Jump to content

Tiny759

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    511

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Tiny759

  1. 2019-20 CFL Offseason

    in Blue Bomber Discussion

    Posted

    If the government and cfl can not reach a deal, I feel like this could be the end. Putting themselves in a Leveraged position could help for next year, but having the high amount of debt could be hard to overcome since it was reported the cfl lost $20m/year. Sad to watch this potentially fold out. 

  2. Upcoming Movies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

    Get Out was really unexpected and well done.  Though you likely saw it as it was a big film (or rather, it became big with word of mouth).  I also really enjoyed Cabin in the Woods, a bit of a Wes Craven-esque twist on traditional horror films (ie. self aware, but with a twist).  And Bradley Whitford is in it and he's always awesome. 

    EDITL Whitford is actually in BOTH those films I mentioned...lol  Also Alison Williams is in Get Out and she's....at the risk of diminishing her acting talents, she's nice to watch.

    I’ll give cabin in the woods a try 

  8. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Brandon said:

    I've shot and handled... never owned and really no reason to.  I don't hunt and based on my time playing Rainbow 6 Vegas... I'm more of a shield and pistol guy.  :)

    Ok and that’s fine, owning one is not for everybody. But there is a couple point you made that aren’t consistent I would say. First off, collecting is one reason people own a restricted gun, but so is target shooting and competition shooting. As for “only military and law enforcement” should have these types of  guns, I don’t think you understand the difference between what a military use and what is made available to public. Most of the guns banned were restricted guns, meaning no you can’t hunt with them. But they are not used in military, only made to look like a model. Restricted guns are usually semi, and for example an M16 is chambered in .223. That’s barely enough to take down a deer. In fact, the hunting rifles that are Not being banned will most likely appear in a higher caliber. And yes these hunting rifles can be semi-auto too. These guns aren’t automatic like you see in military or in call of duty. Those are prohibited in Canada and have been since the 1970/1980s (I cant remember the exact year). Too add, restricted and non-restricted guns have a maximum magazine size of of 5. While handguns have 10. The ruger mini 14 can hold 10 too since it fits a certain handgun magazine but it’s illegal to do so. The only type of guns that don’t have a limit on magazine size, is rim-fire guns. These are chambered in a .22 and below. (I do think this should be brought to the 5 magazine limit too) 
    so to sum up, these guns are not used by military, these aren’t call of duty guns, they are guns which are classified as restricted, which are being used for collecting, target and competition, but not hunting. 

  9. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Brandon said:

    Well the gun nuts will claim that they like to collect....

    Personally (only my opinion),  only the Military and law enforcement should have access to these types of guns.   I don't believe you need a Call of Duty weapon to gun down a raging moose / bear.....

    I’m going to assume you don’t own any guns based of this post?

  10. US Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

    Honestly my only bias is forwards logic. If the allegation had legs I’d be calling for Biden to be turfed. He was never my choice and I voted conservative for years.   The hypocrisy isn’t Dems here. It’s certain people who didn’t care about trumps issues suddenly wanting a federal case to be made.  That’s the double standard.  
     

    If you google Tara trade allegation, the first several responses are pieces doing a fair job at looking at it but this poster skipped all of them to look for things to support his position.  That’s bias. 

    Ok

  11. US Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

    I lost track about what you guys are even arguing about anymore.

    Is it whether or not Trump is scum that has been accused of more and worse than Biden has? He is.

    Is it whether the Democrats and left leaning news media are being hypocritical? They are.

    Is it whether or not any of this will matter on election day? It won't.

     

    The whole thing sucks, and makes you depressed as a human that our choice of people in power, more often than not, boils down to who might be less of a human trash bag.

     

    Same here, both posters seem to be biased in their own ways. Although it’s fun to read.

  14. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Tiny759

    2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    I don't trust Trudeau as far as I can throw a 45 kg rock. 

    Hey not gonna disagree with that, just clarifying that the term “assault weapon” is not a legally defined term in Canadian firearms legislation, even though Trudeau and others like to use that term. 

  15. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    I have no problems banning assault weapons. The problem I have was this was done like a royal decree with no debate in the House Of Commons. It was just done unilaterally by the Liberals. They are a minority government but are using the Corona virus to rule like a majority. Yes, the banning is no doubt popular by urban voters but it should have been  introduced as government bill, debated upon, passed through 3rd reading & then gone to the Senate for Royal Assent.  What happens next if Trudeau announces something that will affect our freedoms unilaterally? Like I said, no problem with the banning but do it democratically  in the HOC. He is not a king even though he thinks he is. 

     

    I agree with you on the democracy approach and it should be brought in by a legislative bill and voted on, but the term you use “assault weapons” is not a legally defined term in Canadian firearms legislation. 

  16. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

    I'm all in for providing gun lovers total freedom  to do as they please within a controlled area,  as a compromise to this ongoing argument I propose we allow them the freedom to shoot at each other on the firing range with full immunity from prosecution......just so they can go back for more fun.  De facto killing two birds with one stone.

     

     

    What a weird comment lol

  19. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

    None of those are needs.  

    And I disagree that someone should have to apply for a special permit to own a rocket or grenade launcher because they shouldnt have that option.  Period.

    I generally am defensive of collectors but let's be real.  It's not a need.  Its something I'd be willing to support in the US because of their insane gun culture but even then, collectors can can weapons pre 1900-ish (I cant remember the exact date).   Collecting AR-15's and whatnot...come on.  No need.  It might be a want.  But there are plenty of "wants" that are banned by law.

    So, I dont have an issue with this at all and I dont think its a case of they should go further.  I think the Liberals (who I did not vote for and everyone here knows how I feel about them) have been pretty forthright on it.

    So I’m actually more inclined to to agree with you on the first part. The reason I mentioned special permit is for a few reasons. 1) I would classify those as explosives, and with buying all explosives, that should require extra licenses, 2) I should’ve clarified more, the ones that would be able to acquire them would be museums or special shooting ranges. Obviously at the museum they would have to be “tweaked” so they are unable to fire. Shooting ranges would be high regulated. 
    As for the need, well depends how you value needs. For a collector, target shooter or competitor, it could be a need. If we wanted too, we could get into what are only true needs are, food, water and shelter. 
    the reason people are against this ban, is because the guns banned, (excluding the RPG) are no different for the most from a “hunting rifle”. So the ban takes away property from law abiding citizens, while putting a bandage on a much larger problem. Anti gun people will love it and pro-gun people will hate it. And when a conservative gets into power again, the rules will most likely change, and the reactions will be the opposite. And this cycle will continue on for a long time. Not much any of us can do about this but agree to disagree. 

  20. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    38 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

    Such trivial commentary. First off, it's borders. Second, there are numerous controls at ports of entry meant to stop the flow of illicit goods such as weapons and controlled substances into the country, be it at airports, land border crossings, or commercial points such as rail facilities and highway warehouses. It seems to you fail to realize how skilled and resourceful smugglers and organized criminals are when it comes to finding ways to get those illicit goods into Canada. Law enforcement tends to play from somewhat of a disadvantage, as criminal organizations don't have to play by any set of rules, be it legal or ethical, when it comes their activities.

    First off, I made a grammar/spelling mistake, sue me. And yes there are controls, but when someone who is not allowed to buy guns in Canada, can go to the states buy a gun and smuggle it in, there has to be a better control system because that shouldn’t be happening. I would say that is the responsibility of both US and Canadian governments. And yes criminals don’t follow laws, that’s why they are criminals. 

  21. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

    Obviously thats not the case and its the same silly argument that erupts in the US.  If they take my tank, my shoulder mounted missile launcher, my grenades, my M-16 and the 10 million rounds of ammo, they'll come for my hunting rifle next.  Thats not an issue in Canada.  But guns are not needed for anything outside of hunting (and Ill defer on the argument of personal protection).  Fortunately, in Canada, we havent wrapped ourselves up in misunderstanding very old amendment into making guns a culture thing.

    But yeah, no guns (outside of hunting).  

    So here are my thoughts on this, in regards to the grenade launcher and rocket-propelled projectile, I actually do believe those should require an extra class, and not fall under the restricted class. I also believe for them to require a special permit, that would require a justifiable use for them, which would most likely lead to the permit never being authorized. As for the M16, or these “style” of guns, they are very similar to hunting rifles. I’ll go over a few differences. First off the M16 is restricted while the “hunting rifle” is non-restricted. So no you can’t hunt with them. The second difference is the the way they look, the M16 was based off the look of the AR-15. There aren’t many more differences then that. The M16 being cambered in .223 is less then my 7mm or .308. So I do think the liberals should go for it all and say ban all guns, I would have more respect if they were more straight up. As for “needs” who are you to determine what are a persons needs? There are collected, target shooting, competitive. 

  22. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

    Offer toilet paper in return. Fair value.

    It kinda helps that weapons such as the AR15 are sold as "military grade assault rifle" in the description :P

    You just have to look south to see what happens when you have an open policy on guns.

    For full disclosure. I'm also anti-gun.

    The “AR-15” is just a style of the gun. Canada does not have an open policy on gun. The laws that are in place are actually pretty good. With having different classes for guns, non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. What needs to change is the enforcement of laws. Control at boarders needs to happen to not allow illegal guns to enter. 

  24. Canadian Politics

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

    I suspect the government knows on both counts.  And anyway market value is whatever they are gracious enough to pay you for an illegal weapon.   A gun person can always opt not to take the money and take the charges instead lol 

    The government uses that term, but it’s a broad term that they don’t define. The guns that are used in the military, which would be automatic, are already prohibited in Canada. 

×
×
  • Create New...