There are only two reasons to own a hand gun, one is to shoot at a target and the other is to shoot at a person. The Liberal Party is committed to banning hand guns in Canada and I will make sure they stick to that commitment. For the target shooters that are serious about owning a hand gun, I will ask for legislation that permits ownership under strict guidelines and keeps the guns under lock and key at the accredited range of their choice. Transporting the gun would require a security service to take it from one approved location to another.
wheresjack
September 14, 2010
Where’s Jack on Gun Control?
[Wrong! Those aren’t the only reasons. And even if it were true what’s the problem? Sometimes some people need to be shot. That is the reason the police carry their guns. I carry a gun with me because I can’t carry a policeman.
The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right. Any person, any political party, or any government opposed to such a basic human right cannot be trusted in a position of power and should be forever banned from positions of public trust if not jailed. We need to put pressure on these admitted violators of human rights in other countries.—Joe]
that guys doesn’t know jack****
Those people are usually protected by ARMED security guards 24/7. They could care less about anyone else having problems with goblins. I’ll pay attention to them when they and the rest of their ilk are forced to live without thatprotection.
The quote is disingenuous, in that a target is by definition what one shoots. Person is a subcategory of target.
The other reasons to shoot a gun are trivial: to make noise, to test ammo, to expend ammo, to heat the barrel, to obtain a bullet for ballistic fingerprinting, to obtain a casing (in Maryland) for the database.
Don’t go over there, the guy is a prototypical Moonbat Leftist, with everything that entails.
He doesn’t deserve the traffic.
sorry, was someone saying something? …
i did however laugh out loud at your comment … “Sometimes some people need to be shot” … yep!
“Sometimes some people need to be shot.”
This we need to hammer home. It was (They seem to have retreated from it) a serious talking point of the anti-rights people. “Guns are just for killing” well with justifiable homicide and self defense still lawful in this, and most countries (including Canada) shooting, and possibly killing people in the right circumstances is still a very viable reason for having a gun. If we lose this point, we’ve lost. As fun as boomershoot, hi-power, Hunting, and IDPA/IPSC are, if they can’t be tied to the defense of innocent lives we just have people using potentially dangerous weapons for fun, and only fun. If that’s the case then is IS reasonable to ban guns, as things like hunting and range accidents don’t justify gun ownership.
Me defending my home, defending my family, and defending my own life (be it from a Goblin breaking into my home, a Goblin on the street, or a government who thinks I need to be silenced) is a justification that cannot be argued against.
http://www.weerdworld.com/2010/chronic-dishonesty/
Hence why they do their best to ignore and suppress that argument.
There are only two reasons to “ban” guns: to aid criminals by making it less risky to commit crimes, or to steer people into supporting an ineffective, expensive protection racket.
Yeah; he left out hunting, which wouldn’t work out too well if your gun is held at some ruling class approved range facility. Anyhow;
“…if they can’t be tied to the defense of innocent lives we just have people using potentially dangerous weapons for fun, and only fun.”
True, but there’s nothing in our constitution, and nothing that is compatible with the general ideal of human liberty, that empowers government to attempt to protect us from ourselves. By that reasoning, football, auto racing and other “dangerous” sports, motorcycles, et al are subject to bans at a whim. If we’re talking liberty, we throw all that crap out and focus on how to keep government in its place.
The primary reasoning behind our second amendment, and inseparable from the general ideal of liberty, is that the people should hold the power and government should be subjugated to the power of the people, kept in awe of the people’s power, and able to act only within a very narrow scope. Defense against common criminals (as distinguished from those in Congress) while very important, is secondary to the clearly stated (by the American founders) ideal of holding government in awe.
This ideal is to be regarded as “extreme”, and I suppose it is extreme. This ideal of liberty among all of history around the world is certainly very unusual.
Similar to: Some people are alive simply because it’s against the law to kill them.