Originally posted by 71/454
You are correct, I didn't spend time on research before posting this. I'm aware of the requirement for a pal or pol and can assume these expire but know very little other than that.
This is a situation I would happy to be wrong in. By your response you allude to that but stop short of saying it.
Sorry if my response came off too harsh, it was mostly typed out of frustration.
It seems that when discussing gun control, it is 100% acceptable to exaggerate, misrepresent facts and outright lie, as well as use terms that are factually incorrect and only serve to mislead and inflame. This is further compounded by the almost universal ignorance of people when it comes to gun laws, both in Canada and the US.
Both sides need to come to a middle of the road agreement.
The gun control lobby needs to admit that banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals and has to stop using inflammatory terms and trying to ban things based on appearance and if something “looks scary” or like “the military might use it”.
The gun ownership lobby needs to admit that having background checks and safety training won’t restrict lawful ownership and use.
Furthermore, the general public needs to know that even if someone’s hobby is different from theirs, it doesn’t make it any less valid and just because someone supports the legal ownership and use of firearms, it doesn’t make them “pro-murder” or a right wing conservative nut job.
See Crank. See Crank Walk. Walk Crank Walk.
Registered User
Posting Permissions
Quote