Canada trying to ban Ruger #1 single shot rifles

[Snapshot2022]

I would post my true thoughts in regards to Canada and their firearm policies, but i am guessing i would be banned. for #1 SHAMING #2 Disrespecting #3 being untruthful in regarding the facts.

I will just say Canada's firearm policies just "STINK"

 

[WoodsCraft]

To be fair I've done a bit of reading and from what I've read / watched when Canadian gun rights types and how they’ve framed their arguements they always are attacking it from the angle of avoiding the it’s a right because apparently unlike the US its not regarded by the same historically and doesn’t have the support of the majority of the populace .

They’ve let this happen to themselves with a shall comply attitude. At some point that strategy doesn’t work.

 

[Snapshot2022]

When Canada banned the AR15 and got into a frenzy of gun control, i just wrote them off as a Country i wanted to visit.
We have enought dumb Democrats getting involved with gun control in this Country, that we don't need new advice or ideas from Canada.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Well socialist aren’t the same today as they were back then, your social security is socialism. Really any of the major reglions aren’t the same either. Jesus was a socialist as well. Helping the poor or underprivileged is always right IMO.

I must disagree with your definition of socialism. "Social Security" is not socialism. If you haven't paid into it, you don't get it. What you are paid from the system is based upon how much you paid in. Socialism is everyone gets an equal piece of the pie regardless of whether a person pays into the system or not, or regardless of any differential in value as to what a person "contributes" to the system.

Jesus wasn't a socialist. He was about being the best you can be, and about helping those in need. Charity is not the same as socialism or being a socialist. If Jesus was a socialist, He wouldn't have admonished the people to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, which, by the way, is not the same as allowing Caesar to take whatever Caesar tries to take.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

All this really means is that when the "One World Tyrants" start marching in, we can't rely on the disarmed Canadian people to help repel them.

We will have to stand on our own.

If we fail, we condemn those who would be the victims to death before the fact. We are aware that it can happen and are duty bound morally and in the name of common sense to prepare to fend it off.

Woody

 

[Chuckie]

I wonder how many confiscators a .458cal 500gr tungsten core solid will poke a hole through before it slows down and gets stuck in one of them?

-asking for a friend...

Probably not much of a problem about confiscation in Canuckland being that they are already so strict about firearms anyway. They are going the way of England.

 

[Snapshot2022]

Canada has taken advantage of the USA for many years, i remember them flooding us with steel products that their Government was subsidiving the costs of it's Mfg. same as China is doing today.

I also remember when two men who held many woman hostage, then raped and tortured them then murdered them.

When they were founed to be the ones involved they quickly ran into Canada, Canada would not extradict them to the USA unless we removed the death penality from being used if they were found guilty.

 

[WoodsCraft]

I must disagree with your definition of socialism. "Social Security" is not socialism. If you haven't paid into it, you don't get it. What you are paid from the system is based upon how much you paid in. Socialism is everyone gets an equal piece of the pie regardless of whether a person pays into the system or not, or regardless of any differential in value as to what a person "contributes" to the system.

Jesus wasn't a socialist. He was about being the best you can be, and about helping those in need. Charity is not the same as socialism or being a socialist. If Jesus was a socialist, He wouldn't have admonished the people to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, which, by the way, is not the same as allowing Caesar to take whatever Caesar tries to take.

Woody

You’re wrong about how social security works

You generally have to earn a certain number of credits to draw benefits (currently 40) unless you are in a qualifying category of people who get to draw without having paid into the system.

And fwiw there’s a fairly sizable number of folk in that category who draw benefits but never paid into the system.

Additionally only 4% of the population are defined as never beneficiaries by the Social Security AdminIstration

Social Security is socialism do you really think you’re gonna draw the money you paid in ? That’s not how it works, someone else paid for you or is currently paying for you, that’s always how Social Security has worked.It’s a mandatory participation system and you don’t get to opt out.

One of the reasons Social Security is becoming insolvent is because the ratio of people paying into the system supports beneficiaries has been shrinking for decades. It’s currently around 2 : 1 where it previously was as much higher .

 

[Snapshot2022]

You’re wrong about how social security works

You generally have to earn a certain number of credits to draw benefits (currently 40) unless you are in a qualifying category of people who get to draw without having paid into the system.

And fwiw there’s a fairly sizable number of folk in that category who draw benefits but never paid into the system.

Additionally only 4% of the population are defined as never beneficiaries by the Social Security AdminIstration

Social Security is socialism do you really think you’re gonna draw the money you paid in ? That’s not how it works, someone else paid for you or is currently paying for you, that’s always how Social Security has worked.It’s a mandatory participation system and you don’t get to opt out.

One of the reasons Social Security is becoming insolvent is because the ratio of people paying into the system supports beneficiaries has been shrinking for decades. It’s currently around 2 : 1 where it previously was as much higher .

Well i began paying into the SS system in 1957 and was still paying into it in the 90s, and even when 24 years ago i started drawing mine when i took a part time job i was again charged with paying into the SS system.
So for all the years i paid into the SS system and if i work any today i still wil be paying into it, so i feel i have paid my fair share into the SS system.

 

[WoodsCraft]

Well i began paying into the SS system in 1957 and was still paying into it in the 90s, and even when 24 years ago i started drawing mine when i took a part time job i was again charged with paying into the SS system.
So for all the years i paid into the SS system and if i work any today i still wil be paying into it, so i feel i have paid my fair share into the SS system.

You can feel about it how you want but there’s no such thing as “fair share”. You’ve been paying for other beneficiaries since 1957 assuming you’re still working while drawing benefits and earning income unless you’re staying below the income cap.