Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I am assured that nothing like this can happen here More

I am assured that nothing like this can happen here

Comments Filter:
  • Your sentence should have read Canada's Trudeau announces bill to cap sales, transfers and imports of all handguns in the country [cnn.com]

    See the difference? He did not unilaterally end it - in spite of what your friend is telling you - he announced a bill for it. The national assembly still has to vote on it. The bill absolutely is not a foregone conclusion. Canada has a very large rural population who will very likely be strongly opposed to this.

    Even more so - as you love to keep applying one particular
    • Your assurances, Mr. Scorpion, ring hollow given the history. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Scorpion_and_the_Frog [wikipedia.org]

      • Your assurances, Mr. Scorpion, ring hollow given the history. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... [wikipedia.org]

        You could have just explained it away as an "oops" moment, or said that your teammate got too excited about it in his tweet. Instead you're placing blame on me for showing you that your friend's tweet was inaccurate. I'm not even going to accuse him of lying in this case as I am willing to accept this one as possibly being an honest mistake made in the excitement, or perhaps just a missed word to meet the twitter length requirements.

        But go ahead, keep telling me how evil I am. Keep reminding me how

          • Your friend's opinion is not related to your original topic, or to your massive error pertaining to it, or to your nonsensical labels.
            • No one believes any of the Lefty protestations of fidelity for the Constitution in general or the 2A in particular. But stay cute.

              • fidelity for the Constitution in general

                You have called for the abolition or repeal of more constitutional amendments than I have.

                or the 2A in particular

                Certainly as long as you refuse to read what I write you can keep making that claim.

                • You can protest whatever you want as long as you want. "Your Team" is the threat to liberty.

                  • "Your Team" is the threat to liberty.

                    Only for your particular - and very peculiar - definition of "liberty".

                    You can protest whatever you want as long as you want.

                    Given what you have supported doing to squelch the first amendment, I highly doubt you would stand by that statement.

                    • Only for your particular - and very peculiar - definition of "liberty".

                      Please. The writers with whom I generally agree are of the Strauss/Jaffa/Claremont Institute line of thinking. I'll take "not mainstream", but this line of thinking is clear, well-grounded historically, and relatively resilient against the kind of trash trolling one encounters in social media.

                      You could surprise me by mustering the intellectual courage to explore some of these ideas [americanmind.org] here, but I have zero expectation of you doing anything of the sort.

                    • the kind of trash trolling one encounters in social media

                      Certainly with the way you have trolled and trash-talked me and everyone else who is not on your team, you should be a subject matter expert on this.

                    • Oh, please. I'm never doing more than mirroring you. Standing by for all the positive, dispassionate dialogue you care to engage in.
                    • Kindly show where you believe I trash talked or trolled you. I have never seen a definition of trolling that includes attempting to bring a discussion back to its original topic, which is something that you frequently leave me doing in response to your frequent diversion tactics.
                    • You're trying to argue that your entire /. persona is not a troll? You're actually this caustic IRL?

                    • You're trying to argue that your entire /. persona is not a troll? You're actually this caustic IRL?

                      Fascinating that you are both engaging in name calling and telling us you are being hurt and offended. Here I thought your team told us all the snowflakes were on the "left".

                    • telling us you are being hurt and offended

                      Amused. Were I truly "hurt and offended" and stuck around for the abuse, you'd be justified in blaming the "victim".

                    • telling us you are being hurt and offended

                      Were I truly "hurt and offended" and stuck around for the abuse

                      Then why are you calling me "caustic" and a "troll"? We could actually discuss the topic that you opened this JE with; yet instead you are diverting us from it and attacking me.

                    • Then why are you calling me "caustic" and a "troll"?

                      Because that characterizes your online persona?

                    • We could actually discuss the bill that you incorrectly summarized, rather than you continuing to call me names. If you grabbed that link out of a lack of understanding of how Canadian Parliament works that would be fine, I just want you to understand where you and your friend were fundamentally wrong on what the Prime Minister actually said and attempted to do.
                    • I'm less concerned about the specifics of a Canadian bill than I am the general authoritarian drift of it all.

                      "Your Team" is quite obviously intent upon crushing the exceptional aspects out of this good country, and the task is to disabuse you of the fallacies in play.

                    • I'm less concerned about the specifics of a Canadian bill than I am the general authoritarian drift of it all.

                      First of all, I highly doubt that you've actually read the bill. More likely you are again taking spin from your friends and applying it here just as you have done in so many other places lately.

                      Second, you made a huge mistake at the very beginning where you assumed that he had the power to make this happen on his own. That is simply not how Parliament works up there.

                      the exceptional aspects out of this good country

                      I did not know that you were so fond of massacres of children that you place them as "exceptional aspects [...] of this good country".

                    • Second, you made a huge mistake at the very beginning where you assumed that he had the power to make this happen on his own. That is simply not how Parliament works up there.

                      We're talking past each other. I have zero interest in the specific text or parliamentary procedure in the Great White North.

                      The point on offer here is the authoritarian drift of governments.

                      "Your Team" insists that people be sheep, live in the present tense, and partake of their slops as though gourmet cuisine.

                      People with access to information outside of "Your Team's" propaganda bubble are losing interest in the incremental strangling of liberty occurring over time. Which reality you will label a "co

                    • Second, you made a huge mistake at the very beginning where you assumed that he had the power to make this happen on his own. That is simply not how Parliament works up there.

                      I have zero interest in the specific text or parliamentary procedure in the Great White North.

                      Then how can you claim expertise on what has been done or attempted if you refuse to pay any attention to how actions take place up there?

                      In other words, why are you insisting on spreading a lie?

                      The point on offer here is the authoritarian drift of governments.

                      Even if we overlook the very peculiar definition of "authoritarian" that you're using here, you're still undoubtedly guilty of applying hyperpartisan spin to something you know very little about. What entitles you to tell Canadian parliament what to do? Has it occurred to you that they might already have ver

  • Laws like this create more sheep when we need more shepherds [bbc.com].

    Trudeau should give up his protection detail as a sign of solidarity.

    • Trudeau should give up his protection detail as a sign of solidarity.

      The first rule of Lefty Club is: feel no pain.

      The second rule of Lefty Club is: if there need be pain, inflict it on the innocent and blame conservatives.

      • Exactly. The best part is when they try to ban things that don't even exist. My own favorite is the constant blather about "assault" this and that - when what they really mean are ugly firearms.
    • Of course they do. That is why cities with the strictest gun laws (think Chicago!) have the highest crime rates.

  • has the stopping power needed for a charging grizzly or polar bear.

    Ok, I know Canada has cities as well, but as a rule, these type of gun laws are disproportionately punitive against rural folks, and do nothing to stop urban crime. Still, this one might work just because of the uselessness of a short barrel in more ethical shooting.

    • *work- that is work to remove handguns....at least of the type that use gunpowder for propellant. I've got a small spring propellant dart thrower that could easily put a piece of steel 6" deep into ballistics gel that would not be touched by this ban at all.

    • Seriously? I have heard that the Ruger single-action Super Blackhawk revolver works quite well, if you can drop the bear with the first round. For those who prefer double action revolvers, the Super Redhawk Alaskan or any of a number of Smith and Wesson .44 magnum wheelguns will do the job. Then, there are the various 1911 and 1911-A clones in .45 ACP, which have long been used in defense against grizzlies. The reason for short barreled firearms in defense against bears is sometimes one finds oneself in a

      • Good point- I had not thought of that.

        • Most people who have never had to deal with wild animals don't think of such things. Pistols are also very useful against rapists and sexual murderers. Men also don't tend to think of such things. Marxists have always favored disarming the working class since an armed working class tends to get disgusted and rebel against Marxist leadership.

          • True. Though I gave up on Marxism (and in fact, owning lethal weapons- as a certified crazy person it is too big a temptation to suicide) long ago (slowly evolving into a distributist- or perhaps a more Thomas Sowell like realist), I do still have a tendency to be anti-violence (and in giving up on Marxism, anti-revolution).

            BTW, I used your example in a different discussion today on gun control, so thank you.

    • The only ones who are fretting use-cases are those who want to restrict.

      No one asks Leno about the number of cars he owns. If people want a feature wall of pistolas, let them do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Close