Those who want total ban on handguns lack understanding of firearm sports

[Wendell]

The real point that is highlighted by the gun control debate is that as a society we undertake to balance the risk to the public against the personal pursuits of law-abiding individuals. If the recreational activity of a law-abiding citizen creates an unmanageable risk to the public, only then does it require regulation or prohibition. Is the ownership and use of lawful firearms creating an unmanageable risk? No accurate, comprehensive statistics have been provided to suggest this is the case. None whatsoever. Those in favour of enhanced firearms legislation have relied on tragedies and terrible crimes to support the need for such controls. What is needed is a comprehensive review and meaningful analysis of the types and sources of firearms used in committing crimes in Canada. Only then can we decide the proper or necessary steps in moving forward with appropriate firearms control.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-handguns-gun-control-1.5572268

[Sanch]

I’m very pro gun, probably more than many here, but this argument about handguns being needed for a sport seems silly.

The same could justify belt fed full auto machine gun ownership if a sport was created to revolve around that. And yes, I do think belt fed full auto should be legal to own. But the idea that you’ll make a compelling case for ownership to anti-gunners by claiming its for a sport is ridiculous. All sports are man made, and this argument could justify anything being legal if it’s part of an invented sport, assuming enough other people believe the sport is real or want to engage in it, or want to own the thing that the sport justifies owning.

How about “anthrax blackjack” or “nuclear badminton”

The liberals don’t care if you use your handguns for sport, they don’t want you to have them. Period. End of sentence.

[Wendell]

I agree. The appeal for logic, based on the flawed assumption that 'those in favour of enhanced firearms legislation' are open to discussion, is a Hail Mary pass to a field of blind people.

[BigT]

The goal is to take guns away, completely. Whatever convenient excuse that can be hammered to fit will be used.

[Rosco Benson]

It ain't about "sports".

'Nuff said.

Rosco

[Trooper224]

I’m very pro gun, probably more than many here, but this argument about handguns being needed for a sport seems silly.

The same could justify belt fed full auto machine gun ownership if a sport was created to revolve around that. And yes, I do think belt fed full auto should be legal to own. But the idea that you’ll make a compelling case for ownership to anti-gunners by claiming its for a sport is ridiculous. All sports are man made, and this argument could justify anything being legal if it’s part of an invented sport, assuming enough other people believe the sport is real or want to engage in it, or want to own the thing that the sport justifies owning.

How about “anthrax blackjack” or “nuclear badminton”

The liberals don’t care if you use your handguns for sport, they don’t want you to have them. Period. End of sentence.

What data can you cite to support this assertion?

[BehindBlueI's]

Alternate title: "Guns are dangerous but not that dangerous and I play games with them, so let me play my games".

That whole article sounds like a front for the "lock them up and leave them at the sporting club" Fudds. I'm pro-gun. Everyone should have a gun, as long as it takes seven people to simultaneously turn a key, each in a lock spaced 21 meters apart, to access them and all key holders enter a suicide pact that triggers if a gun or ammunition leaves the Approved Game Playing Area.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This has been said so many times:

1. The Second Amendment is not about sports. It is about having firearms in the hands of the populace has an alternative reservoir of deadly force as compared to the state.
2. The reasons area: self-defense, defense against tyranny, defense of the state from enemies foreign and domestic - necessitating civilian action (as unlikely as some of these might seem)
3. The weapons are too dangerous to exist freely in the general public if they are only for recreation.
4. Euphenisms like 'tools', modern sport rifles, etc. are surrendering to the toy motif and allow for bans
5. As BBI states, toys can be locked up except for events. It is done in many countries. In the USA, let's take Rachel Maddow as a prime example. Rachel is a gun fan. She shoots ARs and 1911s. She takes dates to the range. She loves shooting. She thinks such guns should kept at the range and checked out for usage.
6. From the criminology world, if the legal guns are kept at home, that increases the probability that the nice, law abiding gun through theft or the owner going bad or nuts, will cause the gun to be sent to the crime world or used with its easy access by the legal owner in something bad. So why have guns at home?
7. The sports argument failed in the UK and Australia. My old Australian friend said gun folks who wanted guns at home were nutters. I have old UK gun magazines that mocked USPSA humanoid targets as those from blood crazed barbarians on our side of the pond.
8. Sports and hunting arguments allow for weapons type bans.
9. Evoking God Given Rights - meaningless unless God speaks personally on the issue. Whose God?
10. The case has to be made that having civilians possessing instruments of deadly lethal force contribute more to the greater good than banning them.

The laws that banned African-Americans from having guns weren't to stop them from having a good time at a sporting event. They were to prevent them from having guns to right the racial tyranny of the times in the USA. That's a hint.

[Half Moon]

Alternate title: "Guns are dangerous but not that dangerous and I play games with them, so let me play my games".

That whole article sounds like a front for the "lock them up and leave them at the sporting club" Fudds. I'm pro-gun. Everyone should have a gun, as long as it takes seven people to simultaneously turn a key, each in a lock spaced 21 meters apart, to access them and all key holders enter a suicide pact that triggers if a gun or ammunition leaves the Approved Game Playing Area.

54359

[blues]

^^^^

Set 9mm's on fun...

[Clobbersaurus]

Those who don't think firearms can be used for sport have never competed with them, at least not seriously. Top level sport shooters, in any discipline, are athletes in every sense of the term.

I know that in Canada, during the first rounds of gun bans that happened in the early 90's, the AR 15 platform was saved due to sport. It was on the list for banning, because it was scary looking, but target shooters who used it in competition lobbied hard to keep it because banning it would effectively eliminate their sport. It worked to save it from the ban pile, and for 30 years we could buy and own them, until the nightmare we are in now.

Using firearms for sport is a completely valid reason for owning and enjoying them.

[RevolverRob]

One must bear in mind that unlike the United States, Canada has no Constitutional protection on the right to bear arms. They have a protection for "security of the person" - but that appears to be largely interpreted in the context of, "We (the government) shall not torture or falsely imprison people." - As opposed to a fundamental right to have the means to prevent being tortured (a subtle distinction that defies many people, the former looks like some bullshit a dictator would write, the later is a true fundamental right).

Like many countries, the end result is one that means that legitimate sporting purposes remain one of the few places where the right to bear arms by individuals may be maintained. Thus, it becomes incredibly important to counter the rhetoric of gun banners, by using factual statements and statistics representing legitimate sporting purposes.

I sure would like to see Canadian shooting sports compare their membership numbers with Canadian curling clubs. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more recreational/sporting shooters than curlers. How does one argue that shooting then is less legitimate than the third most popular thing in Canada behind hockey and poutine?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Using firearms for sport is a completely valid reason for owning and enjoying them.

However, that does not protect the ownership from a societal cost benefit analysis.

1. Benefit - fun for those with the resources and time to play
2. Downside - dead people from their usage

An example:

I have another hobby for enjoyment, I research and consume artisanal cheese. I have a bookshelf of cheese books, next to the gun world books.

I can go do a hotel with a suitcase full of cheese. There is some mild risk of lawbreaking as when I sneaked a cheese in from Scotland in my Eurpoe.

I can go to a hotel with suitcases full of 'modern sporting rifles' - There I can use these toys to produce:

413 gunshot wounds or shrapnel injuries
Fifty-eight people fatally shot

I cannot do with cheese, which I enjoy. Why should the enjoyment of firearms competition (allowing easy access, as compared to the locked up procedures in some countries) allow me to have such guns?

Your personal enjoyment is an irrelevant side effect. In fact, competition is just derived from using firearms as instruments of lethal force. You must be a touch off to enjoy such? Eh?

[RevolverRob]

Remember folks - we are not discussing the same culture, same history, and certainly not the same legal standing.

Canada is not the United States. While I like Canada the few times I've been, I would not want to live there at all and over-reliance on government is at the core of that issue. The lack of properly codified rights in Canada is another disturbing reality. Sure there is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Neither enshrines the same level of protection that the U.S. Constitution does. Neither provides for more strict interpretations of law. And neither of those documents specific limits the powers of the government, merely says, Canadians have these "rights".

The fact is it's backwards from the U.S., where we have said, "You have ALL the rights. Specifically here are things that the we're allowing or directly disallowing your government to do."

___

No right to self-defense, no right to bear arms, no right to personal security is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. As a result, sporting purposes remains one of the most important aspects for allowing individuals in Canada to own and bear arms. In the United States, sporting purposes are irrelevant. I don't need a reason to own a gun, because FUCK YOU that's why. In Canada it's, "It would be nice if we could own guns, eh?"

[Sanch]

What data can you cite to support this assertion?

I make the statement that I’m probably more pro gun that most even here on these forums based on how pro-gun I am, it’s not possibly to be more pro gun than my position so if anyone has even the smallest desire for the slightest firearm regulation, I am more pro gun than them.

I think felons and the “mentally incompetent” and children should be legally allowed to own any gun they want. If they are a danger to society, why are we letting them walk around unsupervised and free? A 7 year old that wants to murder a bunch of people in his school can take a pair of scissors and go on a stabbing spree. 14 year olds used to take .22s into the woods, assuming with their parents permission and approval. If a person requires a caretaker because of their age or mental status that caretaker can decide appropriateness of fun access without a law.

I don’t think should have any background checks or any kind, and if a felon, mentally incompetent person, or a child decided to use their gun in public in an offensive way, the problem would be quickly solved by a “good guy with a gun” and that person would stop being a problem. There would be a cost in human life, but less of a cost than one imposed by gun control.

That’s why I asset I’m more pro gun than most. It’s possible every single person on this forum thinks mentally slow children with a felony background should have legal access to guns, I have not done a poll but my views are considered extreme by most.

I don’t think the police should be allowed to arrest anyone for mere possession of inanimate objects of any kind. There is no such thing as a justified statutory crime of any kind. There must be a proven victim for a crime to occur where proven damages arose from an action. And those damages can’t simply be “fear because he had a gun”

[Rick R]

The linked article highlights the difference in being a citizen vs being a subject. Going along with the theme of “Sporting Use” Canadians could simply rent a government owned pistol uniformly outfitted just like every other competitor’s rented gun, fire ammo purchased from the government and level the playing field for competition. No one “needs” to own a pistol for sporting use. Just bring your own holster and gun belt.

Relying on “Sporting Use” to justify your ownership of firearms is whistling thru the graveyard. The opposition won’t be satisfied until the only gun you can own is a flintlock musket (just like it says in the Constitution) but “sorry” the possession of black powder and lead will be forbidden.

I hunt, shoot IDPA, 3 Gun and skeet, trap and Sporting Clays but “sporting use” isn’t why I own guns. “Sporting Use” is a leash on our God given right to self defense and freedom. Shame on anyone who accepts the “sporting use” definition as a reason to possess a firearm.

[DDTSGM]

I think felons and the “mentally incompetent” and children should be legally allowed to own any gun they want. If they are a danger to society, why are we letting them walk around unsupervised and free? A 7 year old that wants to murder a bunch of people in his school can take a pair of scissors and go on a stabbing spree.

Tou, sir, are definitely pro-gun, nonsensical, but, pro-gun.

[Trooper224]

I make the statement that I’m probably more pro gun that most even here on these forums based on how pro-gun I am, it’s not possibly to be more pro gun than my position so if anyone has even the smallest desire for the slightest firearm regulation, I am more pro gun than them.

I think felons and the “mentally incompetent” and children should be legally allowed to own any gun they want. If they are a danger to society, why are we letting them walk around unsupervised and free? A 7 year old that wants to murder a bunch of people in his school can take a pair of scissors and go on a stabbing spree. 14 year olds used to take .22s into the woods, assuming with their parents permission and approval. If a person requires a caretaker because of their age or mental status that caretaker can decide appropriateness of fun access without a law.

I don’t think should have any background checks or any kind, and if a felon, mentally incompetent person, or a child decided to use their gun in public in an offensive way, the problem would be quickly solved by a “good guy with a gun” and that person would stop being a problem. There would be a cost in human life, but less of a cost than one imposed by gun control.

That’s why I asset I’m more pro gun than most. It’s possible every single person on this forum thinks mentally slow children with a felony background should have legal access to guns, I have not done a poll but my views are considered extreme by most.

I don’t think the police should be allowed to arrest anyone for mere possession of inanimate objects of any kind. There is no such thing as a justified statutory crime of any kind. There must be a proven victim for a crime to occur where proven damages arose from an action. And those damages can’t simply be “fear because he had a gun”

Thank you and I'd agree. I suspect you lack a critical sense of maturity as a human being and certainly any sense of social responsibility, but you definitely are pro gun.

[1911Nut]

I am never going to change the minds of those who believe we should not own, or should regulate firearms.

Those who believe my firearms should be regulated or taken away are never going to change my mind.

So, for simplicity's sake, and to avoid spending anymore of the time I have left on earth debating that subject, I have simplified my position/response when the subject comes up . . . . .

"Because FUCK you, that's why"

It's not the most intelligent response I am capable of, and certainly doesn't further the opportunity for meaningful dialogue.

But it serves my purpose, and I am content that it is universally understood.

[Wendell]

...laws that banned African-Americans from having guns weren't to stop them from having a good time at a sporting event. They were to prevent them from having guns to fight the racial tyranny of the times in the USA. That's a hint.

That reminds me of something I read, last night, on Oxfam's website. They're supposed to be Christian, right? For the little people, right? Feed the hungry, and all that...

"The power of people against poverty", and; "COVID-19: GIVE REFUGEES A FIGHTING CHANCE", and; "We need to reach 14 million people in 65 countries to effectively slow the spread of COVID-19. Your donation is urgently needed today." And " Control Arms The Control Arms Campaign, led by Oxfam, Amnesty International and Project Ploughshares here in Canada, seeks to create momentum for a global treaty controlling the trade in small arms..." "One thousand people are killed by guns every day around the world, and thousands more are injured. Over 600 million small arms (from handguns to AK-47 assault rifles to shoulder-fired missiles) are in worldwide circulation. At present, there are no international rules to keep small arms from falling into the hands of criminals or abusive governments..." "At public events in cities across the country, Oxfam Canada, Oxfam Quebec, Project Ploughshares and Amnesty International are sponsoring a drive to mobilize public support to end the global threat of gun violence." "Over 600 million small arms (from handguns to AK-47 assault rifles to shoulder-fired missiles) are in worldwide circulation, the agencies said. These weapons can spark, fuel, and prolong conflict, divert money from health and education, exacerbate human rights abuses and foster a culture of violence. 'Governments continue to transfer weapons and ammunition to countries with records of gross human rights abuses, and insufficient national arms control laws make easy work for global gun-runners,' said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International. 'Many weapons traded legally end up in illicit markets with dire consequences.' The UN World Summit on Small Arms and Light Weapons, to be held 100 days from today, will seek to reduce the proliferation and misuse of these weapons around the world."

The ATT is all about permits; no permits, no weapons. The only thing is, for all practical purposes, virtually all of these weapons are held and traded by state actors, and virtually all of these deaths are civilian deaths, caused - on purpose - by agents of the state. As it is the state that issue the requisite permits, agents of the state have no difficulty getting permits. Who has trouble getting permits? Individuals, that's who. Yes, those same individuals that the state does NOT want to be armed. The best part? The ATT applies only to signatories, so Russia and China, for example, proud permanent members of the U.N.'s vaunted security council, do not comply; they sell to whomever they wish, whether it be a state, a cartel, or a smuggler, no (ATT) permits required. "GIVE REFUGEES A FIGHTING CHANCE", they say...

On whose side are they, really?

[Old Virginia]

The "Entitlements" are the Name of the game. It has never been about 2A rights. It is about POWER! They know if they can strip away the 2A rights, they can go onto even more. Look at the power they now have. The "Politically correct BS" is out of control. I had to laugh at a news report today. The Announcer said that the Liberals want Biden to choose a woman "of Color". Can you imagine if someone said they want him to choose a White Woman?

[Robert Mitchum]

54391

[Suvorov]

54391
Exactly!!!

That way we could ensure that only those who were physically stronger, of the criminal class, or in direct service to the government would have the monopoly on force.

Utopia!

As for the original article - it’s from Canada so the idea that guns are some sort of check on a tyrannical government or the idea that self defense is a natural right are moot.

[Suvorov]

The goal is to take guns away, completely. Whatever convenient excuse that can be hammered to fit will be used.

^THIS^

As succinctly put as possible and spoken from a man who is on the very front lines.

[BehindBlueI's]

Those who don't think firearms can be used for sport have never competed with them, at least not seriously. Top level sport shooters, in any discipline, are athletes in every sense of the term.

I know that in Canada, during the first rounds of gun bans that happened in the early 90's, the AR 15 platform was saved due to sport. It was on the list for banning, because it was scary looking, but target shooters who used it in competition lobbied hard to keep it because banning it would effectively eliminate their sport. It worked to save it from the ban pile, and for 30 years we could buy and own them, until the nightmare we are in now.

Using firearms for sport is a completely valid reason for owning and enjoying them.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they can't be used for sport or that it's not a valid reason to own them. Just that using that justification alone leads to locking them up at the clubs. You can make the heirloom and collector argument, too. Definitely a valid reason to own them. Using that justification alone leads to requirements for rendered inert. If you want guns in homes and on belts you have to, at some point, admit it's because you may need to shoot something (bear?) or someone (burglar?) and not because it was grandpappy's or you compete with it.

[DDTSGM]

Those who don't think firearms can be used for sport have never competed with them, at least not seriously. Top level sport shooters, in any discipline, are athletes in every sense of the term.

I know that in Canada, during the first rounds of gun bans that happened in the early 90's, the AR 15 platform was saved due to sport. It was on the list for banning, because it was scary looking, but target shooters who used it in competition lobbied hard to keep it because banning it would effectively eliminate their sport. It worked to save it from the ban pile, and for 30 years we could buy and own them, until the nightmare we are in now.

Using firearms for sport is a completely valid reason for owning and enjoying them.

No doubt, but from the American perspective, the bedrock reason is for self-protection from evil individuals and, ultimately a tyrannical government.

As I wrote those words, my belief is that the need for us to use arms against our government is very unlikely in my lifetime, but, nonetheless those rights need be secured.

[WobblyPossum]

54391

Trooper224 is way ahead of most of us. We’ve got some catching up to do.

[blues]

Trooper224 is way ahead of most of us. We’ve got some catching up to do.

Don't encourage him. :p

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I wrote those words, my belief is that the need for us to use arms against our government is very unlikely in my lifetime, but, nonetheless those rights need be secured.

That's usually the take of the standard gun world. However, one has to look at the history of firearms and the Civil Rights movement. For African-Americans, they were suffering under what could be called government tyranny is several of our states. This tyranny was combated by folks who at times protected themselves from official and unofficial but sponsored lethal threats. While there was no overt, open warfare, the history is clear. Some references:

The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement by Lance Hill Paperback $26.00

This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible by Charles E. Cobb Jr. Paperback $21.49

We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement by Akinyele Omowale Umoja Paperback $25.00

Negroes with Guns Kindle Edition
by Robert F. Williams (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms
by Nicholas Johnson

That was in my lifetime as I remember the days of the Civil Rights battle.

While upsetting conservatives and leading to new gun laws African-Americans demonstrated in cities and on campuses with arms, quoting the necessity of such under the 2nd Amend. to defend and enhance their rights.

This history is not usually played up by the standard gun rights folks for various reasons which would start a flame filed diversion.

I could easily see the need for groups to defend against such governmental policies again, with the right circumstances.

[DDTSGM]

That's usually the take of the standard gun world. However, one has to look at the history of firearms and the Civil Rights movement. For African-Americans, they were suffering under what could be called government tyranny is several of our states. This tyranny was combated by folks who at times protected themselves from official and unofficial but sponsored lethal threats. While there was no overt, open warfare, the history is clear.

I could easily see the need for groups to defend against such governmental policies again, with the right circumstances.

I'm aware of the history, and for certain, do not discount it. I also agree with your last sentence. But you also must note my use of the defining phrase in my lifetime, which is entering it's last third. I pray that we be wrong because I have children in their early 20's, as well as their early 40's, and I hate to imagine what they face in their lives after I depart.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I didn't mean to be scolding. I was thinking more of the general gun world that pays little attention to that history. I'm 72 so I think I have about 10 years if I'm lucky. Given the increasing polarization in the USA, the increasing incidence of what seem to be existential physical or economic crises, I can see an out of control government in that time scale.

My daughter's life time is longer (so I hope) and that increases the chance of collapse. We talk about it quite a bit.

[Clobbersaurus]

I don't think anyone is suggesting they can't be used for sport or that it's not a valid reason to own them. Just that using that justification alone leads to locking them up at the clubs. You can make the heirloom and collector argument, too. Definitely a valid reason to own them. Using that justification alone leads to requirements for rendered inert. If you want guns in homes and on belts you have to, at some point, admit it's because you may need to shoot something (bear?) or someone (burglar?) and not because it was grandpappy's or you compete with it.


No doubt, but from the American perspective, the bedrock reason is for self-protection from evil individuals and, ultimately a tyrannical government.

As I wrote those words, my belief is that the need for us to use arms against our government is very unlikely in my lifetime, but, nonetheless those rights need be secured.

You are preaching to the converted here guys.

I would never use that justification as a sole argument to own firearms. However, in Canada, we don’t have enshrined property rights or the right to own firearms. You can thank Trudeau’s father for that. :rolleyes:

Our firearms laws are STRICT in every sense of the word and still we have to grasp at every available straw to justify our ownership of said firearms. It’s a difficult and demeaning yoke to live under.

[blues]

It’s a difficult and demeaning yolk to live under.

Now you have egg on your face...







...yoke. No joke.

:p

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are preachy. However, I think, as most do, that a sports argument is doomed to fail in maintaining firearms ownership - esp. having possession of the guns at home and certain types of guns.

Airsoft matches - why not? Works in some places like Japan, or so I read.

We keep playing defense in the USA, also. That is not going to work in the long run. Unless, SCOTUS moves in a strong direction, weapons bans will continue. We do have the protection of carry laws in most states. It would be hard to repeal them but winnowing the field to 5 is enough guns, certainly could happen.

Waiting to see if SCOTUS moves on the cases under consideration is interesting. I looked at the beginning of this week and nothing happened. More chances coming up but some thought is that Roberts will kill a case for us, even if taken up.

[Clobbersaurus]

Now you have egg on your face...







...yoke. No joke.

:p

Damn!!!!!! Just changed it, thanks for the catch. I should stop posting and go enjoy my guns, while I still can.

[DDTSGM]

You are preaching to the converted here guys.

I would never use that justification as a sole argument to own firearms. However, in Canada, we don’t have enshrined property rights or the right to own firearms. You can thank Trudeau’s father for that. :rolleyes:

Our firearms laws are STRICT in every sense of the word and still we have to grasp at every available straw to justify our ownership of said firearms. It’s a difficult and demeaning yoke to live under.

General Dan:

Situation: Having unequivocal intelligence that there is the potential for an extensive, effective, guerilla network, we will begin moving the 1st and 4th Infantry Divisions, as well as elements of the 1st Calvary and 1st Armored into place.......

[Borderland]

^^^^

Set 9mm's on fun...


It should be designated as a gamer/sport cartridge. No real value otherwise. It's a Euro metro sexual cartridge. :D

[BehindBlueI's]

You are preaching to the converted here guys.

I would never use that justification as a sole argument to own firearms. However, in Canada, we don’t have enshrined property rights or the right to own firearms. You can thank Trudeau’s father for that. :rolleyes:

Our firearms laws are STRICT in every sense of the word and still we have to grasp at every available straw to justify our ownership of said firearms. It’s a difficult and demeaning yoke to live under.

I honestly didn't realize you were Canadian. Never picked up on the accent, I guess.

[Borderland]

You are preaching to the converted here guys.

I would never use that justification as a sole argument to own firearms. However, in Canada, we don’t have enshrined property rights or the right to own firearms. You can thank Trudeau’s father for that. :rolleyes:

Our firearms laws are STRICT in every sense of the word and still we have to grasp at every available straw to justify our ownership of said firearms. It’s a difficult and demeaning yoke to live under.

You could have been American except that it wasn't in the cards. In 2016, two out of three Canadians (66%) lived within 100 kilometres of the US border. I know, it's a shit show here now but it wasn't always. I still have my semi-auto rifle with 20 rd mag in a safe down stairs. I'm thinking it will be there until the day I die.

[BehindBlueI's]

You could have been American except that it wasn't in the cards. In 2016, two out of three people (66%) lived within 100 kilometres of the US border. I know, it's a shit show here now but it wasn't always. I still have my semi-auto rifle with 20 rd mag in a safe down stairs. I'm thinking it will be there until the day I die.

Maybe we could arrange "cultural prisoner exchanges"? Give Canada a good deal on dirty hippies for gun totin' outdoorsmen?

(For those offended, it's a joke. Unless Canada is onboard. Then it's dead nuts serious.)

[blues]

Maybe we could arrange "cultural prisoner exchanges"? Give Canada a good deal on dirty hippies for gun totin' outdoorsmen?

(For those offended, it's a joke. Unless Canada is onboard. Then it's dead nuts serious.)

Come for the guns. Stay for the Stanley Cup.

(I admit, that's a low blow. But I love my brothers to the north.)

[Borderland]

Maybe we could arrange "cultural prisoner exchanges"? Give Canada a good deal on dirty hippies for gun totin' outdoorsmen?

(For those offended, it's a joke. Unless Canada is onboard. Then it's dead nuts serious.)

Canada will never buy it. They have the gun totin' outdoorsmen right where they want them. Dirty hippies have never been a problem for them. There are probably thousands of Canadian citizens who were born there who's parents were Vietnam draft dodgers. Not that it matters.

[BehindBlueI's]

Canada will never buy it. They have the gun totin' outdoorsmen right where they want them. Dirty hippies have never been a problem for them. There are probably thousands of Canadian citizens who were born there who's parents were Vietnam draft dodgers. Not that it matters.

We'll have to give them a hell of a ratio, a deal they can't refuse....I'm talking like old school pesos to the dollar exchange rates.

[Borderland]

We'll have to give them a hell of a ratio, a deal they can't refuse....I'm talking like old school pesos to the dollar exchange rates.

Cheese. All cheese sold in Costco will be Canadian cheese. That should do it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Cheese. All cheese sold in Costco will be Canadian cheese. That should do it.

Or we threaten to send all those damnable geese back if they don't meet our demands.

[OlongJohnson]

I honestly didn't realize you were Canadian. Never picked up on the accent, I guess.

They spell "about" right, they just say it wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbpLiTq_uI

[Borderland]

Or we threaten to send all those damnable geese back if they don't meet our demands.

There's already two seasons on them here, maybe we should add a third.