kallend 1,623 #126 December 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo I just see a curse word as no different than poor spelling, bad grammar and lack of paragraph structure. I just skip over all that lousy stuff and interpret for the actual message. Criticizing the writer of the curse word just adds an additional distraction to those that are already there. usualy por spelin an gramer isint delibrete. cursin is. So you disapprove of the stage comedy performed by guys like Eddie Murphy and Dennis Leary? Who? Let's try again. If you went to a stage comedy show, and the performer started using a lot of curse words, would you be offended and get up and walk out? I doubt I'd go in the first place if the performer had a reputation for needing vulgarity to get a laugh.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #127 December 21, 2005 QuoteI'm for the Green Party for now on. Not sure what their stance on hand guns is... Who cares, what's 'your' stance on guns? There's a real issue with statements like "I'm for the *** Party" I think an informed voter supports certain platform positions, not a party. If they end up taking various positions from different parties across the spectrum, so be it. Then at least they aren't blinded by the party label, rather they pick whoever most closely aligns with their own positions. That might mean next election the most logical vote is for a Dem senator, a Rep President, and one libertarian or green Repres. We vote in people, not parties - we should look at their platforms. I think a lot of people out there just support parties and have no idea what those parties really stand for except for the meaningless generalized crap they all put out. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #128 December 23, 2005 " the FBi's study "Crime In the United States" conducted in 1998, conlcuded 50 people were killed in a gun hoimicde for every one person that used guns in self defence." Try telling that one person out of 50 that they were wrong for owning a gun... I have a couple of questions: 1. Would the American government rather it's citizens be armed, or unarmed? Why? 2. Does the media report facts, or is there a slant based on politics and personal beliefs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murrays 0 #129 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuotenotice all the vocal posters are not Canadian? that shows how much we really care about the issue The first three post in this thread were from Canadians. None of which supported the ban. Add me to the list of Canadians against this proposed ban. One of the little fucks charged in the Toronto shooting was under a firearm ban because of a previous conviction...He just got out of jail 3 weeks before Boxing Day...fat lot of good the ban did.-- Murray "No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #130 January 2, 2006 QuoteAs some of you know, I'm not a big fan of fire arms. But I'm also a realist and Paul Martin the Prime Minister of Canada is going way too far with his election platform. Today he's announce that if re-elected he will legislate an outright ban on all hand guns in Canada. See more about the story here. What the fuck I say? What kind of moron is Paul Martin? The gun registry in Canada is nothing more than a waste of money targeting legitimate gun enthusiasts instead of targeting the real problem. The illegal drug trade by organized crime and gangs. Go after the criminals Martin. The gun enthusiast are not the problem. He's clearly trying to buy votes preying upon the fear many people have thanks to the recent gang violence, violence by youth gangs against rival youth gangs. Yes every once in a while an innocent person is being shot and that is sad. But for the most part, you're seeing criminals killing ciminals. For the record. I am NOT a gun enthusiast. I don't need guns in my life. But I don't have issues with the gun enthusiasts. Passing a law to remove all hand guns from society is a pipe dream. It's going to hurt the law abiding citizens and do nothing about going after the real problem ... building a culture where young people don't feel that they need to turn to crime in order to make money in life. Paul Martin is a moron!!! Awesome post, Canuck! Thanks! It's refreshing to see someone who is not into firearms actually pointing out that he is not fooled by the typical anti-gun bullshit that other people who are not into guns try to foist on the public. You are not fooled. I'm glad to see that. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #131 January 2, 2006 Quote" the FBi's study "Crime In the United States" conducted in 1998, conlcuded 50 people were killed in a gun hoimicde for every one person that used guns in self defence." Try telling that one person out of 50 that they were wrong for owning a gun... I have a couple of questions: 1. Would the American government rather it's citizens be armed, or unarmed? Why? 2. Does the media report facts, or is there a slant based on politics and personal beliefs? The FBI only reports statistics reported to police. Virtually 100% of homicides are reported to police, however, very few gun self-defense usages are reported to police. Thus, the comparison you are making means nothing. Other studies show that gun self defense occurs up to 2 million times per year, which certainly destroys the negative comparison of gun you are trying to make... The government would rather the citizens be armed, because that's what the Constitution says. As to why it's in the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers. The media often gets facts wrong, and what they do report is often biased. A wise man would never use them as their sole source of information for making up their mind about something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #132 January 2, 2006 Quote Some other studies, which are disputed, show suggest that gun self defense occurs up to 2 million times per year, which certainly destroys casts a little doubt on the negative comparison of gun you are trying to make... ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #133 January 2, 2006 QuoteQuote Some other studies, which are disputed, show suggest that gun self defense occurs up to 2 million times per year, which certainly destroys casts a little doubt on the negative comparison of gun you are trying to make... Dr. Kallend, always on the clock . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #134 January 2, 2006 You attempt to be quite funny Kallend for a guy who often fails to give his opinion on controversial subjects like this dispite putting others down for theirs. You just love to ridicule others opinions on all sorts of topics but rarely dare to give yours. For the record the statement John was countering was not even close to being true. That statement was Quotethe FBi's study "Crime In the United States" conducted in 1998, conlcuded 50 people were killed in a gun hoimicde for every one person that used guns in self defence. This statement is so, so far from the truth in regards to what the study concluded. LOL. Rather than point to other studies one can easily just pick apart this statement. The cases cited for self defense in this study were those were someone was killed. Not where a gun was used. Most firearms used in self defense are not even fired (for example see the CCW thread) much less actually used to kill someone. Studies on defensive firearm uses per year in the US range widely with most being between 1 to 2.5 million. There is one study where a byproduct of the intent of the study concluded a low number closer to 100,000. I will agree to throw out the excessive high and low and then determine why we should ignore the rest of the studies. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #135 January 3, 2006 Quotethe FBi's study "Crime In the United States" conducted in 1998, conlcuded 50 people were killed in a gun hoimicde for every one person that used guns in self defence. Bull. Incorrect. Change to "conlcuded 50 people were killed in a gun hoimicde for every one person that was killed by a gun in self defense" and you would be closer to the conclusion of this study. It has been no secret that in most defensive uses of firearms the gun is not even fired much less used to shoot and Kill someone. I think this study speaks highly of our right to protect ourselves. People are rarely using there firearm to kill yet are able to protect themselves an enormous amount of times of year. What that number is we will never actually know. But the fact that we are using the firearms without killing speaks great for our cause. Thanks for bringing that study to everyones attention That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #136 January 3, 2006 The big problem with anti-gunners citing these studies is that they: - count any time someone is killed by a gunshot as a "bad killing" -- and don't consider whether it was a bad person killed by a good person - DON'T COUNT any uses of a gun that stop a crime without killing the bad guy That's absurd. They want a dead criminal before they will consider that a gun was used to save someone. Hey, maybe they're onto something. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #137 January 3, 2006 QuoteSome other studies, which are disputed, show suggest that gun self defense occurs up to 2 million times per year, which certainly destroys casts a little doubt on the negative comparison of gun you are trying to make... Many if not most if not even every published work has its detractors, those who wish to dispute its claims. I noticed that you stopped short of claiming that the work Mr. Rich referenced is flat out wrong. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #138 January 3, 2006 Exactly. All it takes for a well-conducted and factually correct study to be "disputed" is for Sarah Brady to say, "Nuh uhhhh!" -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #139 January 3, 2006 News: Targeting gun offences presents legal quagmire The statement: "The public good of keeping those who are involved in suspected crimes involving guns behind bars outweighs the counter arguments." Spokesman Scott Reid describes Liberal Leader Paul Martin's support for proposals to keep those accused of gun violence in jail instead of being given bail. The message: Liberals are backing a tough-on-crime proposal that would put the onus on those accused of committing a gun offence to show why they should not be locked up. The party knows that changing the law could impinge on the Charter rights of the accused, but argues that public-security issues outweigh individual rights in this situation. The reality: Legal experts say that changing the law to switch the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, also known as "reverse onus," would immediately bring on complicated legal challenges...Source: Globe and Mail They're only gun owners - they don't deserve no steenkin' rights! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #140 January 4, 2006 Let's see the liberals support making "one exception" to the burden of proof and who bears it, and then wait for the torrent of additional "exceptions" that will follow. This is gonna be a lot of fun to watch! Go, Canada! FUCK people's rights! We have a GOVERNMENT to serve, here! -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #141 January 4, 2006 News: Misfiring over and over again On Dec. 8 Prime Minister Paul Martin announced he will ban handgun ownership in Canada. He also announced the creation of a national snitch line (or the GunStoppers Program as he calls it) that will pay cash to people for ratting out their gun-owning neighbours. Competitive shooters will be eligible for an exemption, but before target shooters jump for joy they’d better read the fine print. Paul Martin’s version of “target shooter” means Olympic or Commonwealth Games only. IPSC, IDPA or any other shooters need not apply. Puffing his chest appropriately, Paul Martin said that mandatory minimum sentences would be doubled. Apparently he wasn’t paying attention when his own attorney general, Irwin Cotler, stood in Parliament and said, “When it comes to mandatory minimum (sentences), we will not go ahead and introduce something that all the evidence shows is neither effective nor a deterrent. We want to combat crime, but not with ineffective deterrents.” The very shooting violence in downtown Toronto that Martin claims he’s attacking is proof that the Firearms Act is a complete and utter failure. Canada has, in case Paul Martin is unaware, required handgun registration since 1934. Despite 71 years of “gun control,” illegal handguns remain the weapon-of-choice for violent criminals...Source (with much more): Brandon Sun Gun-o-phobes: Rat out your gun-owning neighbor today! Gun owners: Join the Olympic shooting team, or else... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #142 January 4, 2006 QuoteGun owners: Join the Olympic shooting team, or else... Seems like a great opportunity for Olympic team fundraising. For each person to contribute $5 to the Canadian Olympic shooting team, they will be made and Official Honorary Member of the Team. Canadian Olympic Shooting Team - All 4 Million of them. (Scary, this could happen here if we aren't watching - some pigs are just more equal than others) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #143 January 4, 2006 I exercised my democratic right today by voting in an advanced poll for our up and coming election here in Canad'ia and rest assured my vote did NOT go towards Paul Martin and his corrupt Liberal party cronies. Of course I'm only one person and time will tell as to whether Canadians (or should I say Ontario'ians) are willing to accept the same old same old status quo from this Liberal government. Of course I fear any sort of minority government something we're likely going to get regardless of whether it's the Libs or the Cons gaining power three weeks from now. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #144 January 5, 2006 QuoteThey're only gun owners - they don't deserve no steenkin' rights! Actually the legal gun owners have nothing to fear from this. But it does make it more difficult for those caught with an illegal firearm to get bail. I don't see anything wrong with that.... (before you start flaming and spewing, I will direct you to an earlier post in which I said I do not agree with this gun ban) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #145 January 5, 2006 QuoteGo, Canada! FUCK people's rights! We have a GOVERNMENT to serve, here! Coming from an American under the current administration...that is a very funny statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #146 January 6, 2006 Why? Did you infer that I agree with everything this administration does? I think MY rights are safer under THIS one than under the PREVIOUS one... I actually DID see my right to do, and own, various things that I want restricted pretty noticeably under Clinton. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #147 January 6, 2006 QuoteI think MY rights are safer under THIS one than under the PREVIOUS one... ahhh, you only think about yourself. That makes things alot clearer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #148 January 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteI think MY rights are safer under THIS one than under the PREVIOUS one... ahhh, you only think about yourself. That makes things alot clearer. Yeah, that's right, you don't exist to look out for yourself. It would be ignorant of you to think that when I said I had lost rights under Clinton that I did not also recognize -- and have concern for -- the same rights lost by millions of others alongside me, or that I care nothing about anyone else's rights in any other subject area. A statement that I think my rights are safer under Bush than under Clinton is proof to you that I think only about myself? (Note: correction of the location of the word "only" from where it was in your original sentence.) If that's proof, to you, then forget this conversation ever took place. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #149 January 9, 2006 I think there is a much more blatant disregard for rights under Bush than under Clinton....just go to Cuba..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
