[Gunnair]

BartSimpson wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Dude, that angry Alberta duck hunter that begins thread after thread on the long gun registry has yet to provide a concrete link that explicitly states gun ownership is a Canadian right.

Since you're asserting the gun ownership is not a right in Canada would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?

Yup. That does not pass my personal reason test.

Driving is not a right either, and I'd have issue if they banned all vehicles off the road tomorrow.

I fully admit I'm no fundamentalist nor an American.

[ASLplease]

BartSimpson wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Dude, that angry Alberta duck hunter that begins thread after thread on the long gun registry has yet to provide a concrete link that explicitly states gun ownership is a Canadian right.

Since you're asserting the gun ownership is not a right in Canada would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?

For Gunnair, it has more to do with the rights of private citizens, registered guns would not be taken away from police or military.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson wrote:

fifeboy wrote:

There is nothing like a wild rice fed greenhead!

Amen to that!

fifeboy wrote:

And ain't it true about PETA. Love the animals, but want something done when their picnic is knee deep in goose shit

The PETA crowd doesn't really care about animals, animals are just their excuse to pander for a left wing agenda.

This is part of a left wing agenda? Man, I need to take some classes or something

[Gunnair]

ASLplease wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Dude, that angry Alberta duck hunter that begins thread after thread on the long gun registry has yet to provide a concrete link that explicitly states gun ownership is a Canadian right.

Since you're asserting the gun ownership is not a right in Canada would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?

For Gunnair, it has more to do with the rights of private citizens, registered guns would not be taken away from police or military.

You should take me off ignore, then I could clarify my position to you so that you don't have to make it up.

I doubt that military and police firearms are in the registry, by the way.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Since you're asserting the gun ownership is not a right in Canada would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?

Yup. That does not pass my personal reason test.

And there's the reason why so many people are opposed to the registry and that's because there's too many people like yourself who'd not object to it being used to seize registered guns.

Gunnair wrote:

Driving is not a right either, and I'd have issue if they banned all vehicles off the road tomorrow.

Travel is a right and if there were adequate means for people to travel from place to place without cars this would probably stand up in court. That point stated, how do people adequately defend themselves from armed criminals or (if needed) their own government without guns?

Gunnair wrote:

I fully admit I'm no fundamentalist nor an American.

The people who tend to be most militant of their rights under the US Constitution are almost uniformly immigrants.

[BartSimpson]

fifeboy wrote:

This is part of a left wing agenda? Man, I need to take some classes or something

That's actually part of PETA's left cheek agenda.

[Gunnair]

"BartSimpson" wrote

Gunnair wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Since you're asserting the gun ownership is not a right in Canada would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?

Yup. That does not pass my personal reason test.

Quote:

And there's the reason why so many people are opposed to the registry and that's because there's too many people like yourself who'd not object to it being used to seize registered guns.

Uh, Bart, you asked me - "would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?"

My answer - Yup. (That means I would have a problem with it Bart) It means I do object to it being used to seize unregistered firearms. Don't let your inexplicable preconceptions of my position preclude us agreeing on things.

[fifeboy]

Well, it's been one whole night without a post! I wonder how long before ASLplease starts a new thread? Something like "Hanna Montana reports the long gun registry is leading to increased sexual activity among unmarried teens in Canada."

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair wrote:

"BartSimpson" wrote

Gunnair wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Since you're asserting the gun ownership is not a right in Canada would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?

Yup. That does not pass my personal reason test.

Quote:

And there's the reason why so many people are opposed to the registry and that's because there's too many people like yourself who'd not object to it being used to seize registered guns.

Uh, Bart, you asked me - "would you have a problem with a total ban on civilian firearms coupled by seizures of registered guns?"

My answer - Yup. (That means I would have a problem with it Bart) It means I do object to it being used to seize unregistered firearms. Don't let your inexplicable preconceptions of my position preclude us agreeing on things.

So noted and I stand corrected.