2nd Amendment thread
- Thread starter bigredfish
- Start date
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
Canada's Trudeau announces bill to cap sales, transfers and imports of all handguns in the country | CNN
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday announced the introduction of a bill that would place a national freeze on handgun ownership across Canada. The move would mean that Canadians will no longer be able to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns "anywhere in Canada," Trudeau said.
edition.cnn.com
This POS PUSSY really gripes my ass. All I have to say, and I mean this 100%, come and try to take it Beto. Just try.
bigredfish
Known around here
Liberal Democrats have NO desire to keep children from being killed by crazy fucks, they ONLY care about power and that means taking away guns from those who are law abiding citizens. They, like so many other dictators before them, fear an armed population as they attempt to implement their fascist dictator like government.
If the stupid fuck Bidet cared about kids, he would look into hardening schools.
Fuck anyone who voted for this senile piece of shit
Karine Jean-Pierre Says Joe Biden Not Interested in "Hardening Schools" Because the Problem is with Guns (VIDEO)
If the stupid fuck Bidet cared about kids, he would look into hardening schools.
Fuck anyone who voted for this senile piece of shit
Karine Jean-Pierre Says Joe Biden Not Interested in "Hardening Schools" Because the Problem is with Guns (VIDEO)
Last edited:
Smilingreen
Known around here
Well, the majority of men think beto shouldn't be able to have access to balls, seeing he doesn't own a pair and wouldn't know what to do with them if he did have a pair. He is as worthless as Brandon.
Smilingreen
Known around here
I am still looking for that magic age that democrats keep strategically hidden, of when a childs life, all of the sudden, has value? They want to be able to murder them during and after they have been born. Whats that magic number, Dems?
Last edited:
Smilingreen
Known around here
I wonder what ever happened to those 2000+ Savage arms rifles that magically disappeared up in Canada this past winter? Anyone hear anything more about that?
globalnews.ca
Savage Arms say theft of 2,000 firearms involved shipping partner in Peterborough - Peterborough | Globalnews.ca
Savage Arms CEO Al Kasper says the theft of a truck carrying firearms early Sunday involved a shipping partner of the Lakefield company.
globalnews.ca
I've no idea who Jonathan Jones is, I found it on another forum and thought it was a good clean simple explanation that should be shared.
A good person with a gun will stop a bad person with a gun, hopefully.
[Forwarded from Jonathan Jones]
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay man on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
A good person with a gun will stop a bad person with a gun, hopefully.
[Forwarded from Jonathan Jones]
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay man on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
I smell an inside job...I wonder what ever happened to those 2000+ Savage arms rifles that magically disappeared up in Canada this past winter? Anyone hear anything more about that?
Savage Arms say theft of 2,000 firearms involved shipping partner in Peterborough - Peterborough | Globalnews.ca
Savage Arms CEO Al Kasper says the theft of a truck carrying firearms early Sunday involved a shipping partner of the Lakefield company.
BTW, the surveillance cam images in that link are worthless...ya think the co. owner is seeking some upgrades and proper setup NOW?
Too little too late.
Here's the dumb part...in the U.S. and maybe in Canada, an upgrade to such devices on co. property can written off, amortized over a short period, like office supplies, software, PC's, etc. At least I could when I had my LLC '06 to '13, maybe tax laws have changed, I dunno.
bigredfish
Known around here
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
True, but why is no one finding out the name of the teacher that propped open the door that the shooter entered the building from?
Awesome essay!
The original author: Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.
Reprinted and published here:
bigredfish
Known around here
Indeed! One of the best I’ve read.
I've said it for years and I'll keep saying it. The only reason leftist think society would be safer if everyone was disarmed is because with their mentality of hate and evil, they truly cannon see themselves yielding something of so much "power" and NOT using it to shoot someone that disagreed with them, or offended them, or whatever. In their mind they are morally superior, so if THEY don't trust themselves (rightfully so, I'd imagine) with a gun, they dang sure can't trust those rotten, hateful, deplorables.
It's similar to someone who steals from others always being paranoid that someone is gonna steal from them, or an honest person being shocked when someone lies to them.
It's similar to someone who steals from others always being paranoid that someone is gonna steal from them, or an honest person being shocked when someone lies to them.
Living the Life
Getting the hang of it
It's a good essay, but the author's reasoning has some gaps. There are different types of force, some of which a personal weapon are essentially useless against. For example, consider economic force. If I suddenly find that my access to the use of the Internet and the use of credit cards has been terminated by powerful people who don't like me, no personal sidearm is going to make an ounce of difference in resolving the situation.
There are many, many ways that someone can be compelled to do something against their will. It isn't just a matter of "convince me or we'll shoot it out".
To me, the right to bear arms is more fundamental. It is the right to defend oneself. That is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. The irony is that nowhere is this mentality stronger than in the progressive mindset, where the perceived right of self-defense trumps all reason or consideration over the rights of anyone else. If they feel threatened, liberals have absolutely no compunction about removing the rights of others to be safe. Nor do those same liberals see any contradiction is having armed people safeguarding them, or in secretly owning a gun of their own even as they demand that everyone else's guns be confiscated. Their lives and security are infinitely more important, no matter what.
And that is why this latest call for gun control is fading away just as quickly as all the ones before it. No one is going to surrender their guns to make a vocal minority feel "safe". No rational person is going to disarm himself after reading how the police responded in Ulvade. And in particular no sane person will listen to hypocritical anti-2nd Amendment proclamations from politicians with personal armed bodyguards.
Last edited:
Look at this guys eyes....Ha, ha!!!!
You bring up some good points in this. The author certainly was restricting his discussion primarily to physical force presented in the moment, as in a mugging.
The concept of economic force is another discussion that must be held though. Bringing that up reminded me of the tyrannical tactics utilized by Trudeau against trucker-protestors and the funding mechanisms supporting them. How far away are we from a time when we MUST comply with woke philosophies or we risk a bank deciding they will not provide services? Some internet companies "filter" email ads from gun and ammo companies because THEY have decided they don't want their internet customers to have access to it. These kinds of examples represent a direct threat on Liberty. Sadly, a famous person in history provided commentary on what the tree of Liberty needs every so often, and that leads us right back to guns. Those who would take guns, would extinguish the tree of Liberty for others. It literally is the stuff of massive rapid uprisings resulting in war. Hope and pray that cooler and more-rational heads prevail.
Living the Life
Getting the hang of it
It's all bluster at this point. I predict that not a single legislative measure for limiting access to firearms will get an ounce of traction. Legislation to further harden schools against attackers may get approved, however.
The MSM made its mistake by obsessing over the failure of Uldave law enforcement to act in a timely manner. What better illustration of the maxim of "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"? So this is the type of police response that is supposed to keep up "safe" once we're disarmed? What a laugh.
People will keep their weapons. Uldave provided the perfect object lesson for why the 2nd Amendment is needed.
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
