[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

you see, now there you go sliding the standard up and down to benefit your point of view.

and to attack others point of view, rather than respect them

havent i made it clear that I wont play your game?

I'm not using it to attack your POV. In fact I'm not using it to even attack the registry. I'm simply telling the NRA to piss off.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

btw, you can bet that the gun control crowd organized by wendy cuckier has recieved foriegn assistance and advice from time to time, too. are you against fair play?

Can you provide evidence or is that a hunch?

Yep, Wendy Cukier's organisation (Coalition for Gun Control) receives funding and support from IANSA which is, in turn, supported by George Soros and international and American anti-gun groups.

Turn-about is then fair play.

Provide proof then. I'd say the same thing to them. We'll sort our own country out.

[ASLplease]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

btw, you can bet that the gun control crowd organized by wendy cuckier has recieved foriegn assistance and advice from time to time, too. are you against fair play?

Can you provide evidence or is that a hunch?

Yep, Wendy Cukier's organisation (Coalition for Gun Control) receives funding and support from IANSA which is, in turn, supported by George Soros and international and American anti-gun groups.

Turn-about is then fair play.

to bad egos got in the way, and I wasnt 'allowed' to make that 'assertion' from the self appointed moderator of debates.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Christ, it'd be worth a total gun ban and enslavement just to see every party working towards a common goal in my life.

at best, you can only achieve a total ban on privately owned guns and enslavement of citizens. criminals and governments wont comply.

You do realize it was a joke right?

Of course the criminals will keep their guns. The government will need them to help control the sheep citizens. We haven't got enough police and soldiers to do the job.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Even if the entire civilian population was disarmed. How is the government going to use that against us?

Why assume that your government would use that against you?

A nation of unarmed civilians protected by a military that is itself incapable of securing it's own landmass is a pretty tempting target.

I'm not saying you'd be invaded. But since we're talking about all the foreign involvement going on in Canada (Pearson and such) is it a stretch to consider a foreign sponsored coup?

What happens if Canada suffers a coup and Canadians are then at the mercy of some proxy government?

It's already established that you have foreign intervention extant in Canadian politics so it is then not a big stretch to consider a foreign power sponsoring a coup to achieve some sort of aims.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Christ, it'd be worth a total gun ban and enslavement just to see every party working towards a common goal in my life.

at best, you can only achieve a total ban on privately owned guns and enslavement of citizens. criminals and governments wont comply.

You do realize it was a joke right?

Of course the criminals will keep their guns. The government will need them to help control the sheep citizens. We haven't got enough police and soldiers to do the job.

i know it was a joke, but you it provided me an opportunity to make a basic and fundentmental point about this issue.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

to bad egos got in the way, and I wasnt 'allowed' to make that 'assertion' from the self appointed moderator of debates.

Excuse me but I clearly asked if you had evidence or was it just your hunch.

I specifically asked you for that evidence (which still hasn't been provided). How did I not allow it?

What really happened is you just got pissed off that I asked for evidence because you simply assumed it was true and I should have accepted your post.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Even if the entire civilian population was disarmed. How is the government going to use that against us?

Why assume that your government would use that against you?

A nation of unarmed civilians protected by a military that is itself incapable of securing it's own landmass is a pretty tempting target.

I'm not saying you'd be invaded. But since we're talking about all the foreign involvement going on in Canada (Pearson and such) is it a stretch to consider a foreign sponsored coup?

What happens if Canada suffers a coup and Canadians are then at the mercy of some proxy government?

It's already established that you have foreign intervention extant in Canadian politics so it is then not a big stretch to consider a foreign power sponsoring a coup to achieve some sort of aims.

No it isn't. There is zero chance of any of that crap. Its just a fear based argument not related to reality.

[ASLplease]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Even if the entire civilian population was disarmed. How is the government going to use that against us?

Why assume that your government would use that against you?

A nation of unarmed civilians protected by a military that is itself incapable of securing it's own landmass is a pretty tempting target.

I'm not saying you'd be invaded. But since we're talking about all the foreign involvement going on in Canada (Pearson and such) is it a stretch to consider a foreign sponsored coup?

What happens if Canada suffers a coup and Canadians are then at the mercy of some proxy government?

It's already established that you have foreign intervention extant in Canadian politics so it is then not a big stretch to consider a foreign power sponsoring a coup to achieve some sort of aims.

yup. the history of the world is a history of how poorly governments treat unarmed citizens of their own lands and of the lands of other countries.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Even if the entire civilian population was disarmed. How is the government going to use that against us?

Why assume that your government would use that against you?

A nation of unarmed civilians protected by a military that is itself incapable of securing it's own landmass is a pretty tempting target.

I'm not saying you'd be invaded. But since we're talking about all the foreign involvement going on in Canada (Pearson and such) is it a stretch to consider a foreign sponsored coup?

What happens if Canada suffers a coup and Canadians are then at the mercy of some proxy government?

It's already established that you have foreign intervention extant in Canadian politics so it is then not a big stretch to consider a foreign power sponsoring a coup to achieve some sort of aims.

No it isn't. There is zero chance of any of that crap. Its just a fear based argument not related to reality.

with canda as we know it? what about canada in 10 years? what about canada in 50 years? what are the other countries in this world going to be like in 50 years?

you dont know what will happen.

and it looks like you are in denial of thousasands of years of world history

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

yup. the history of the world is a history of how poorly governments treat unarmed citizens of their own lands and of the lands of other countries.

Hitler took power through the ballot box and not through an armed revolt (which actually would be armed citizens anyway).

How many despots took power using armed civilians? We could use the same fear based argument in that gun control is needed to prevent armed revolts from otherwise despicable people trying to become despots.

Turn-about is fair play.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

with canda as we know it? what about canada in 10 years? what about canada in 50 years? what are the other countries in this world going to be like in 50 years?

you dont know what will happen.

and it looks like you are in denial of thousasands of years of world history

Oh really? So we need to keep the citizens armed because the government might put soldiers armed with guns in our cities?

Soldiers with guns in our cities?

In 50 years we might have evolved socially top the point where we don't need guns. Have you considered that?

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

No it isn't. There is zero chance of any of that crap. Its just a fear based argument not related to reality.

Good. Then there's no harm in the NRA supporting it's Canadian counterpart. Thank you for conceding the topic.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

No it isn't. There is zero chance of any of that crap. Its just a fear based argument not related to reality.

Good. Then there's no harm in the NRA supporting it's Canadian counterpart. Thank you for conceding the topic.

Nope. The points are:

1) Armed civilians are needed to protect the civilian population from the government.

2) The NRA can stick to their own affairs.

They are not mutually inclusive.

Even if I agreed with point 1 I could still tell the NRA to go flock themselves. Pro/con gun registry doesn't mean support for the NRA sticking their noses where it doesn't belong.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

In 50 years we might have evolved socially top the point where we don't need guns. Have you considered that?

yes, I have considered that.
in 50 years, criminals and governments will not have evolved to the point where citizens dont need guns.

Edit: I am part of a group called 'citizens' we are the only group that has evolved.

Editx2: I hope we arent the group that evolves toward naive and stupidity about the driving and motivating factors behind criminals and governments.