https://www.csaaa.org/blair-bans-12-gauge-10-gauge-shotguns-and-hunting-rifles/

IMO, all about buying city votes.
The west has almost zero Lieberal members in the Commons.
It will be interesting how this shakes out.
I think a lot of people were sure they would not be affected, so "I dont care" --- now OOPS!!
Like 1938 in Canada........

Love Canada, but if it ever leaves the commonwealth I'd suggest a second amendment and a CNRA. Revolting developments just keep jinxing my plans for a duck trip to Saskatchewan this Fall...Geo

Apparently, regarding 20mm or larger bores, it has "been clarified" that it does not pertain to shotguns.
But regarding the rest of the ban, what a crock of s_ _ _ t. And apparently there was a poll taken in major cities where 62% of the people felt the ban does not go far enough citing that there should be a ban on all guns. We are in deep trouble when the majority of citizens have been brain washed by false, inaccurate and politically motivated information. But this is what happens when, over the years, more and more people got out of hunting or shooting and never introduced their children to the true facts. As far as I'm concerned, firearms and hunter safety should be taught in schools. But that will never happen.

IIRC teaching firearms safety and use in schools is part of the Sask Wexit Party platform. The solution is for the West to leave.

Trouble is that a lot of city dwellers who are non-hunters just see firearms as they are portrayed on the gogglebox and not the real world. Tough times ahead. Lagopus…..

I think there are times when an actual vote is not what the antis want. They may say there are polls that support this or that, but their handful always know better than regular folks. I’m sure there’s coordination, but the interesting thing is the power given to an unelected appointee. It’s similar in the US, blow smoke up the voters skirts, but run to a single appointed judge.

Didn't the last such ban sort of die on the vine, with the opera and its players costing "The Crown" about $C400 million? Folks up where we hunt paid little or no attention to it.

A little different scenario last time. The only real rollback we have had with our gun laws was the elimination of what was called the Long Gun Registry (all shotguns and rifles by owner with address and serial numbers). Our success there was most likely due to the government originally claiming it would cost $3 million Cdn per year and it actually cost $2 billion Cdn over 15 years. Non gun owners figured out what a colossal waste of money it was and so supported it's demise.

There is some interesting information coming to light about the validity of the polls and the pollster used by the government to justify this latest measure. Significant anecdotal evidence is surfacing that if you are pro gun, you will be removed from this pollster's pool of people they use to conduct the various polls they do.

Accurate or slanted, the polls line up with my notion when I joined the board: the shooting sports will be unrecognizable in my lifetime, before I die. I'm closing in on 89. There'll be lots of loopholes and false starts, grandfathering, buybacks or not, the antis now have what they wanted all along: a strengthened regulatory regimen to bolt-action rifles, pumps, SA and SxS shotguns. If we're lucky.

King, you underestimate the voraciousness of the anti's appetite. They want no firearms in the hands of anyone but government agents. Every regulation is but a way station to that destination.

The behavior of our current government suggests a mind set that would just as soon dispense with the niceties of democracy.

The thing that has scared me the most about the Covid19 pandemic is how enthusiastically my fellow citizens embrace fascist totalitarianism.

I’m sure your brothers in the shooting sports appreciate your efforts.

Best,
Ted

_____________________________________________
You really should start thinking about what kind of world you are leaving
for Keith Richards.

This is a serious question. I'm trying to understand under what law the Virginia governor by decree can shut down businesses across the state. No one, not lawyers, constitutionalists, can cite where in the Virginia constitution he gets that right, not even having to have it passed in the legislature.

Similarly, I don't understand how in the Canadian Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister can come out and announce willy nilly a major infringement on the people's liberty without even having to put it to a debate and vote in the parliament. In France under the 5th Republic, basically the people elected a "king" for 5 years, which explains how Macron gets away with such centralized high-handedness. The French were so traumatized by the 4th Republic that they created this system. But Canada is a true Parliamentary democracy.

Can one of the Canadians explain under what section of Canadian laws that the Prime Minister devolves unto himself such awesome powers? This is a civics question, not an attempt to stir up rants. I'm truly curious. And am just as curious how this happened in New Zealand as well.

The off topic pissing contests that you have expressed displeasure with, nearly always involve democrats infringing on rights. If it doesn’t have to do with rights, then it’ll involve emotion, selective law enforcement, regulation, legislating from the bench, but I think you already knew that?

I wouldn’t over worry about Canadian liberties, when they don’t have the right in the first place. Some political appointee named Blair is technically the one that has the power. Either that, or some nonsense or another about the will of the Canadian people.

Gene, it's a complicated question you ask but I'll try to answer it in a simple way.

We have a parliamentary democracy, in theory. 100 years ago we broke with British tradition, in order to be more "democratic" (be careful what you wish for) and began to have the broad party membership elect the party leader, rather than the leader being selected by the Members of Parliament, from among those same Members of Parliament.

In the British system, the moment the Prime Minister gets too big for his britches, or puts the party at risk of losing the next election (and all those MP's lose their jobs), the party can depose the Prime Minister and elect a new one. It is an ad hoc, developed over centuries, check on the power of the PM. Remember Margaret Thatcher? As soon as she overstayed her welcome, she was gone. As was her successor John Major when he hung around too long and put electoral success at risk.

In Canada, because the leader (and therefore the PM if the party won the election) is selected occasionally by a mass vote among paid up party members, a number of things can go wrong.

First, the leader can be part of a movement that highjacks the party, simply by buying memberships that give the right to cast a vote. No vetting as who those memberships are sold to or if they are even real people.

Second, the leader signs the nomination papers of every candidate that intends to stand for election. No signature, no job. So unquestioned loyalty becomes the order of the day, if you want to keep or get your job as an MP.

Third, with a now compliant group of MPs, who will vote like trained seals, the office of the Prime Minister (like your West Wing) becomes the real power. They instruct the MP's on what to say and when to say it. As Justin Trudeau's father said in the 1970's about his MP's "100 feet from Parliament, they are nobodies". And it's true. When the PMO sends a directive about jumping, they all ask "How High"?

When we elect a government with a majority in Parliament, we have elected a 4 year dictatorship. By abandoning the system of MP's electing the leader, there is no way to stop centralization of power in the PMO.

The real power in Canada today lies with a fellow named Gerald Butts. A close college friend of Justin who is his chief of staff and head of the PMO. Trudeau is dumb but telegenic and with a popular last name in some parts of the country. Butts is anything but dumb. They made a deal. Butts said "you be the figure head, I'll be the brains and we'll run the country". Butts is a radical socialist on the Green Agenda. He destroyed the Ontario economy in the 2000's as chief of staff to the Ontario premier at that time, then moved down the highway to Ottawa to screw the whole country.

Trudeau passed a bill last year, C71, that layed the groundwork for this ban. The bill created the law but did nothing in this area. This decree last week was simply a REGULATORY change to that law.

Craig, Bill Blair is not an appointee, he is an elected Member of Parliamnet and holds a senior cabinet position. But he is a talking puppet saying and doing exactly what the PM and Trudeau's chief of staff tell him to say. If he steps out of line, he is gone.

Oh yeah, and he's an ex Toronto police chief who, while chief, didn't think anyone should be able to own a gun.

Thanks cback, I knew he was elected to your parliament, but I was under the mistaken impression that j appointed him to the cabinet position. In any event, what wasn’t necessarily a political opportunity, certainly was taken. Best of luck up there, what’s next.

Craig...just to clarify things, I almost never ever comment on politics. I'm interested in the professionalism and knowledge of this board on double guns...I can get my politics at the local Irish pub - when it's open again....actually in Arlington, Virginia a pretty good source since it's hang-out for DC lawyers.

But my question was a serious one that I'm have a problem with - what are the limits of executive authority - I've yet to have it answered coherently as far a Virginia goes.

And there's a bit of personal interest. My son is leaving for Alaska in June in his pick-up truck for a 6 month sojourn in the wilds...part of his doctoral dissertation. A lot of time will be spent in a sea Kayak and in Brown Bear country. I gave him a Remington 870 Marine Magnum pump, nickel-plated, synthetic stock, to withstand the salt and had him shoot a couple of hundred slug-rounds through it. I don't trust bear-spray in a mid-latitude rain-forest. But can he now carry that shotgun in the truck driving to Alaska through Canada?

And thanks CB...that explains it a bit. So a law was passed....but it is open ended and can be amended by the PMO by fiat whenever he wishes? That's impressive. Could he say, ban certain shoes because they damage toes (and come out with a list of sandal makers)? Just hypothetical but the whole situation for us is sort of incomprehensible.

Ted, you may have missed my report here of our last year's gun club annual meeting. Members would not take a position on looming gun control. I met with a half-dozen members of another club at the county range recently, one with an assault-style rifle. Similar response. The local gun shop owner put up his hand when I mentioned it, "I don't want to talk about it." Entreaties to a national organization provided unimaginative boilerplate, voice and print.

A majority favours gun control in rural Nova Scotia and those who don't have been worn down and dispirited by unfairness of the urban-rural divide. Urban has the votes. Our provincial government recently closed its biggest kraft mill arbitrarily after a poll showed 60 per cent of the populace didn't want it. No discussion with thousands of stakeholders, not even the owners or legislators.

My shooting-sports brothers, many close friends for more than 50 years who opposed successfully the long-gun registry, appreciate my efforts. Only now they see them mostly as beating a dead horse.

I can see from here you are involved with the wrong gun club.

Or, country.

Best,
Ted

__________________________________________________
Hard to hold onto rights you really don’t have to begin with.

What a load of horse shit King! Your life's efforts consisted of unbridled support for Liberal Left anti-gun politicians in Canada and here.

You spent years here greasing the skids for the most anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats on the planet, and being nothing but critical of the Conservatives who worked to maintain our gun rights. Make us all laugh, and tell us you did not help Justin Trudeau by giving him your vote and your endorsement.

You were, and continue to be a Wolf in Sheep's clothing, and a Trojan Horse posing as a gun guy. It appears as though you plan to continue being dishonest about your own words and anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric... which will be your enduring legacy here.

You deserve it... you worked hard for that distinction. Congrats!

King, you may be at the right gun club. Have you ever considered turning down one of the fancy board lunches with the handful of good old boys, and chit chatted with the regular folks shooting the ARs?

Donuts and moose meat?


...get Boat Harbour sea urchins.


__________________________
Wexit, Kweebexit...place is coming apart at the seams.
If only NS would crack off and float away.
(Sorry) < ((the remnants of Canadian in me))

craig, I'm an old-fashioned rifleman, competitive shooter nationally at 15, and like most of my friends abhor the sight of ARs, only to be discussed politely with tongue firmly in cheek. Our gun club has never had a board dinner, too extravagant to our liking, money better spent on shoots and range improvements.

keith, you're a troll. Shame on you. I was asked to represent two counties of shooters in the first all-party meeting hereabouts to remove the gun registry and worked with our Member of Parliament who as justice and defence minister was the strongest cabinet minister to protect gun rights.

Peter MacKay still is, now running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and to be next Prime Minister, pilloried daily in the mainstream media for opposing the ban, only yesterday portrayed by one of Canada's best cartoonists as worshipping at a plinth crowned by an AK-47.

King, those lyrics I cribbed in the Bollocks thread were also. I figured you got it but just want to make sure.


________________________
Just know if I ever get you, c-back or Ted on the ice I’m running each of you.

Okay King. To put it another way, if three or four of you left your old-fashioned rifles home, and three or four hundred of 'them' left their ARs home. Wouldn't you all be Canadians?

I guess not really, eh? There's the three or four elite philosophers who would think and decide for the lower class followers. It seems to me like we're perpetuating a prejudice against coequal citizens through the opportunity of an inanimate object and agressive marketing?

"Significant anecdotal evidence is surfacing that if you are pro gun, you will be removed from this pollster's pool of people they use to conduct the various polls they do."

Surprise, surprise!

Yes, and I'm chauvinistic on that point, craig. We would all be Canadians. Covid is being managed similarly. Depending on circumstances, our provincial and federal political leaders discuss regularly whether to ease and tighten lockdowns through consensus. Public safety comes before politics.

Your point of philosophers has merit, not so much as an elite power group---the essence of all politics, competing even within same parties---as part of our culture and national character. Canada developed without slavery and free labour, a Wild West or devastating civil war of consequences felt today.

On your point of inanimate objects and marketing, is Canada's decision to arbitrarily rid itself of ARs different from the United States imposing after 9/11 draconian limits to liberty and privacy of the Patriot Act and electronic surveillance of its entire citizenry as any country in the world?

It seems clear to me that in the US, public safety does not come before politics. Liberal State guvs have used the tragedy to try to ruin the economy in order to dump President Trump. All they've shown me is what progressive domination will be like when it comes.

I think the shutdown which resulted in what's likely to become another long term recession was unnecessary and the disease should have been allowed to burn itself out. It seems to me that's what we've come around to anyhow...Geo

James, we're both in the wage economy, the work force, know the balancing of economy and safety in uncharted waters is a guessing game. It's challenging enough for me to manage cleaning self and truck properly after trip to town for grocery curbside pickup.. Agree on dispensing easily with niceties of democracy but that's what we do, rightly or wrongly, in life-and-death situations. I'm pleased our public health authorities are listened to, and that I only have to follow a few simple rules, and our political leaders are working together, and there are no questions of executive authority. Our parliamentary system, warts and all, is trustworthy, has confidence of all Canadians.

You have to feel for the poor CIA schlub monitoring this site.
Has to be the Patriot Act equivalent of getting your arse beat and tossed in a ditch in Cuba.


_________________________
Get anything good at the store?
I’m on a Payday kick. Darn fine candy bar.

I believe an arbitrary Canadian decision is very different in that it might help show Argo that there can not be reasonable distancing from politics?

We’ve ‘discussed’ Canada being at least 3/4 rural with not the friendliest climate, fostering a tough yet inclusive and understanding culture. In a few short years, how did it become so chauvinistic and arbitrary? While some clearly cling to romanticizing a long past era, the truth is the culture of Canada is progressing in a disappointing direction and at an amazing pace. Could it be because the enablers are justifying hypocrisy with equivocation and emotion based reasoning?

Happy upcoming birthday, I’m glad you can enjoy it free of the Russian roulette that your comrades of a similar age in NY have to endure under a progressive gov.

So, King, let’s get this straight. You are OK with banning AR style firearms for Canadiens based on what fact? You don’t like how they look? The high prevalence of their use in Canadien crimes? Let us be honest with the facts for a moment-how many assault weapons have been used in Canadien crimes? (The correct answer is zero, nada, none, zip.) What could possibly be the rationale for banning them in a country where every, single, gun owner is computer background checked EVERY SINGLE DAY (no such system in place for actual convicted Canadien criminals, which, makes me feel a little better about the Patriot Act, but, I digress),
What is it, exactly, King? I’ve always ‘sorta felt the differences between an AR and, say, a Ruger 10-22 don’t really manifest themselves until about the 40 yard mark, one was about like the other prior to that. You are OK with one, and not the other?
Why are you OK with legislation to criminalize legal gun owners across the entire width of Canada, over about 200 deaths a year, that often occur with smuggled or otherwise illegally owned, non AR platform weapons? How many people do drunks kill every year with cars in Canada, or, doctors, due to negligence?
This is not a a question where I expect to sit and read a leftist societal hairball that you spit up for general consumption by us toothless, confederate flag waving AR slinging yanks. I want to know why you have an axe to grind about what makes an AR platform so dangerous, so vilified, and so worthy of being outlawed in a society where it is almost of no impact at all.

Best,
Ted

____________________________________________
This ‘outa be cute. I like that spelling of those people who live up there as much as King hates people owning ARs.
Tip of the hat to a friend of mine that I haven’t met.

Ted you troll, sorry King, beat you to it. On to the questions, hypocrisy, or?

Maybe the glaze comes off his eyes when the conversation turns to motorcycles?

Or, God help him, hockey?

Best,
Ted

______________________________________________
He and I have something in common-the belief that a Super Cub
is not a motorcycle.

This comment gave me my laugh for the day.

The shame of it is that rocky mtn bill would be much too dumb to understand it.

I reread Canvasback's excellent short exposition on the origin of an almost totalitarian power currently welded by the PMO in Canada.

James Madison called this the "Tyranny of the Majority" - it's worth taking a look at this concept again and to ponder the checks and balances in the American Constitutional system essentially designed by Madison which are meant to keep this from happening. Alexis de Tocqueville commented on this phenomenon:

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville is universally regarded as one of the most influential books ever written about America. While historians have viewed Democracy as a rich source about the age of Andrew Jackson, Tocqueville was more of a political thinker than a historian. In the introduction to Democracy, he states: “In America, I saw more than America… I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions.” His subject is nothing less than what is to be hoped for, and what to be feared from, the democratic revolution sweeping the Western world in his time.

The greatest danger Tocqueville saw was that public opinion would become an all-powerful force, and that the majority could tyrannize unpopular minorities and marginal individuals. In Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7, “Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects,” he lays out his argument with a variety of well-chosen constitutional, historical, and sociological examples.

The first lesson introduces students to Tocqueville’s thesis about the omnipotence, i.e., the all power character of majority opinion in a democracy and his way of developing an argument through well-chosen historical examples. In the second lesson students consider the argument that unchecked political power will lead to tyranny. In the third lesson, students confront and evaluate Tocqueville’s most shocking claim—that there is less freedom of discussion and independence of mind in America than in Europe with negative consequences for American character and culture. Throughout, students are challenged to draw analogies between Tocqueville’s statements and their own experience and knowledge.

King, this is precisely why I have frequently observed that you are the single most dishonest person to ever post on this forum.

For all the times your fellow countryman canvasback had mentioned the multi-year battle by Canadian gun owners to repeal the Long Gun Registry, you never once mentioned any participation in that effort. Fact is, I frequently asked you what you were doing... aside from supporting the Liberal Left anti-gun politicians who imposed it.

You never replied, and we all know that being the pompous bloviating braggart you are, we would never hear the end of it if you had been involved in any small way.

Later, when you invented this fictitious account of being an emmisary for your gun club, I repeatedly asked you for the name of the president or leader of this gun club, so I could contact him and ask him if it was true. I asked only because I knew how much you have lied to us about such things as your fictitious relationship with John F. Kennedy and his brothers Ted and Bobby, Martin Luther King Jr., Jackie Kennedy, your lies about your "Award Winning Wine" which was actually made by Jost Winery, and all of the other horse shit you dropped here.

Of course, who could forget you calling me a liar for reminding you about your illegal transport of a handgun across the U.S. and Canadian border... even after I posted a direct QUOTE, along with the date and post number where you admitted doing so.

My opinion is based upon your own words which I have QUOTED here ad nauseam. Only someone who is a mentally ill fool would repeatedly attempt to deny their own words when they are in black and white for all to see. You can try to rewrite history... But you will never be able to make the words you posted here go away. Your anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric...your disdain for our NRA... And your support for anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats... will be your legacy here.

I can't wait to see your reply to the questions Ted posed concerning why you so vehemently oppose AR-15 platform rifle ownership by law abiding citizens. We get that you don't like the Patriot act. So then, do two wrongs make a right?

Still trolling, keith. I've no time for trolls, least of all with those who exhibit daily they know little of their country and been nowhere. You bring to mind MLK's words, "I'd never let a man take me so low that I'll hate him." Your "magic negro." Or writing here you looked forward to my death. Shame on you.

The Organ Grinder has no capability for shame. He is a simple bully. No one matters to him because he stands for nothing beyond his sad narrow horizon. Empathy is a concept light years past his awareness. No one here with an ounce of humanity should pay him the slightest attention.

Who can fault Tocqueville? US majorities were all for neutrality with fascists until they were torpedoed in the Irish Sea in WW1 and bombed into WW2 at Pearl Harbour. Americans said no war for us.

FDR's subterfuge and political skills brought the US around to not letting Great Britain and British Commonwealth fight fascism alone. Without US support all we treasure would have been lost to fascism.

Canada conducted "wet operations" against German spies on the streets of New York where stiff-armed with swastikas bunds paraded proudly, as part of those majorities who wanted to stay out of the war.

There's one for "Tyranny of the Majority."

King, I feel your pain, all righty, I got the empathy bit out of the way. What is the trigger or distinguisher between deciding if one should attack personally or demonize the inanimate object? I guess what I’m asking is how would one quantify the effectiveness of advancing the agenda? What’s the value of repetition on the perception of truth? What is the maximum IQ of the target group when creating a perception?

Just kidding King. There’s another okay quote you could pm Bill about, ‘don’t shoot the messenger’? If you imagine we’re all Canadian, could that be progress?

Ted, humans are complicated, all of us. Here's my personal take, using example of my life in public affairs. I'm from a long line of activists, grandfather early assistant to founder Salvation Army and later director of Gipsy Smith, leading evangelist of his times, grandmother a vote-demanding suffragette, my father a communist in early 20s during Depression when anyone not thinking of a better way wasn't thinking at all.

I was National Councillor of the American Newspaper Guild, in early days of setting up separate and independent branch in Canada, and later the national CWSG, led the English section of the producers' strike which successfully wrested control of Radio Canada, French sector of Canada's public broadcaster, from the autocratic premier Duplessis. All concerned with social welfare of workers. Currently president of a provincial woodlot owners organization.

My interest is social justice in the workplace, healthier and happier communities through cooperation, peerless consultation at the heart of it. The results are satisfactory. Now, the complication, a seeming contradiction. I've participated with gun owners to get rid of the gun registry and protect gun rights. I regard ARs as affectations---"a studied display of artificiality of manner"---and an egregious part of our flagrant consumerism.

That's just me. If gun owners want to keep them, they'll struggle as I did for what I considered the public interest. I will be no part of theirs. Brotherhood has never demanded lock-step; it accommodates wisdom and ignorance in different ways. Consider also that my principal interests are advancing needs of minority groups and AR owners may be one of them. I'm picking my battles while agreeing with you on your mentioned contradictions.

Like a loyal and conscientious Republican or Democrat saying no, enough is enough, eh?

I think you give too much credit to power-group strategy, at government or commoner levels. The powerful won't give up its advantages. There won't be civil war. The influential got us to drink the Kool-Aid. In that respect, there's no difference between Americans and Canadians. Both sides recognize contradictions in their positions. Doesn't matter.

But like Stalin said to Churchill at Yalta, "How many divisions has the pope?" The majority in Canada has time on its side. It will muddle through. It has the votes---Trudeau was elected on a ban---and in true democratic fashion the test of public opinion will be answered again at the next federal election. There's already talk of a snap election this year.

Well and fine, but when we cast a ballot, don’t we get the whole package?

When advancing an agenda, is it advantageous to create the perception that piecemeal hopes should be enough to fall in line, lock-step so to speak, with the whole package? Do you think that’s why hypocrisy is tolerated, ignored, or encouraged? Perhaps a combination of all three?

Somewhere in the bowels of the CIA building an agent is thinking to himself...

...I knew I should have taken that assistant manager job at McDonald’s in Hoboken...standing on his workstation desk, eyes glazing over as he stares at the noose in front of him, remembering the words of his recruiter ...fantasizing of Morocco and maids and fancy embassy parties...willing to settle for...

__________________________
...hockey and motorcycles. We have failed you, secret agent man.

At least he ain’t in Detroit.

Facing Windsor.

Best,
Ted

___________________________________________
Recruiter told him Tim Bits and coffee would dull the pain.

King, this isn’t that complicated. You are making an issue where none exist. You are applying a view test to a class of firearms, trying to find an excuse to ban where none exist.

I don’t own an AR. But, I have enough sense to realize there is no real difference between that type of gun and the Remington 241 my Father bought in 1947, that my son now owns, and we both enjoy. If we are unlawful, we deserve neither, but, the other side of that coin is if we are lawful, what difference does it make which one we keep and use?

Best,
Ted

Yeah Lonesome, King does have the knack for dodging and weaving better than any 89 year old on earth.

His response to my last post, and Ted's question about AR-15 rifles was almost exactly what I expected... a lot of lies, a lot of fluff, and a lot of crap from his inflated self-image.

But anyone who has paid attention to this pathetic clown over the years can easily see how dishonest he is about his support for anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats in the U.S. and anti-gun Liberal Canadian politicians,

Justin Trudeau and other anti-gunners get their mandate and the power to pass anti-gun laws from King and other Libtards just like him and rocky mtn bill.

Here's a little sample of what King is once again attempting to deny:

IS KING BROWN AN ANTI-GUNNER ?

King can pretend to be pro-gun, but his own words and his long history of lies betrays betrays him, and will be his legacy.

The good news is that he won't hate me for once again providing proof of his support for anti-2nd Amendment politicians, and disdain and denial of our Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And rocky mtn bill can't stop thinking about organs. Must have something to do with his thing for transgenders.

I was just going to tell Ted his argument would pack more punch if he added a couple of paragraphs on how great he is. Throw in some fancy words too, Ted.

In Detroit riding a Super Cub.
Facing Windsor dreaming of hockey. Poor guy was about to jump.


_________________________
Forgot the carton of Chesterfields.

A guy could do a lot worse then Detroit, a Super Cub, and Chesterfields.

Best,
Ted

___________________________________________
Just don’t ask me how.

A few pictures of Ted playing football with JFK, Ted, and Bobby, having lunch with Jackie Kennedy, or wrestling with Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't hurt either... followed up by a nice bottle of his own award winning wine...

But King would probably try to top that by repeating that he pried his frightened dog's mouth open, and hawkered a couple big green loogies down his throat. It sounds as if he may have done that to train rocky mtn bill to drool like a Libtard Pavlov's dog.

Ted, Craig: The inanimate object is all the same to you but not to the maniac choosing how to kill as many innocents as possible. The Organ Grinder has never said how much he's damaged by not being able to own and operate a bazooka. Let's take up a collection and send him some pansies.

The guy at the CIA could tell you. They get Dunkin’ and it’s a non-smoking building.

The CIA recruited former 2600’s after they left the service. Not that we were anything special, mostly because we had a clearance. Had a buddy join. Lasted about 2 months. Told me he thought the Marine Corps sucked but this was another level.


__________________________
Embrace the suck, CIA guy.
https://youtu.be/8BN4gKJsP54

This organ obsessed idiot rocky mtn bill has never explained how a mentally ill killer choosing a semi-automatic rifle is any different than the killers who choose other inanimate objects to use as weapons. Many times, I have provided dozens of examples... The terrorist who killed 86 innocents with a large truck in Nice, France... The arsonist who killed nearly 90 people in the Happyland Dance Club fire in New York City... Andrew Kehoe, who used bombs to kill the most people in any school massacre in history... the scarcely reported arson fire in Japan about a year ago... the Liberal Democrat Charles Whitman, who used a bolt action Model 700 Remington to do his mass killing at the University of Texas....

The list goes on and on. But Billy and King and their anti-gun Liberal friends remain focused on helping Democrats to engage in the incremental taking of our gun rights. If they succeed in taking away our rights to own semi-automatics, then handguns will be their next target. This is not paranoia or conjecture, because they already openly tell us that handguns have no legitimate purpose.

Just who is this idiot rocky mtn bill, to tell law abiding U.S. citizens to give up their Constitutional rights? And why aren't Democrats one bit concerned about millions of unborn children being murdered?

King, not to engage in a tit for tat because that's not interesting. But your characterization of the USA in WWII as quasi-fascist is not right and is also irrelevant and a sort of "look over here" subject-changer. The US was isolationist, not fascist. The fascists were here as they were everywhere - it was a world-wide socialist movement - but almost negligible in Ameria. However, the fellow-traveller Stalinists were there too...much more wide-spread...and unlike the fascists, they're still infecting Western thought.

What I am interested in is how to protect the rights of a minority as Madison contemplated. It appears from this distance that the central government in Ottawa, based on an urban majority, has decided that people living in the Hudson Bay region have to knuckle under to the central government regulations which have nothing to do with the environment they live in. Did they want this? Did they vote for this? Were their views even represented or considered?

What is going to happen in this divide between the urban politically-correct "we-will-tell-you-what-you-can-and-can't-do-you-plebean-swine" crowd and the rural "we-have-to-live" is going to be a sharp division. It's happening in America where urban Oregon in 4 counties dominates and controls the rules for the entire state. We just had a governor in Virginia lock down the entire state when a dozen counties never had one case of the virus (and over 90 counties signed a revolt agains the Virginia legislature gun control initiatives and several counties began a petition to join the state of West Virginia).

So the argument again devolves to Madison's initial brilliant insight - how do you protect the citizen from a predatory majority? Fortunately He authored the Constitution. Canada missed out. If that's your choice - a PM like Trudeau can come into your kitchen and tell you what to cook...fine...because it looks like some really nice 140 year old SxS black-powder rifles will be coming south soon for cut-rate prices.

No Bill, they're not all the same. That's like saying you collect Shellhammer synthetic stocked Howas.

If a maniac is able to choose, are they still a maniac? Seems to me like you already know that no matter how much infringing and confiscating that you do, it won't matter to the criminal and their choices, eh? You've seen the riff raff that line up at the MT 'dispensaries', huh Bill? Here's a thought, you vote party line this fall for recreational pot to make sure the kids of MT get an early start with your perpetually under funded mental health services.

Imagine putting the future of public land in the hands of pot heads. Just kidding Bill, they'll have moved on to meth by then, eh?

One thing has been left out of the discussion of our latest gun ban. In the same speech announcing that no one needed these kinds of weapons (AR15) to hunt deer, Trudeau said that our aboriginal population will be exempt from the ban because they need these weapons for hunting. Not exaggerating or spinning. Actually what he said in the same speech.

Like the definition of an AR or its purpose, I think ARGO might make sure King's definition of protect, and rights, and minority are the same as his. But, I think the catch is meanings will forever progress and rarely be clarified.

I like all the points of discussion and craig's last about clarification seems justified. Tocqueville, Madison and the others weren't activists. They knew not to upset privileged positions. They knew all about amendments---14th and 15th with far more clarity than the 2nd, which has allowed lower jurisdictions to challenge it successfully should they decide to. Trudeau is musing turning federal gun reform from exclusively federal to municipalities.

What surprises me is not hearing much of minorities overturning majorities. I reported here last year that I couldn't find a pulse in shooting organizations about looming gun control, from gun clubs, gun shops, even from my die-hard conservative friends with whom I hunt regularly. In a democratic system, everything should be possible.

Here's an example. Some politically powerful recreationally groups democratically took over our province's Land Resources Coordinating Committee. Legislation permitting access of motor vehicles to all private lands without the owners' permission was at the Queen's Printer. City folk who liked to return home on weekends with mud-splattered vehicles were in heaven. They had more rights than those who paid taxes on their lands. And more votes.

Landowners didn't have to organize for this one. Or petition. Or write letters to legislators who allowed it to happen. It took only a half-dozen phone calls to the right people; first to the Girl Guides and Boy Scouts. "Do you want unannounced leather-jacket crowds at your summer camps?" Then to head of the provincial campgrounds association with similar message, then to the forest community: "Are we letting them run wild in ATVs over our managed lands?"

It took one week at no cost to turn an aroused rural minority into a majority. Government caved; it couldn't stand the heat from urban and rural concerned with social justice. Should the AR lobby want to keep their guns, they need to want them more than those who oppose them. I've seen no sign of it. I'm not getting my knickers in a knot over it.

The bumper crop of pure horse shit in King's last post reminds me of how an ancient old Apple tree will sometimes produce one last large crop at the end of it's life.

Look at his moronic and dishonest statement comparing the 14th and 15th Amendments to the 2nd Amendment concerning "clarity".

This is a common ploy used by anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats, who say that the original intent of the Framers was unclear when they wrote the perfectly clear and simple words that protect and guarantee that THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They also explicitly defined the Militia, and the intent was equally clear that this right to bear arms for self and common defense had nothing to do with what firearms may be deemed appropriate to hunt deer or ducks.

King pretends that the 2nd Amendment permits or allows lower courts to infringe upon our gun rights, and to subvert the freedom of law abiding citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth, and King obviously continues his denial of two landmark U. S. Supreme Court decisions that overturned many of those unconstitutional infringements.

The Heller decision was made by a 5 to 4 margin in 2008. The McDonald decision was made by a 5 to 4 margin in 2010. Both cases are settled law, and in both cases, the 4 justices who voted to deny our Individual 2nd Amendment Rights were nominated by Liberal Left Democrats. It matters a great deal who gets a seat on the Supreme Court. A vote for a Democrat Presidential candidate is a vote to erode or eliminate our gun rights.

Most importantly, King intentionally neglects to tell us that virtually all of those lower court infringements, and nearly all of the unconstitutional anti-gun legislation has come directly from the Liberal Left Democrats and anti-2nd Amendment politicians that he and rocky mtn bill support.

King also acts as if there is little or no opposition to the recent Canadian anti-gun laws. But a quick Google search is all it takes to show that is simply another of King's many lies. This is a fraud and Troll who lies as easily and often as most men breathe.

It is high time that legitimate gun owners and shooters understand that not everyone who owns a gun, or speaks enough bullshit, is our friend. Guys like King and rocky mtn bill are the enemy who help to ensure that your children and grandchildren will not have a 2nd Amendment Right. And it's a real shame that there are not more guys here with the guts to stand up and put them in their place.

If you have a maniac with a gun, that is the problem, bill, not the gun. When you assume everyone is a maniac, that is called projection, a fairly serious mental issue, actually, but, a good therapist can help you get over it.

Best,
Ted

Probably right when your buddy got to the part where you sign your remaining soul over to Satan in order to complete the spook training. Yea, this sucks, I quit.

It takes special people to be spooks.

Best,
Ted

_________________________________________________

Or, Terminators. 30 years and you get the watch, a cake, and shown the door.

I dunno Ted, Bill is old school. He'd probably ask his friends for a referral to their 'therapist'. Firstbreak through is focus on the pansies and implant some latent feelings. Within a couple of weeks, he'll be wearing a big tropical sun hat, gussied up like the toppings on a bespoke mai tai. Next breakthrough, he'll start up here about how the world shrink organization is anti AR.

I specifically asked that you not wretch a hairball for us to consume.

Fat chance. The use of terms like activism and social justice in your reply clearly demonstrate the notion that you are trying to justify your contempt for those that have differing viewpoints then your own. I would expect you would be able, at this point in life, to simply man up and spit out an opinion that was your own, and based on some sort of facts, related to the discussion.

My expectation would be wrong, however.

Best,
Ted

____________________________________________
The drilled and welded Francotte side lock tells it all, King.

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=571593#Post571593

Is the individual right to defend self and loved ones not germane to this thread? Can such a natural right be unduly restricted by regulations?

Yes, as far as I can tell that particular right is the crux of the entire gun control issue...Geo

Sometimes we assume too much:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20985-self-defense-in-the-uk-is-illegal

Throughout history, it appears any notion of rights that one might have in England, the UK and the other places where the crown is held in higher esteem than a citizen would be, depends entirely on your position of birth. Subjects have little in the way of actual rights.

Best,
Ted

What? You think you don't have your own form of royalty that gets special privileges? The only difference in America is the inheritance is money and political status, not blood.

"Hi officer, my name is Ted Kennedy. What seems to be the problem? Chappa what? Hmmm not familiar with that bridge. "

They have to come with their own money, I’m not responsible for keeping them in fish and chips. Also, they occasionally take a header, ie, Harvey Weinstein. There is no “get out of jail free card” like an English Royals “get out of jail free card”.

Best,
Ted

Ted, the Royals do come with their own money. A lot of it. And what they get from the taxpayers is more than covered by the tourism dollars they generate.

Nobody pays to look at Epstein’s front door. Lol

If your OK with the whole “Royal” thing, then I’m OK with it, James.

For you.

Best,
Ted

Americans, in a way, seem as hooked on royal celebrity as our enthusiastic monarchists judging from all their gushing at Buckingham Palace and attendance on the royals when they visit their shores.

When the Kennedys arrived they became an instant dynasty as King Arthur's court called Camelot, remember? I don't know if it was an adman's dream or wished upon themselves but they became for a time America's royalty.

Was there anything like it before or since? (I'm not OK with the whole Royal" thing, Ted. I admire the Queen for how admirably she's done her job. We won't see her likes again.)

What's going on, James? You're sounding like a Diefenbaker man of the British connection. You come from a distinguished line of Red Tories. Was it your uncle or grandfather Canada was looking to for leadership when things seemed to be going to hell?

Ted, in truth my point was only that there are nuances to each of our nations’s political culture that may be hard for outsiders to see. While at the same time, sometimes outsiders see what we are blind to.

King, Canada today would be unrecognizable to my uncle, never mind my great grandfather, Sir Rodmond. Trudeau pere and fils have irreparably divided the nation. The west is now slowly realizing they have always been a colony, the Laurentians just won’t admit it. You won’t likely see it but there is no going back. The place is too big, too diverse and too undemocratic to survive. The ruling cartel have made it plain their distaste for the West. Trudeau is too stupid to hide it effectively. I’ll happily work to see the end of Canada as we know it. I consider it a failed nation.

In reading Madison, and Hamilton's "Federalist Papers" I've come to the personal conclusion that the right to bear arms, the right to defend your family, along with the responsibility that goes with it, is one of the most fundamental of rights for a free people who are not beholden to the apparatchiks of a central government or to a King. There are few countries left who trust their citizens (their peons?) with this right and we are fortunate to have had our founding fathers foresight:

The right definitely came out of English common law and the English constitution (which England and its "colonies" appears to have forgotten). This from Wikipedia (cited because it is convenient):

The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defence by Protestant English subjects.

The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defence as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch.[8]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject
to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
.
.
.
The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defence by Protestant English subjects.

The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defence as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch.[8]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
.
.
.
Historically, the right to keep and bear arms, whether considered an individual or a collective or a militia right, did not originate fully formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six-centuries-old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.[26]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[27]

The right is often presented in the United States as being an unenumerated, pre-existing right, such as provided for by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[26] interpreted by some as providing for unenumerated rights, and therefore implicitly a right to keep and bear arms:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I feel the West has frittered away one of its peoples rights and also duties of an informed and free citizenry. My opinion won't change the actions of "enlightened" Progressive-Socialists, who are convinced they have the truth AND YOU BETTER OBEY YOU SHIRKING PEASANTS! Like CB said above, it is what it is as sad as it seems, and as King said, unless there is a movement by citizens to protect their freedoms, it is frittered away

And one of the problems of taking rights from peoples...is that at some point they will have had enough and move to take them back.... Gov, Northam of Virginia, famous for blackface, is going to find this out; Ottawa and Trudeau (who loves to dress up in fancy dress - his visit to India was a farce) may find that he has irredeemably divided the nation....(this from a respectful observer and Kibittzer).

keith, all of that is in your hashtag: bad enough to think that way but published as your credo clearly to the world--- Anyone who doesn't agree with me on anything, from abortion to unbridled zealotry, is a disloyal and ignorant.

Have you considered what definition of 'rights' is being taught in our schools and sold as fact to enough hypocritical voters? I notice we haven't traced the origins of the right to free abortions or right to carbon credits for select donors?

deleted

Aside from what cback pointed out about the uniqueness of different locales, couldn't some, clearly not all, of your written ideas be subject to criticism of universally varying enthusiam? More to the point, don't we know the screen name as a person, it's probably possible, who would vote for a northam or a biden? Yet, the poster never discusses the value of having the will to ignore the factual result of the whole agenda of the policy maker, preferring inconsequential diversions?

Thanks for the link. Folks in UK can rest easily now with a fresh can of approved brightly colored dye on hand in case folks break into their homes with rape or robbery on their minds. Small businesses might want to keep a couple extra just in case.

Magna Carta had something to say about rights of kings and the rest of us, Argo. I like to think sovereignty rests with the people. Americans and Canadians differ widely on this from the way our colonies decided to govern themselves. Generally, Canadian public opinion has rested comfortably with registered handguns and unregistered long guns, and handguns in public spaces only by special warrant.

Within the last 20 years, you and I witnessed how emotions of sovereign people expressed through the will of our legislatures (the apparatchiks, you mention) has changed "the most fundamental of rights for a free people." 9/11, the Montreal massacre and the worst mass killing in Canadian history just down the road from me two weeks ago gave the US the Patriot Act and Canada another gun ban.

Turning things around is my day job. I've expressed my opinion about ARs here. I can't find a pulse of the commitment shown by Canadian gun owners from coast to coast to coast that scuttled the long-gun registry. It may be a good thing. We must pick our battles. With sincere respect for your opinion, strategies to protect what gun rights we have won't include old words engraved in gold That day is gone forever, like covid is doing to us now..

Everything is open to criticism. My opinion has no more value than yours. It's when we stop talking reasonably to each other, as in the US for reasons beyond my understanding, is when the trouble starts. I know as fact, when people are given a break and told the truth, they work together. Peerless consultation is key. No side games.

WOW-- all of the things that Lieberals play games with!!

No side games, please.

You have repeated many times about there being no Canadian 'pulse' in support of AR type possession and use. Is this an example of attempting to create a truth if we hear it often enough? Wouldn't it be fair to say that there have been other repetitions, that you aren't overly fond of, that are true by many higher magnitudes?

Possibly a simple search will show that there is widespread and significant efforts on the pro side of the AR issue? No, I don't think you should pick a battle that you don't feel like picking. But, isn't a convenient strategy to legitimize the antis, on the emotions of like minded buddies, so that they are entitled to increments of their agenda, on demand?

Seeing as our cultures haven't the slightest in common, is it offensive of me to wish a Happy Mothers day to those in your family who it might pertain to?

King, as I understand your new law....it goes far beyond AR's, "Black Guns," Kalasnikovs, to include M-1 Garands, Enfield bolt action rifles, Springfields, and a host of bolt-action hunting rifles and cartridges to include some center-break SxS big game guns. The Progressive broom made a very wide sweep...and it went far beyond what you advocate - limiting AR's.

There is a danger in giving ideologues absolute power over your liberty. It's your choice...you've made it....we respect that just as we respected Canadian immigration policies which allowed almost the whole of the Muslim extremists from the Milan mosque charged with supporting the Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia to immigrate to Vancouver - so much that by the late 1990's, Vancouver was called "Milan-West." But I wonder how it's going down in Western and Northern Canada.

Such a sentiment would be welcome any time, craig. Reference to effectiveness of no side games as fact comes from experience in helping to make successful public policy. Once a representative group gets together to find solutions it intuitively recognizes within minutes if anyone is in it for themselves.

Our provincial government, failing to meet its environmental and forestry goals, asked my association, acclaimed world-wide with knowing how to make things happen, to provide solutions. We did within a month, and the Province unprecedently turned over its private lands responsibilities to the association. Nearly 70 per cent of our forests are owned privately, the rest large industrial and Crown.

Responsible organizations don't manufacture "truths" for public approval or consent nor do they need majorities to convince publics that ideas and innovation for better management are more important than political manipulation of public affairs.I sent the following to a publication's letters column on the issue today, cribbing from what I've already said here:

"Good to see my hunting and fishing buddy Roger Porter (and world’s greatest dentist for decades) weighing in on the contradictions of the assault-rifle ban. We’ve never agreed on anything but he’s right as far as he goes.

Bans cannot prevent individual or mass killings by firearms or anything else. This ban will stick because emotion drives politics, as everything else. Assault rifles are an affectation. There’s no pulse in the gun community to fight the ban as it did with the long-gun registry. It will pick its battles to protect what it had before the Montreal massacre.

We may dig in the weeds, use all the old words engraved in gold of rights, liberty and democracy. Within the last 20 years we’ve seen their value after 9/11 and Montreal and Nova Scotia mass killings: the draconian Patriot Act attack on freedoms in the US and ever-tightening gun control in Canada.

The AR ban’s lack of clarity, purpose and contradictions is intended, Standard Operating Procedure for our federation’s famed accommodation of muddling through on complicated rights issues. If the AR lobby wants to keep its guns,
it will have to want them more than those who oppose them.

I see no sign of it among national shooting sports associations, gun clubs, gun shops or among my hunting buddies."

No King, you are being dishonest again. But dishonesty is all you know. We see that again with your continued lie claiming that there is virtually no opposition to the latezt Canadian gun ban. A simple Google search is all we need to see you are lying and lulling again. We debate and disagree on many subjects here. But there is only one that raises my ire to the point that I consider the opposition to be our enemies.

You and rocky mtn bill are indeed disloyal and do no favors to other gun owners. You openly support the incremental destruction of the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens. You propose that law abiding citizens should simply roll over like your poor abused dog when you hawkered down his terrified throat, and give up some of our Constitutional freedom.

You proudly aid and abet the Liberal Left Democrats who hate all guns, and who continually work to take them from honest Americans who have never abused the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

At the same time, Libtards like you and rocky mtn bill abhor the imprisonment and punishment of repeat career criminals and violent repeat offenders. We know taking career criminals off the street works, and we know taking away the rights of law abiding citizens never works. When taking away the rights of honest law abiding citizens does not work, the typical reaction of anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats is to say they didn't go far enough, and they need to ban more guns.

If the Boy Scouts, or a Church, or school knowingly employs a pedophile, then they are complicit. If you support the anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats who campaigh on a promise to steal our freedom and our gun rights, then you are complicit... And you are our enemy. I'm proud and happy to make that point.

There is massive opposition to the latest gun ban by Trudeau. From all three of the significant firearms lobby groups. From various provincial hunting and wildlife federations, from every group of hunters and firearms enthusiasts I am aware of. I don't know a single hunter or shooter who supports it. Not one single person. And I'm in contact with a lot. Any suggestion otherwise is just not true.

Further to the original purpose of the thread. While it may not have been their avowed intent, the OIC signed by the prime minister does indeed make prohibited in Canada all 12 gauge (and larger) shotguns fitted with choke tubes. While there has been some debate about intent and how barrel bores ought to be measured, the law is argued by lawyers in front of judges and they only really care about the exact, precise wording of the law. And the exact, precise wording of the law prohibits those shotguns. Tweets and opinions from Bill Blair, our Minister of public Safety or from the RCMP are utterly meaningless. This situation can only be corrected by changing the wording of the OIC, instituting a new regulation that renders this one null and void or by established legal precedent and I'm sure most of you don't want to fight this one to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Keith is always emotional King. He is always full of insults, with very little logic or thought to explain why he's turned into a nanny ideologue.

But I'd like to note that you started out to do one thing - limit "assault rifles" (a term invented by Adolph Hitler for the Sturmgewehr 44). It was sort of like trying to end "fake-news".. And the results have been horrendous. Sort of like, "you have to get a license to report 'news' now and submit copy for censure."

The results, sir, are not what you intended. But you did bring this on...as an activist. Can you as an activist, now roll back some of this insanity? I don't think so - you've helped unleash the bureaucratic, regulatory, whirlwind. But when the nation splits....the results of ignoring what some feel are their fundamental rights, may come home to roost.

Yes, it's what you say: a wide broom, stronger background checks, transferring some control from federal to municipalities, hand guns next. It's SOP in this country of authoritarianism abiding in representative democracies grappling with complicated civil rights issues. There's no need tell you how it got this way in both our countries.

King, a studied and well-considered response. We are indeed in new territory. We'll have to leave it to our sons & daughters to decide where they want to go.

I provided reasons why I abhor ARs as an affectation and flagrant example of consumerism. If others can influence public opinion to keep them, all power to them as a more successful control group, as it should be.

It's discouraging to me that I found no interest among shooting sports groups when I was ringing their bells that the prime minister said what he would do if elected, and now he's keeping parts of his promises and no one says boo.

An activist's mission is to ring alarms, to dissent in the public interest. Walter Lippman told me in an interview that the public interest is what we would chose if we saw clearly, thought rationally and acted disinterestedly.

I haven't unleashed anything with my efforts to arouse an indifferent shooting fraternity. Silence usually means approval. Indifference has become a noose around our necks. I'd like to think my opinion could provide action.

"... Silence usually means approval..."

True words king.  

I think Argo, if you reread the majority of his comments, objectively he does not provide any science based systematic reasoning or fact supported conclusion. It is apparent that you like King's bedside manner, but what exactly did he say? I think King's style appeals to your emotions, but wouldn't you demand a little substance if it were a doc pitching some experimental treatment for a critically ill loved one. I like King's style, but he frustrates me with circular logic and various non answers, oh well?

There could be a case made that you have started topics with significant thought, research and logic applied. Truthfully, do you believe keith is all emotion and no substance? Maybe, if someone patronizes keith, that's just as insulting and worthy of a like response, I don't know?

The assumption is that a politician was expected to keep a campaign promise. King has spent many years here writting various versions of politicians lie, including using that word. How do we know that we were going to see an AR ban and not blackface parties? Maybe, it's hypocritical to flip flop, and next week it'll be the sqeaky wheel gets the grease and other platitudes about the voice of the minority, right?

Craig...yes..I think Keith is a jerk - he has resorted to personal invective at every twitch on this board and ruined dozens of lines...no matter the importance of the topic. (and Keith knows something about guns...Dommage)

I've been "diplomatic".."mature" in responding to M. King and I have to listen to him - he is a "Progressive" (Spanish Civil War) generation speaking. I've an uncle who was the air-wing commander on the Enterprise during the VN war who was told by his mother, my grandmother, that Hoover tried to starve people during the depression. He now still believes at 90 years old that Republicans killed JKF and RFK. You cannot change their opinion ...only respect it.

But look what at he just sort of said..."yes, I went too far, and it'll take a movement to change it".... Craig...look at what King just sort of inched-forward too. That's not bad. And for King to make that move....is pretty interesting.

So what I thing King said was...."Get off your butt and quit posting here and do something." (Got it?)

See how it works craigd???... personal invective is socially acceptable when Argo44 is dishing it out... But clearly, he can't take it. Nor is he intelligent enough to see the hypocrisy he exhibits above, and on a regular basis, as when he denigrates the residents of the State of Tennessee in order to continue his personal attacks on jOe.

That should also remind us of of Argo44's recent overly emotional assertion that this is an "engineering board". Does anyone here see any semblance of engineering, or even double gun content in his posts here? So then, what is left to say, aside from a little descriptive invective???... Argo44 is clearly a demented and pompous douchebag, blind to his own bipolar, schizophrenic, and hypocritical behavior.

It is cool to see canvasback confirming that King is telling us lies once again... This time concerning his assertion that there is little opposition to the recent Canadian anti-gun laws.

King is pretty much incapable of telling the truth when he is attempting to deflect attention from his blind and unbridled support for anti-gunners. He is a fraud of the highest order, and totally unworthy of respect. The blame lies squarely with those who elect politicians like Trudeau, Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc.