>fun candidates
who?
all seem a shit.
>>30066684
The only point that you're making is that statistics in broad sense can be deceptive. Just like the guy you replied to
>>30066707
1/10 I replied
>>30066708
>>30060158
>funs
This always strikes me as inherently unsafe. Guns are not toys. They're fun, but they're not toys. They can hurt people. They need to be handled safely and respectfully.
Anyone who calls a gun a "fun" should probably not be allowed to own a firearm until they grow up a little. I wouldn't even let such a person drive a car, really. They'd probably be some hooning cunt who tries to drift on the highway.
>>30060158
NRA actually wins lawsuits against the government. The Heller case is a great example. GOA talks a big game, but does not do shit.
>>30060158
There's a lot of people on /k/ who don't like the NRA because they're not radical enough.
Support them anyway, they've got the biggest clout and the magazines aren't bad. Also be sure to support your state/local association.
>>30060158
i believe in what they do. most court cases fighting for gun rights are funded and led by the NRA.
for a while, orange county in california was shall issue in regards to CCW permits because of an NRA win
thats a big win
people often claim theyll go to war when the guns are being rounded up.
i believe joining the political fight is the right way to start before that happens.
>>30066779
>The magazines aren't bad
They're literal shit though. The first 10 pages is a bunch of fearmongering and the rest is paid shilling
>>30062500
Stop conflating the NRA with the NRA-ILA.
>>30066725
Cucks please leave
>>30066742
Heller was SAF. NRA didn't get on the bandwagon for quite a while.
>>30066725
Nigger guns are fun.
None of the president seem show any example of being good enough to fun.
>>30066870
>s-shall! SHALLLLLL
I honestly would not trust 90% of /k/ behind the wheel of a car, let alone behind the trigger of a gun.
>>30066894
Your feelings don't touch my rights
>>30066870
>NRA didn't get on the bandwagon for quite a while.
They didn't because they were afraid of the possibility of the ruling going against Heller. When they ruled out that possibility they were all for it. No to say they waited too long, just have to remember these things.
>>30066922
>No to say they waited too long
*didn't wait too long
>>30063026
>What do you consider an unnecessary burden?
>A license? Really??
Anon, let's talk about licenses for a minute. I live in NY, fortunately a rather progun part of NY. Getting my license cost me about $20, a month of waiting and the names 4 references.
My buddy lives in NYC. Applying for his license would cost him somewhere $300-500 dollars and require multiple day long trips across the city to the licensing bureau. Said bureau is only open on weekdays, during regular business hours. Meaning he would have to repeatedly use his vacation days to make appointments the office often doesn't keep and just reschedules. And of course, even if he sticks it through all this, he will be denied because he is neither well connected nor in so much obvious danger that denying him a permit would place the city in legal liability.
Now do you see how just getting a license can actually be a undue burden?
>>30066922
Oh, I agree, I'm not saying they're some kind of cackling Disney villains. Just something to remember.
>>30067107
idk man here in Quebec it costs about 800 dollars to get a driver's license (you have to go to an accreddited driving school, and for the length of time it takes, 800 bucks is really not bad for a for-profit school for a year of "learning") and literally everyone ive spoken to sees it as an improvement to make it a "burden" because it means drunken hicks and faggot spics have a harder time getting a license to do sikk drifts on major city streets at 2 in the afternoon
I understand that "safety" is not a big keyword in the US but there's enough morons that I'd consider it okay if only the educated or very dedicated could acquire firearms. I don't care about spree shootings, I care about idiots imitating Ocelot. Just like I don't care about the idea of someone intentionally running me over, I care about /ovg/ faggots trying to imitate Initial D in the middle of the day when I'm doing groceries.
>>30066894
Good thing your feeling don't matter you literal nigger
>>30067202
Bullshit.
You can just take the fucking test.
>>30067202
Although, this should come with the context that Quebec drivers are fucking insane and have been for some time. The easiest way to reduce the number of auto accidents and killings is to just reduce the number of autos, right? It's worked, for the most part.
Much like America has had problems with gun accidents and spree shooters lately. Where are all the high profile cases coming out of? Places with castle doctrine and shall issue (or no) permits and such.
Introduce a modicum of difficulty just to keep the true lowlifes and retards out.
>>30066707
I'm a Canadian too. You're just an idiot who thinks "lol murica is inherently bad, look how superior I am". You obviously don't know jack shit about guerrilla warfare or insurrectionist tactics and goals.
>>30067202
Well that your opinion man and that's okay. I'm just glad people like you aren't the majority in my country so we don't have to bubble wrap every light pole.
>>30067236
>Places with castle doctrine and shall issue (or no) permits and such
That's objectively false. You are literally lying. All the shootings have been in very liberal areas with stricter gun laws than national average.
>>30067222
>You can just take the fucking test.
They changed it in 2009 or so. Maybe as late as 2011 Now you have to go to an accredited school before the SAAQ will let you challenge the practical.
I know because I considered moving into a van to escape my home life, but when I looked into it, the gubment had JUST changed the laws so you couldn't simply challenge the test immediately anymore and had to go to school.
Luckily, there's a maximum rate at which you can be charged, so they don't fleece you too bad. It's clearly a "Quebec drivers are fucking insane!" measure and not a "Apollo and Omega need money!" measure.
>>30067191
That's fair
>>30067280
That's fucked up.
>>30067236
>Where are all the high profile cases coming out of? Places with castle doctrine and shall issue (or no) permits and such.
That's wrong though. Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have the loosest gun laws in all of the USA, and have some of the lowest homicide rates in general, no mass shootings, and overall lower than average crime. This despite letting anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun carry it without a permit. Where does the crime happen? Chicago, NY, LA, Washington, New Orleans. Cities that have lots of gun control measures in states with lots of gun control measures on top of the federal gun control measures.
>>30067320
I don't mind it because, honestly, quebec drivers are fucking insane and kill a lot of people every year by being terrible at driving.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of anti-gun sentiment in the US is driven by the same thing -- guns are dangerous and there's a lot of retards who have one. Just like I really appreciate people not constantly trying to re-enact Initial D scenes with their shitty dead Lancers at high noon on saturday when everyone's doing groceries, I'd really appreciate if people didn't try to re-enact MGS3 showdowns with automatics surrounded by nothing but drywall in crowded tenements.
>>30067379
>I'd really appreciate if people didn't try to re-enact MGS3 showdowns with automatics surrounded by nothing but drywall in crowded tenements.
But that doesn't fucking happen.
>>30060158
The tin foil gang is strong with da Don when no one said shit about paul jr dropping out.. now we gotta have a meme president i guess.
>>30067379
None of the things you said have literally ever happened before. Stop shitposting.
>>30067407
I've seen people handle guns for real, and that strengthened my "anti-gun" tendencies more than anything else.
Before I went to basic, I was pretty pro-gun. Not enough to really care, but I'd like laws to be loosened.
Not anymore after having someone clear their rifle and test-fire it while having it directly pointed into the back of my head, and then everyone around shitting on me for saying that it was at least a little rude to do that. People are retards and can't be trusted with firearms.
Even just last week, I did a military parade where we shot off some blanks. I had to explain in vivid detail why someone's C7 wouldn't work when he racked it with an empty mag in during practice, and then had to try again when he tried to fire it and somehow got a misfeed (I don't know what the exact problem was because we were information and it's not my job to diagnose that shit; but the most probable cause for a jam was that he didn't pull hard/far enough.)
Also, having to explain to someone how the clips on a bayonet worked. It's embarrassing for the species.
People don't know how guns work. I found it intuitive, but many people don't. It's best if people in general are made to take a class or something before handling them seriously.
>>30067462
>had to try again when he tried to fire it and somehow got a misfeed
Sorry, I've been drinking; I mean this happened during the parade proper.
I can make mistakes like this; why can't people do so with guns? There should be some kind of oversight, same as you're not allowed to drink and drive, or drive at all if you can't demonstrate you actually know how.
>>30066811
>and the rest is paid shilling
Every gun review in every magazine is paid shilling. Every single one.
On the bright side if you want a pile of free flavor of the month guns, become a well known reviewer.
>>30067236
>Much like America has had problems with gun accidents and spree shooters lately.
Literally what
Violent crime is lower than it has been since the fifties. There's been an uptick in BLM cities (Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago) but still nowhere near the peak of 1970-1990. It's probably just a coincidence that this era of lower crime has also seen a relaxation of gun laws in virtually every state.
>>30067479
There's nothing wrong with having a low threshold for risk (well, except for being a huge pussy), but it's pretty fucked to try to push it on a bunch of people who have a higher threshold than you do.
>>30066725
wow, you are probably the most boring person I've ever seen on /k/.
and fuck yea I drift, and call my guns funs.
Because they are fun, you fuckin cuck.
>>30067560
>that fucking fully tatooed arm
Fucking gross
>>30067596
That's not how you're supposed to drink estus...
>>30067202
>>30067280
How does your province function?
I know you don't all live in Montreal with easy access to public transit. How does your rural and suburban economy even continue to function when basic transportation is behind that high of a wall?
I mean my parents were not going to lend me $800 and transport me to classes for a year in order to get my driver's license. And I sure as fuck wasn't going to be able to afford it without a job, none of which would hire me without a license and vehicle.
>>30067462
>>30067479
>Some people I know have been idiots with firearms
>Ergo we need gun control that will in no way stop people from being idiots with firearms
>Someone doesn't know how to use a bayonet in 2016 when they have been obsolete since the first world war
>Ergo all human beings are retarded
>Someone doesn't have a learned skill I have
>Might as well assume everyone but me is retarded
>There are laws and licenses to prevent drinking and driving and we need a system like this for guns
>Laws and licenses don't stop people from drinking and riving, but somehow will stop people from being idiots with guns
The best part was probably
>I've seen people handle guns for real
And the rest of us haven't, is that right kiddo? Or if we have it wasn't "for realz" was it?
You are the only thing worse than a fudd, a know-it-all military brat.
>>30067566
I'd say "please don't kill anyone" but you've probably hit like twelve pedestrians today alone
>>30067560
the 800 bucks a quebec driver needs to drive is honestly too much, but a couple hundred just as a shit-test to the weak or retarded would go a long way to preventing accidents and other such stupidity.
Think of all the horrible fudd or shitty range stories that exist -- wouldn't you want a way to prevent those? Stupid CoD babbies probably wouldn't shell out sixty or a hundred bucks to put their hands on an M4 even once, let alone get a license to something semi-auto but sufficiently tacticool.
>>30067632
Quebec is full of retards and run by the most corrupt people in the country. In general, they try to make everything as shitty as possible for themselves, then complain when things are shitty. Of course, they're never at fault, now the rest of the provinces owe them money for fucking up Quebec because it's their fault.
>>30060158
I'd join, but I refuse to give the state of Maryland more tax dollars than absolutely necessary.
$25 a year for insurance for my funs (I haven't really read the terms so I'm just taking it at face value mind you) is good enough reason for me to support them
>>30067652
>Stupid CoD babbies probably wouldn't shell out sixty or a hundred bucks to put their hands on an M4 even once, let alone get a license to something semi-auto but sufficiently tacticool.
Are you aware that this was literally the logic behind the 1934 GCA, making certain guns too expensive for the common man, or has the maple syrup begun to rot your brain?
>>30067632
>How does your province function?
Under mob rule, AFAIK.
>I know you don't all live in Montreal with easy access to public transit.
Well, I do, so I don't give a fuck.
Most people in the rural zones do drive, though. Many people of my generation have been grandfathered in (you don' have to re-do school if you got your license before or were in the process of getting it) and new drivers generally don't even bother because few people travel far outside of their home town by car in such a way that they'd be stopped. Driving laws are very lax here, and enforced very casually.
>How does your rural and suburban economy even continue to function
pffhfhafhfafhafahfahfafhafahafhahaha lmao thinking suburbs produce anything of value
it's all a combination of dairy farmers in the rural zones and high tech industry (vidya gaems, building bullet trains, etc) in the heavily urbanized zones -- suburbanites are useless.
>I mean my parents were not going to lend me $800 and transport me to classes for a year in order to get my driver's license.
if you live in the suburbs of quebec, 800 bones is a pittance. it's probably harder to get your kid over to Omega or Apollo to actually do the goddamn classes. Sheeeit, I'm poor as fuck and live off of navy reservist pay, and 800 bucks over the course of a year is really not a lot for me. Someone with a real job and actual contact with their parents could pay it handily, though it's not so trivial as to be a something you do on a whim.
>>30067689
>>H-HAS THE MAPLE SYRUP ROTTED UR BRAIN? U SHOULD KNOW AMURRKAN FIREGUN LAW BY HEART!!
you yanks really are way too self-important
but ya know what, seems legit to me. I wouldn't want retards owning machine guns or whatever. having to shell out puts a necessary barrier that has to be overcome with real conviction and dedication, and not just casual interest in LE PEW PEWS :^)
but wait, lemme guess:
>w-we need machine guns to scare da gument!! ;_;
Why do you need government permission to engage in belligerent acts?
>>30067479
>There should be some kind of oversight, or drive at all if you can't demonstrate you actually know how.
Here's why:
>VT oversight
Go to range
Shoot at target
Don't do anything stupid
Pass
Anyone can easily become a certified trainer
>NY oversight
$500 a class
6 classes
9PM-3AM on Wednesday in Cattaraugus
Only one set of classes offered each year
If you miss a class you fail and have to start over
Classes are cancellations are posted on the door of the building at 8PM
There's only one instructor in the state
It's the same reason the CDC doesn't get to research gun violence anymore. They were given the chance once, and they used it to push politically motivated junk science. Requiring training is opposed because it's very easily misused for political purposes.
>>30067652
>Think of all the horrible fudd or shitty range stories that exist
1. Some people have bad customer service experiences? Welp, better regulate the shit out of everything. I mean, dude, what are you thinking?
2. You realize that this is not going to turn shitty ranges into good ranges, it's going to turn shitty ranges into NO ranges...right?
>>30067721
> it's going to turn shitty ranges into NO ranges...right?
Montreal has like three ranges (I know of one in Dorval and one on the South Shore, and I think there's one more somewhere) and a couple of no PAL required air rifle ranges opened up in the past 4 years.
>>30067746
Think about the effect AT THE MARGIN
Also,
>air rifle ranges
>mfw
>>30067831
In addition to at least two other ranges, one of which you can rent LE BARRUTT FIDDY KAL at for an affordable rate!
The dank may may that canada (and quebec) hates guns is a false one
>>30067715
>Only rich people are smart enough to do what I can do
Do you even think before you type?
>>30067715
>>>H-HAS THE MAPLE SYRUP ROTTED UR BRAIN? U SHOULD KNOW AMURRKAN FIREGUN LAW BY HEART!!
>you yanks really are way too self-important
Its fucking hilarious you came in to this thread trying to tell us how to run our fucking country, while knowing next to nothing about it, and when I call you on your bullshit you try to deflect it back at me.
>but ya know what, seems legit to me. I wouldn't want retards owning machine guns or whatever. having to shell out puts a necessary barrier that has to be overcome with real conviction and dedication, and not just casual interest in LE PEW PEWS :^)
And who decides this barrier to entry? You, Mr. Arbiter of All Things Sensible? How many syrupbucks should it take? Why do you hate the poor? How "convicted" and "dedicated" do you have to be to own a gun in your mind?What's wrong with having a casual interest as a reason to own a machine gun (or any gun for that matter), or is that not justification enough to you, o righteous one?
but wait, lemme guess:
>w-we need machine guns to scare da gument!! ;_;
Why do you need government permission to engage in belligerent acts?
>but wait, lemme guess:
>w-we need machine guns to scare da gument!! ;_;
Why do you need government permission to engage in belligerent acts?
You were the first one to bring this up dipshit. And, yes, if the secret police risk there being a man armed with a gun inside the apartment when they kick down the door to drag someone away to the gulag, they will think twice about whether or not doing their job is actually worth it. You shouldn't need government permission to own NFA items and I don't know what kind of belligerence you're talking about seeing as there's nothing belligerent about simply owning something.
>>30067849
>Only rich people are smart enough to do what I can do
Welcome to America.
>>30067858
The jackoff who keeps spewing this stuff is a FUCKING LEAF though.
>>30067850
So basically yes, you're such a pussy that you not only own guns to LE SCARE LE GUBMEBT!! but you also need explicit government permission to LE SCARE LE GUBMEBT
Good job. You're a true revolutionary. I'm sure Obama fears you.
>>30067858
The worst part is, the guy arguing this is some Queerbecker.
>It's the worst province in the country for a reason.
>>30067874
>It's the worst province in the country for a reason.
And the only one with any industry left. Not that I make games or trains; I'm in the navy.
>>30067893
Don't worry though, they're trying to kill what little industry they have. Between taxes and regulations it shouldn't take them too long.
>You can't even run the private portions of your business in English without the literal language police kicking down your door.
>>30067248
>I'm just glad people like you aren't the majority in my country so we don't have to bubble wrap every light pole.
It's not about bubble wrapping the light poles.
It's about singling out the morons and bubble wrapping THEM to keep them the fuck away from the rest of us.
I see how this might seem like an alien concept in a country with 'no child left behind' education system
Those children? Leave them behind. Leave them behind HARD.
Make it so they can't get drivers or gun licenses and make sure they stay the fuck on their reservation and in their 'special' classes.
We competent capable intelligent and educated people ought to drive and have guns.
The unhinged trailer park aspie that thinks WWE is real?
Naw man. Naw.
>>30067907
Do you live here? Do you even know?
>>30067908
Well, this, but let's be real -- it's more consistent to make someone do a class and a test than to just test against their outside knowledge. Guns are easy to handle, but we can't ensure everyone goes to basic.
[spoiler]I'd support completely totally lax "have anything you want" gun laws if conscription and weapons handling classes were mandatory[/spoiler]
>>30067872
>So basically yes, you're such a pussy that you not only own guns to LE SCARE LE GUBMEBT!! but you also need explicit government permission to LE SCARE LE GUBMEBT
How does owning guns to "scare le guberment" even make someone a pussy? I own my guns for my own reasons, but if knowing that myself and my fellow citizens are armed places some inkling of fear in a politician's mind, its an added bonus? And I already went over this, you only have to "ask le guberment" when it comes to NFA items, and you shouldn't even have to fucking do that.
>Good job. You're a true revolutionary. I'm sure Obama fears you.
I hope you lumberjack-indian rape babies who speak garbled french and think putting half made cheese and gravy on french fries is fine cuisine will wrest the Canadian seat of power from Ottawa and embark on a cultural crusade to conquer and civilize us poor dumb hicks in freedomland.
>>30067850
>Its fucking hilarious you came in to this thread trying to tell us how to run our fucking country
I'm not that Canadian, I'm a different canadian.
But let me tell you man,
telling Americans how to run their country is something that we just can't pass up lately.
I mean, back in the day when you were running things more or less competently and with a degree of sanity, you did a lot of things we disagreed with but we refrained from criticism because you know... it's the polite thing to do.
But now that you're a nation in decline, and we're not...
GOD DAMN IT FEELS GOOD TO SAY I TOLD YA SO
>>30067937
>Do you live here? Do you even know?
Yeah, unfortunately I'm living in Quebec. Have been for a couple years now. I can't wait to get out of this godawful province. Fuck this entire shithole, the only thing it has going for it is the scenery.
>>30067965
Maybe you should move out of St-Jean and see a real city.
>>30067961
Americans are a pox. Their most common issues, on both the left and right, are such easy things to solve, that most other countries have already figured out at some period or another. Even looking at radfems or goobergaters or whatever, it's just all so ridiculous.
America is a fundamentally juvenile country.
>>30060158
Went to the past 3 NRA conventions. 80,000+ people carrying loaded firearms, bumping shoulder to shoulder for 3-4 days straight, no accidents, no crime. I'd say it's a solid group, and it's one of the only ones with the backbone and abilities to fight.
>>30067987
Who said anything about St-Jean. I've lived in Montreal and Sherbrooke. I have friends in Quebec City and all the way up in Sept-Isles. Fuck the province from top to bottom. You scream about how superior you are, but the entire province of Quebec is ruined from corrupt politicians and idiot voters who can't go with the rest of the country out of spite and don't care about how they damage themselves more than anyone else.
>>30068042
>Sherbrooke
There's your problem.
>Quebec City
>Sept-Isles
What's it like, hanging with recruits all the time?
You seem really angry for someone whose english is so excellent. You sure you didn't get raped at Super-Sexe or something?
>>30067961
>But now that you're a nation in decline, and we're not...
>you're a nation in decline
>we're not
![michel-foucault-discipline-punish[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bIhDxcY.jpg "michel-foucault-discipline-punish[1].jpg")
>>30067958
>I hope you lumberjack-indian rape babies who speak garbled french and think putting half made cheese and gravy on french fries is fine cuisine will wrest the Canadian seat of power from Ottawa and embark on a cultural crusade to conquer and civilize us poor dumb hicks in freedomland.
Other Canadian here. I'm from the pro-gun west, not Quebec.
Threat of armed insurrection has literally zero impact on public policy in the west. Maybe it works in places like Afghanistan or Somalia, but those places are failed states anyway -- there's barely any authority to revolt against.
Among developed nations, it's an impossibility -- even in a place as gun-prolific as the united states. If you actually take comfort in this fantasy, you're completely unhinged from reality. Power dynamics on this planet institutionalized and evolved past pointing guns at people a long time ago. The only thing that people with power fear is money, and other people with power.
>>30068061
>What's it like, hanging with recruits all the time?
Students actually. I'm from Ontario going to university in Quebec. Most of the people I associate with are also students. This also explains my English, now doesn't it? I've seen just about every part of Quebec business, government, and education though, and it's all fucked from the retards in the province. You stupid fucks couldn't run a straight line. You dumb fucks are wasting millions on a provincial LGR while hospitals and schools go underfunded. Quebec is a fucking shitshow. Every last bit of it.
>>30068082
>implying that there haven't been incidents of serious civil violence in industrialized countries when democratic institutions fail to pacify the people
Look south of the Rio Grande and tell me how much guns matter.
>>30062987
>Do you support the idea that a private citizen should not own howitzers?
No, I don't support banning of any firearm or weapon, as long as the person who owns it uses it in a responsible manner and does not harm innocent people when they use it. It's legal to own a tank, a flamethrower, and a bunch of other "weird" or "dangerous" shit. The ownership of those items shouldn't be outlawed just because you or I might feel uncomfortable using them, people that know full well how to operate them and choose to operate them in their free time should be allowed to do so.
Part of this is because my strong belief in free will and self determination, but also because of the deep roots that this type of ownership has in America. A quick example that comes to mind would be the use of cannons in The Revolutionary War. Many of the cannons that were used were privately owned by small militia groups that, guess what...knew how to use them, could afford to own and operate them, and chose to donate them in defense of a new nation. I don't personally believe that any kind of a scenario like that is likely to happen in my own lifetime, but if others choose to be prepared for such an event, who are any of us to tell them they can't?
See, that's what much of the debate about Gun Control vs Gun Freedom is about: Should anyone be able to tell you you can't own something because they don't understand it, or don't approve of it? There will always people who say "Well, no but what about nukes lol" or "Yes, and any knife longer than a fingernail should be melted down" or whatever the fuck. And that's fine. It's fine to feel that way and *talk* about those things. But when it goes past the point of talking, and gets put into law, and makes ordinary citizens criminals, that's when I have a problem.
>>30068082
>Other Canadian here. I'm from the pro-gun west, not Quebec.
That doesn't make a shit's lick of difference if you're just going to spew nonsense.
>Threat of armed insurrection has literally zero impact on public policy in the west
That's not the point. The point is keeping the power in the hands of the people when a government becomes a failed or tyrannical state. Then, an armed populace will sure as fuck be a threat to any government.
>Among developed nations, it's an impossibility -- even in a place as gun-prolific as the united states. If you actually take comfort in this fantasy, you're completely unhinged from reality.
This is just never-happen-here-ism in regards to western governments becoming tyrannical in nature, bringing about the kind of situation where an armed populace becomes necessary.
>Power dynamics on this planet institutionalized and evolved past pointing guns at people a long time ago.
How can you even justify this statement? So MAD wasn't a thing? How do power dynamics "evolve"? Has something significant about the nature of politics changed and I wasn't aware of it?
>The only thing that people with power fear is money, and other people with power.
Yes, and armaments aren't a from of power how exactly? The entire point of the second amendment was putting a certain power in the hands of the people in case they ever needed to use it, and so far we haven't had to use it but its still there.
>>30068082
You've never read Foucault, have you?
He pretty clearly states in that very book that the state needs its surveillance mechanisms because armed insurrection is always a possibility.
Don't throw up big names just to look good, you dingus.
>>30060189
the NRA's the national republican association, not national rifle owner's association.
they sold you out in 1984 and 1994, and will do so again. mark my fucking words.
>>30068082
You have no clue what you're talking about. Why are Canadians and Europeans so pseudo-intellectual? You people are fucking arrogant, insufferable cunts.
>>30067721
can somebody explain the Pinochet helicopter meme to me?
>>30067987
>America is a fundamentally juvenile country.
See, the difference between the USA and other developed democracies is that the rest of us believe in fundamental inalienable human rights.
Americans on the other hand, believe in fundamental inalienable *american* rights.
To clarify:
Where people in places like Canada and Europe see human rights as something fundamental just that ought to be respected for all sentient beings as a moral imperative...
Americans see freedoms as some kind of mystical american birthright given to American citizens by legendary demi-god 18th century father figures, because the american constitution is "magic" and exceptionalism makes america "special".
This is pretty much the root of all the jingoistic and morally bankrupt behavior that Americans engage in on a regular basis, both personally and collectively as a nation.
To these people, rights and freedoms aren't something real to be valued and exercised and pursued as a moral imperative -- they're a shiny object they can polish and put on a shelf and say 'hahah look how awesome it is, and how special it makes me feel!'
As a result, Americans value theoretical rights on-paper over real-world rights in practice, and show a brutal lack of respect for the rights of anyone who isn't American.
For Americans, the concept of freedom is so mystical and abstracted, that they actually are capable of feeling good about having the 'right' to purchase things that they'll never ever *ever* be able to afford.
They don't mind being fucked by people with money and power, so long as they could theoretically acquire the same money and power... not that they every will. They have the 'right' and they feel good about that, but it's essentially meaningless.
Oh don't get me wrong: Americans "value" american rights -- but not in a concrete sense. To them they're valuable the same way a 'soul' is valuable -- in a totally meaningless, completely abstract, utter bullshit sort of way.
I indirectly support them through my purchases that the gun industry gives them for lobbying, so fuck them and anyone asking for donations. Quit fear mongering and actually represent the people instead of the American firearms industry and I may consider it.
>>30069230
The NRA is funded almost exclusively by donations and memberships. Gun industry only accounts for something like 10% of their total income.
>>30069182
is this a new meme copypasta? I'm gonna save it, it's fucking hilarious
>>30069263
I just wrote it now. Please do.
>>30069182
Wow I knew eurocucks were fags but this is a new level of fag talk. Now excuse me while I go get a steak and egg breakfast you neutered queer.
