Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 26, 2020, 09:06:35 PM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  IWI TAVOR
| | |-+  Tavor7
| | | |-+  Will Canada Ban the Tavor 7?
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Will Canada Ban the Tavor 7?  (Read 2026 times)
boscoman
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558



« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2020, 12:33:53 PM »

A virus does not give the government the right to remove my rights. Plain & simple.

This is not the 1st nor will it be the last bug to reek havoc on us. It is still not an excuse for over reaching abusive politicians to stomp on our freedom of assembly to practice our religions as we see fit, our speech, or 2nd Amendment rights. Life is full of risk & we all get to gauge just how much risk we are willing to take. IT IS OUR RIGHT, plain & simple. Not for some bureaucrat to decide.

Just remember that the flu kills on average 60,000 people a year. Pneumonia, 50,000. More children died of the flu this year than from COVID. At least 80% of the people that got the bug didn't even know it. 80 plus % that died were over 80 & had underlying health problems to begin with. This is the way of life.

Trying to rationalize how many lives may, MAY, have been saved does not justify a loss of rights. Again, PLAIN & SIMPLE.
Logged

"Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Courage is not a lack of fear, but one's ability to overcome it
semper paratus
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744



« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2020, 03:56:22 PM »

so your rights are more important than the person standing next to you? 

60k deaths from the flu per year - covid is already at 80k after 4 months and reports estimate over 200k this year

what kind of response do you feel is appropriate for the person causing the death of one of your family members because the infected person did not wear a mask?
Logged
boscoman
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558



« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2020, 04:51:54 PM »

If my family member is at risk because of pre existing conditions than they need to stay away from others. That's my answer to your emotional immature question. My rights trump your paranoia. There is risk every day in life.

BTW, we have had other bugs that were worse than COVID. While the number of cases were lower, the rate of deaths was higher with H1N1. World was not shut down. When HIV first hit the streets we had no idea how it was spread or what to expect, yet again we didn't shut the world down.

Again, if you are compromised than this is a time of year to be extra cautious. But that does not justify shutting the rest of society in & destroying people's lives & businesses. It is estimated 1 in 5 suicides is related to unemployment. So how many people that have hit rock bottom because of this will end up offing themselves? Again, risk that we have had thrust upon us by Government that has over stepped its authority.

So yeah, that's my answer to your question.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2020, 04:58:08 PM by boscoman » Logged

"Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Courage is not a lack of fear, but one's ability to overcome it
BellatorInvictus
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 525



« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2020, 03:00:24 PM »

sounds like someone is off their meds..

No, I have no need for "meds." I can actually think clearly and I care about the truth, unlike you. You've avoided addressing nearly all the points I made, because you know you really have no argument. The Founding Fathers were clear about why they believed the people should be armed. You simply disagree with them. You believe it's OK for the ruling class to enjoy special privileges. You believe it's OK for agents of the State to drive around in armored vehicles with machine guns harassing and even arresting free citizens who are exercising their CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED right to peaceably assemble while armed. A war was fought once in this country over these issues, and we will do it again, if necessary. America must remain free. Safety is not an excuse for tyranny.

It's sad to see what's coming, but the writing is on the wall thanks to the attitudes of people like you. You're the reason gun control is successful--congratulations! By supporting what you arrogantly see as "reasonably" restricting our Constitutional rights, thus turning us all into defenseless sheep, you must also support the inevitable abuses and even murders the new Marxist government will carry out on our people.

Truly, I wish the best for you, and hope that in time you see how gravely mistaken you are and how terrifyingly you underestimate the evil that is in the world; THAT SAID, I currently see no common ground between you and me. I could have an easier conversation with a scorpion than with someone like you. Good day. May history forget you were our countryman.
Logged

Throughout all history, there has been one class of people who have been ordinarily prohibited from bearing arms: slaves.

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" -Stalin
MarkB
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 355



« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2020, 11:51:28 AM »

This shows just how demented the "rulers" in Canada are.  Get your coffee while you can.  Canada has BANNED Black Rifle Co coffee.

https://freedomslodge.com/breaking-canada-bans-black-rifle-coffee/?trk_msg=LHUQ7DR35EUKP09CP3EVFKQBM4&trk_contact=DC71I6270684CD1LVI09C0VIR0&trk_sid=2HV771667UQ84HRT5VPHCTG12S




Logged
INV136
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556


« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2020, 10:59:28 PM »

so your rights are more important than the person standing next to you?  

60k deaths from the flu per year - covid is already at 80k after 4 months and reports estimate over 200k this year

what kind of response do you feel is appropriate for the person causing the death of one of your family members because the infected person did not wear a mask?


Uh, no, you're wrong. Apparently, Covid 19 has only killed about 6% of reported deaths. The rest either had nothing to do with Covid 19 deaths (person killed in car accident that happened to have Covid 19 or other cause of death) or Covid 19 was merely a contributing factor, not the sole Cause of Death. So, latest death number was about 180,000, so that amounts to about 10,800, which is a lot less than 80,000. I've seen the news reports over the last several months where doctors are complaining that they have patients that died because of car accidents or heart attacks and coincidentally have Covid 19 and the doctor was forced to list cause of death as Covid 19.  Yeah, you can drink the Kool Aid, but, don't expect everyone else to take a sip from your plastic sippy cup.  Roll Eyes
  
From the CDC website:

"Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned."
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2020, 10:07:34 AM »

Oh man, this thread is absolutely full of some awesome debate and discourse regarding the 2A. Just wanted to add my 2 cents and echo a couple of principles that hopefully contribute to understanding.

First this, looking at what Tyranny is. A quick interwebs search for the definition of "tyrannical" yields the following:

Exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way.
"a tyrannical government"

Synonyms:dictatorial, despotic, autocratic, oppressive, repressive, totalitarian, domineering, dominating, iron-handed, cruel, brutal, ruthless, unjust

Antonyms:democratic, liberal, easy-going, freedom

Using the descriptors above, and the well framed argument and points made by Bellator and the Founding Fathers, it's clear to me that an armed, trained, disciplined, experienced and drilled population represent the greatest obstacle (not the only obstacle) for a tyrannical government or force of any kind to exercise their will on the people without restraint. Subordinate to that obstacle is the ability of the people to organize in protest, to vote, to speak openly, and utilize investigative measures to keep government officials and dealings in check using the press and other media. I'm sure there are many more obstacles to tyranny, but those come to mind when considering the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.

Considering the social aspects of the use of force, I want to use Afghanistan as an example, primarily because I've spent some time there, and have seen first hand a good example of this relationship between an armed population and a tyrannical force. The country is a melting pot of different cultures, ethnicity, industry and trade. The civil/political issues present in the country are an entirely separate discussion, although they contribute to the conditions that make this example possible. We'll just keep it simple for now.

Take a village of say 60 people, 5 men over 60 years old (elders), 15 men in their prime, 20 Women, and 20 children under the age of 18, boys and girls alike. The bulk of their capable fighting force may include some of the children, but certainly centers on the 15 adult males in their prime. In Afghanistan, ownership of a firearm is seen as a right of passage from adolescence to adulthood, as well as a responsibility to protect one's family and village from outsider threats. These threats are all too real and take their toll day after day. Keep in mind that ownership of a firearm does not equal proficiency, nor does it mean that the armed villagers have sufficient organization and discipline to ward off attacks. That requires individual and collective training, as well as ammunition and resources to facilitate that training and defense.

Regardless of the political or law enforcement infrastructure that exists or may not exist in their village, the social aspect of protecting one's home, property and rights falls primarily to the individual, not to someone else. This is true for us here in the US. The same is true for this village as a whole, as it is for our Communities as a whole. To the degree they work together and regard their security as their own responsibility, their security posture is absolutely upgraded from the Lone Wolf Individual to the Village defense, or militia if you will. To the degree that we do the same in our communities, we enjoy the same bolstering of our collective defense. To the degree we are socially distant, non-interactive or have a weak/negative or no relationship with our neighbors, we are consequently weak in our security posture and social structure as a community, city, state or country.

The reason this dynamic of community strength vs. weakness absolutely exists in Afghanistan is because these villages are under constant threat and frequent attack from extremists who would seek to dominate, exploit and control the affairs of the village to benefit their agenda or objectives. The primary source of sustenance and income for these villages is usually self provided or traded with nearby villages, through growing agricultural crops, mining minerals, spices, or raising livestock for meat...etc. An invading force looking to bolster their position in a territory, and take advantage of this stream of support/income will target remote locations due to the fact that the established government or military forces have little to no infrastructure in these remote locations, and/or are restricted in their ability to effectively and quickly respond to threats. Thus, the village is left to defend themselves.

Typically, an invading force will attack at night, pull people from their homes, disarm them, separate the men and women and children from each other, kill a few of the village elders, and kill, torture or rape anyone who resists, men and women alike. I wish I was making this up, but I can't necessarily un-see those images, or forget the reports I've personally read or written. The point of a night attack is because the villagers are not postured for defense, but are sleeping, hence the element of surprise and control from the outset are held by the invaders. Their first order of business is complete domination of the defensive body, which includes the killing, intimidation and disarming of the defense, and breaking their will to fight through harming their loved ones. Once this is complete, the invaders are free to run the village with a tyrannical approach, uncontested by a disarmed population. That is, until a better organized force removes them, with the assistance of some flying robots and attack helicopters...

This is on a small scale, a community scale. To the degree that individuals have weapons, but lack training or organization, they are that much more vulnerable to attack. To the degree that they are trained, organized and can form an effective defense, they are that much more formidable and harder to exploit or defeat.

Looking at the Founding Fathers thought process that went into writing the Constitution we learn from their own experience that they really had a thing for suppressing any form of Tyranny that could exist in our government or precipitate from the decisions and agendas of corrupt government officials down the road, which we are now experiencing. In regards to the use of Arms to prevent tyranny, the only way they were able to defeat the British using common citizens, was to arm them, organize them, train them and empower them to effectively engage one of the worlds best fighting forces that existed in their time, using unconventional tactics to obtain strategic and tactical gains over the British. They could only do that if they had the right tools and training to accomplish their tasks. The tools at the time were military style arms and drills comparable to their opponents or better in some cases, as pointed out by Bellator and BillyG. Those tools are completely useless without munitions, so yes, being Armed implies adequate munitions. They also required collective training to get away from the Lone Wolf mentality, and find strength in numbers and common proficiency through drill and combat. Hence why military weapons and battle drills are are typically standardized to bolster interoperability and combat effectiveness between fighting units.

I will argue a key point to the 2nd Amendments intended use of the word Militia. I categorically reject the notion that in order to keep and bear arms, an individual has to be a member of a militia. In my view, the use of the word Militia was not meant to discount the individuals right to bear arms, but sets a purposeful objective for men and women who bear arms to achieve an effective defense against tyranny in their communities. That the individual should posses arms and be proficient in their use and maintenance is good, especially when that knowledge and experience contributes to the communities coordinated defense in a militia.  

Thus, when all other obstacles have failed to prevent tyranny, In order for the individual to have a fighting chance to defeat a tyrannical government or force, he must organize with other like minded, and similarly armed individuals to form an effective defense in the form of a trained and proficient militia.

The cautionary tail learned here is this, and has always been true for nations or communities that wish to maintain their peace:

If you are not communicating, be prepared to be outsmarted by those who do. If you are not participating, be prepared to be less informed than those who do. If you are not armed, prepare to be steamrolled by those who are. If you are not prepared, be ready to be at the mercy of those who are. If you are not organized, trained, equipped, or lack leadership, be prepared to be controlled by those who are.

Here's a couple more points regarding how the United States, our Constitution and Military Leaders have attempted to safeguard against the following quote from earlier:

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Does the US have a standing Army? Absolutely.
Is that Army prohibited from conducting any kind of operation on US soil apart from previously designated or approved training areas? Yes, they are.
Do all service members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Yes, they do.
Does the defense of the Constitution include the defense of individuals or obedience to government officials who would seek to violate the Constitutional rights of Law Abiding American Citizens? No it does not.
Will the common American Soldier allow themselves to be constrained or forced to offensively fire upon law abiding US citizens? No.

In other words, on that last point, given the fact that we do have a standing Army, every Soldiers first official experience of joining the military is making an oath which implicitly requires them to safeguard the rights, lives and freedom of our people, as guaranteed by the Constitution. I will not fire upon law abiding US Citizens, nor will I follow an order to do so, so long as our Oaths and the Constitution stand.

The key for militias to retain their legitimacy and avoid being targeted in the first place is to ensure they do not project the image or intent of being enemies to the principles and laws of the Constitution, hence why many States provided a Charter and sanction for State recognized Militias and organizations which have those rights and principles at the core of their directives. On the other hand, if Antifa were to form a militia, operating on the tenants and principles of their organization, lacking state sponsorship and began offensive operations on US soil, I have no doubt they'd be targeted and/or investigated by the appropriate echelons of our state military, law enforcement and intelligence community...wait a second, that may have already happened...

On the point that the citizenry sometimes acquire better weapons and/or technology than the military, that's true. I've seen the pictures and videos of some of the setups and rigs private citizens and groups are training with, and they are much better than the basic issue items given to our Soldiers today. This technological/ equipment disparity doesn't really get much bigger than the realm of individual equipment, since the bigger toys and weapon systems cost way more than the private individuals income. For example, I'd love to own an AH-64. But they cost upwards of $38 million per air frame, run well above $3,000 per hour to operate (fuel, maintenance, man hours, Pilot/Maintainer salary...etc), and the maintenance requirements to ensure safe operation require hundreds of man hours to keep the blades spinning. A Hellfire Missile, based on variant can run any where from $80-115k a pop. A single M789 HEDP 30mm round costs ~$100, and the minimum burst limit from the gun is 10 rounds per trigger pull, stepping up to 20, 50, 100, and all per trigger pull. Regulations aside of larger and more lethal weapons, such as rockets, bombs, AT, jets incendiary, nuclear, chemical or electronic devices, the average citizen simply cannot afford to amass these kinds of weapons for personal use.

I will say though, it is a testament to the competitive an innovative nature of inventors and entrepreneurs that they can continue to produce and improve upon military tech, due to the freedom, opportunities and resources provided by a capitalism based economy.

On the topic of banning certain types of weapons, magazines or munitions from individual use, that's a loaded subject that really boils down to a few key topics:

1.The law abiding individuals inherent right and responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their property
2.The tools used for self/community defense being proportional to and effective against the greatest possible threat to a population: Their own Government turning against them or an invading force.
3.The responsibility of armed, law abiding citizens to respect the rights and liberty of their fellow Americans, and not use their weapons to commit acts of tyranny, but to defend against it, be that defense against the government, on down to the common criminal
4.The increasing social discord that exists between persons or populations, and the increasing behavioral norm that individuals and groups have to reach for violence as the primary means to solve their problems.
5. Fear of the armed population by those who are in Power, and the obstacles they present to the expansion of power over the population.
6. The responsible use and regulation of weapons of increased lethality, and the monitoring of their proliferation.
7. Proliferation of weapons without suitable training and/or discipline to ensure their responsible use and restraint of arbitrary and unjustified/senseless violence.

These strike me as some, not all of the topics that feed into this issue.            
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 12:46:01 PM by Mr.Tucker » Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2020, 12:21:10 PM »

Looking at topic #2: The tools used for self/community defense being proportional to and effective against the greatest possible threat to a population: Their own Government turning against them or an invading force.

Based on cost alone, the average citizen may not be able to purchase a Javelin, or a Tank, or an APC, an F16, a Nuclear Bomb....etc. Regulations and market availability further constrict their access to such weapons. But they do have the means to buy some body armor, to buy an AR-15, to buy a combat load of 5.56 with hi capacity magazines, and carry a side-arm. Their right to bear Arms, per the spirit and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure they are prepared to defend themselves and their communities, their states...etc from a tyrannical government and military force, foreign or domestic.

The right to self defense of one's life, property and family is not restricted to military on civilian engagements, but is universal, regardless of the participants involved. The means of self defense depends on the situation, requiring a legal consideration of proportionality. For instance, if I stab someone for a verbal attack like "Your pant suit makes you look like Hilary", the defense of my ego against a verbal attack using a knife is not proportional. Conversely, If I am being actively beaten senseless by a mob wielding weapons and blunt force objects, and I use a firearm to defend my life, I have met the threat with a proportionate response. I use lethal force because I am threatened in a lethal manner. Judging the means of protection is entirely a situationally dependent matter, with legal investigation and consequences on the back end used to determine if the means of defense rose to or surpassed the level of the attack. Again, this is situationally dependent. Legislating restrictions on the means of personal defense based on scenarios you are more likely to encounter robs the individual of the freedom to choose how to defend himself proportionally in any scenario they could encounter, thus limiting their inherent right and means to self defense. The most extreme, and least likely but possible scenario I can think of for an American Citizen or community, is fighting against a foreign or domestic military force/government. For the folks in Afghanistan, parts of Africa, South/Central America and many other nations, defense using Firearms is a much more frequent occurrence. Just because the average American doesn't encounter these situations in their entire lifetimes, does not mean that It can't happen or won't. Our Forefathers knew this first hand, as they saw their society transform from a pre-war political conflict, to a full blown revolution on our soil. We've enjoyed the absence of such conflict on our soil by the merits of the Constitution by abiding by it's principles and Law's, and maintaining a strong Military and Citizenry prepared for the worst case scenario.

Just because the likelihood of something happening is rare, the means of protection in that situation should not to be restricted down to the lowest possible form of a threat that requires self defense. To say I can't own a military style fire arm because I don't need it to hunt, or fend off a home intruder when some other, less destructive weapon would do, does not measure up to the standard of why the 2nd Amendment was written. It wasn't written for hunting or home defense against a common criminal. It was written to give us the best chance for survival in the unfair fight.

Do you think the average citizen is really able to equip themselves adequately to go toe to toe with an M1 Abrams tank, or an AH-64? Can I walk into Joe's Gun shop and buy an AT-4? Hell No, at least not at the Joe's Gun Shop I frequent. Do you think that would be a fair fight? Of course not. Has the fight against AK/RPG/IED wielding ISIS or Taliban ever been fair considering we're using FLIR equiped drones, laser guided munitions, GPS smart bombs, supersonic jets, attack helicopters, aerial delivered munitions, swarms of infantry, and specialized units to kill their fighters and systematically dismantle their war fighting resources? It's never been fair for them, but still we use all our enablers to fight them. We don't put a cap on our magazines in the military, we don't put a limit on what features our weapons can or cannot have....etc. We affect the battle space using proportional means according to the Laws of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement, but we don't limit the capabilities of our weapons to inflict maximum damage in the rare event it is required.

The enemy is forced to adapt in order to survive, and have evolved as an insurgency to become very robust, creative and deadly in their own realms of expertise. Nothing in this is fair in their situation, and if our own government somehow creates a secret Army that has the diabolical notion to kill it's own citizens, that fight won't be fair for us either. The 2nd Amendment was born out of a conflict that wasn't fair. We were fighting the British Army, the most disciplined, best equipped, highly trained and proficient military in the Colonies. We went to war with them, recruiting boys, farmers, smiths, farriers, tradesmen, plantation owners....etc to go against battle hardened Soldiers, Artillery, Cavalry and Navies. It was fought in our neighborhoods, in our cities and streets. We formed a Continental Army, but the supporting Militias weren't much more than what we'd regard as an insurgency in our day. Affiliated with the big brother Army, yes, but still isolated enough to be vulnerable and incapable of contesting the British ranks in a "Fair Fight". The 2nd Amendment is about mitigating the disparity of equipment and training available between a Militia and a superior fighting force. It's the final safe guard against our own Government turning against us, OR, an invading enemy defeating our standing Army and coming into our lands and our homes as the British were. It is not to be infringed because doing so would cap the odds of our survival as a people in this extreme case.

To the extent that an individual is able to financially support their own procurement of Arms, munitions, gear and protective equipment, there should be a proportional responsibility of that citizen to know how to use them properly, respect their destructive power through reserved use and display of that power, and maintain some form of training regimen and affiliation with other responsible citizens of similar character in a way that supports their communities without destabilizing the public peace, until that peace is shattered by an aggressor with no regard for our rights.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 12:39:50 PM by Mr.Tucker » Logged
Jerns75
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2020, 03:52:33 PM »

And yet, here we sit with a standing army.  Rarely do I see that called into question.  Perhaps going back to calling the army up from citizens only when necessary and having everyone serve at some point would be a good thing.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!