Reply With Quote
Or, you ins ute a U.S. Supreme Court & keep Garland on ice & RBG close to a field of banana peels.
tee, hee.
This is a what you do!!(CNN)Assault-style weapons are banned in Canada effective immediately, the country's prime minister said Friday.
The move comes less than two weeks after Canada's deadliest rampage in modern history, when a gunman in Nova Scotia killed 22 people after a 12-hour reign of terror.
"You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference in Ottawa. "So, effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country."
Police said the gunman had several semi-automatic handguns and at least two semi-automatic rifles, one of which was described by witnesses as a military-style assault weapon.
"These weapons were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada," Trudeau said.
The ban is effective immediately but disposal of the weapons will be subject to a two-year amnesty period. Trudeau said some form of compensation would also be put in place but the firearms can also be exported and sold after a proper export license is obtained.
Trudeau said that "thoughts and prayers" for mass shooting victims were no longer enough and that's why his government acted.
Canada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>America
Or, you ins ute a U.S. Supreme Court & keep Garland on ice & RBG close to a field of banana peels.
tee, hee.
Trudeau>Orangehead
Oh great now only the criminals will have access to AR-15s in Canada because vans can also kill people. Also Detroit!
Scrah, move to canada. I'm serious.
Yet no one here is on a Canadian forum talking .
- "Promises, promises."
- Ernie "The Cat" Ladd
Great country... just too cold...
nobody needs an AR15
only inbred gots would disagree
still. the canucks and that massive got Tru
It's embarrassing how other countries are leaving us behind from everything to healthcare to education to gun rights to Coronavirus response. And it didn't start with the Orange Man, either. I attribute the US's decline to some key factors that politicians and thinkers of yesteryear feared might be in America's future if we don't remain vigilant.
Came true.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.
- Eisenhower
Came true.“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
~Barry Goldwater
Came true.The idea behind Reaganomics is this: a rising tide lifts all yachts.
- Walter F. Mondale
And going real old school:
Jefferson basically described the modern stock market almost 200 years ago and how big corporations and investment bankers privatize the profit and socialize the losses.
Orange Man is simply a symptom of the disease caused by those aforementioned fundamental shifts that have occurred in the US over the past 40-50 years.
And look at this news report of a knife rampage killing 2 people! And Chicago!
If some of you who pine for other countries would just up and move there, this country would be a better place to live. You won't though. We've seen that act before. As soon as a dem takes office it will be roses.
I agree that the whole "I'm moving to Canada" tantrum is gotry. But the "love it or leave it" tantrum is equally as lame. Complaining about the country's faults doesn't equal wanting to leave that country. It equals wanting to improve the faults of your country.
Do you think the religious right (aren't you critical of religion?) gaining massive influence over the GOP in the last 3 or 4 decades was a good thing? The founders put in that whole separation of church and state thing for a reason, but the modern GOP and their evangelical puppet masters have sneakily found a way for "Jebus" to obliquely influence public policy and stir up culture wars. And I have nothing against religion and Christianity. There's "Jesus" and "Jebus," the latter being a bas ization of Christian tenets to rally a voting base into a narrow single issue mindset (abortion or prayer in schools, etc). Ironically, when the country was more Christian back in those days, it was less theocratic because people kept politics and religion separate for the most part. The humility of faith was more observed back then. There's a reason megachurches and preachers owning private jets weren't a thing in the 50s.
Goldwater was pretty damn prescient. So was Eisenhower. I guess they would need to "love or leave it" if they were expressing their criticisms and worries today.
If you're going to sit around and bash your own country and extol other countries as being so much better, then have some courage and haul ass, no one will miss you. If you're doing something to change your own country for the better, then the complaining you do is more of a status update.
Both the people you mentioned were active in changing the country. Most of the whiners won't lift a finger to improve their own lives, much less the country overall.
Let's look at the religious right - they saw something they didn't like and set out to affect change. I disagree with their stance but the one who actually does something about their convictions is more likely to get positive change.
I am all for critique, but some here just offer negative reviews because they lost in 2016.
Charlottesville
To relate this to sports, when you extol another organization for having a better front office, do you switch teams or complain that your organization needs to get their heads out of their asses? The "love it or leave it" rebuttal comes off to me as a display of cognitive dissonance that can't accept American isn't "the greatest country in the world" they were lead to believe it was. Maybe the flag waving love it or leave guy should say, "Wow. I didn't know the US lacked behind other first world countries in X and X and X. That's disappointing. What can we do to fix this?"
Every solution to a problem starts with a complaint.
But it doesn't end with one.
You get these huge caravans of immigrants moving toward the US because they want a better life. Should they sit home and about their own countries? How will that help them or anyone else?
People migrate all the time.
Bird "sure is cold here.. ing sucks, this place ing sucks"
Bird 2: "we should fly south"
Bird: "So love it or leave it huh? That's rich"
That's exactly what colonial Americans did under British rule. They ed and ed and then finally took action. Did they migrate to Mexico or South America? Nope.
The Bird argument is also a strawman. No one is saying the US " in sucks." They're saying there's room for improvement. Your bird example also fails because birds don't have the luxury of changing their environment to the extent modern humans do. We can make our environment better vs. always having to migrate to a better environment.
False dilemma
You're really bad at fallacies
Good. It'll be easier for us to take them over when the time comes.
Wow just read the story about dude in the OP...WTF. That is some demonic .
Do more entertaining false dilemma bird stories
It's embarrassing that people think taking rights away from people makes a country superior.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
