NationStates Jolt Archive

It makes normal people seem like criminals.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_arrests-native20050628

Two prominent First Nations activists, who say they're on a mission to help native youth, were arrested in a full-scale police takedown on the Burrard bridge on Monday.

In the back of the van, the police found 14 hunting rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition – plus camping and survival gear.

Dennis says he has all the proper paperwork for the rifles and the ammunition, and is demanding the return of the guns and gears seized by police.

The RCMP say if the guns were obtained legally, they will be returned. But a police spokesperson says the anti-terrorism unit is currently considering charges against the pair.

"This was a national security investigation team arrest. Three people were released after the arrest, but our investigation is ongoing," says Sgt. John Ward.

Dennis says he and Ward are not terrorists – that they have only defended indigenous rights to hunt and fish: "And the message here is you can't do that without the secret police looking down at you."

The Band in question Tsawataineuk First Nation, vouches for these people, and I believe that the guns are legal...but it seems like the RCMP are saying they may charge these men anyway under anti-terrorism laws. How ridiculous! These men have political affiliations the government does not like, and they had guns. The perfect excuse to call them terrorists and lock 'em up.

Welcome to my side of the gun debate.

Welcome to my side of the gun debate.

Indeed.

I'm interested as to how you would feel if they were three middle aged anglo men in Montana,USA. Would 10,000 rounds cause you concern then?

You dont have to answer me, I'm just curious.

Welcome to my side of the gun debate.
Ah...I was pretty much there anyway. I've never been rabidly anti-gun (though I still don't see the point of handguns...I would prefer to hunt with rifles, but whatever).

I doubt you would've got far in the US either if you had 14 hunting rifles and 10 THOUSAND rounds of ammunition in your truck either. And you are hiding what should be a complaint against "anti-terrorism actions" under an a front of complaitns about gun control because you are obsessed with guns

I'm interested as to how you would feel if they were three middle aged anglo men in Montana,USA. Would 10,000 rounds cause you concern then?

You dont have to answer me, I'm just curious.
Good question! To be honest, yeah, I think I would've considered them more likely to be militant terrorist types. Huh. Yes, I see my bias here, because this definitely impacts me. However, if upon reading the story, I saw that the men had been released, insisted they had the proper papers, and were doing a 'wilderness survival/hunting' community project, I'd be just as outraged. But you're right...the story wouldn't have caught my eye as strongly. Sorry. I'll try to overcome my biased view of all white hunters as gun nuts.

Ihatevacations']I doubt you would've got far in the US either if you had 14 hunting rifles and 10 THOUSAND rounds of ammunition in your truck either
Actually, I would expect that if this had happened in the US, the reaction would have been much, much worse.

Welcome to my side of the gun debate.
Mine too.

I'm interested as to how you would feel if they were three middle aged anglo men in Montana,USA. Would 10,000 rounds cause you concern then?

You dont have to answer me, I'm just curious.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Yes, someone having 10,000 rounds is cause for concern no matter the ethnicity of the person. What's much more relevant is their ability to handle the ammunition properly and their intended use of it.

Ihatevacations']I doubt you would've got far in the US either if you had 14 hunting rifles and 10 THOUSAND rounds of ammunition in your truck either. And you are hiding what should be a complaint against "anti-terrorism actions" under an a front of complaitns about gun control because you are obsessed with guns
It depends what state you're in. My state, New Jersey, is rabidly anti-gun. A state like New Hampshire, which has more liberal gun laws might not mind at all. Still, federal law allows you to have something like 20,000 rounds of ammunition legally.

ANd sincem y post edit is gonig to be left behind let me add it here

And you are hiding what should be a complaint against "anti-terrorism actions" under an a front of complaitns about gun control because you are obsessed with guns

You think some one that has been pissing off the local government is going to get off wondering around with 14 guns and 10k rounds? Fuck no, if it was the US they would've had their asses thrown in jail for who knows wtf, probably nothing in particular.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Yes, someone having 10,000 rounds is cause for concern no matter the ethnicity of the person. What's much more relevant is their ability to handle the ammunition properly and their intended use of it.
True. I did raise my eyebrows at the amount of ammo (14 guns is not that much, but 10,000 rounds!!??) I do question why they were transporting it in this manner.

I'm interested as to how you would feel if they were three middle aged anglo men in Montana,USA. Would 10,000 rounds cause you concern then?

You dont have to answer me, I'm just curious.
Actually, 10,000 rounds isn't all that much ammunition, particularly if you divide it among 14 shooters: about 714 rounds per. I've used more than that in two days.

Good question! To be honest, yeah, I think I would've considered them more likely to be militant terrorist types. Huh. Yes, I see my bias here, because this definitely impacts me. However, if upon reading the story, I saw that the men had been realised, insisted they had the proper papers, and were doing a 'wilderness survival/hunting' community project, I'd be just as outraged. But you're right...the story wouldn't have caught my eye as strongly. Sorry. I'll try to overcome my biased view of all white hunters as gun nuts.

10K rounds really isn't all that much. I try to buy in bulk of 1000 + rounds w/ purchases and I know quite a few people who go to shows/shoots that bring that or more w/ them.

Now you get to be called a "gun nut" who opposes any "reasonable" gun control (banning) measures.

Good question! To be honest, yeah, I think I would've considered them more likely to be militant terrorist types. Huh. Yes, I see my bias here, because this definitely impacts me. However, if upon reading the story, I saw that the men had been released, insisted they had the proper papers, and were doing a 'wilderness survival/hunting' community project, I'd be just as outraged. But you're right...the story wouldn't have caught my eye as strongly. Sorry. I'll try to overcome my biased view of all white hunters as gun nuts.


Well-thank you. We all have a bias and I saw how this story relates to you.

I may have in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 thousand rounds of ammunition for various rifles and shotguns. The problem is, I buy stuff on sale and dont shoot as often as I once did. It can add up. I dont hunt at all.

You see... Nationstates General IS good for something.

In my time here I was converted to the pro-gun side as well. Crap like that and how ineffective gun-regulation seems to be just kinda got through to me.

That story is really too much though. How can they have guns legally and illegally at the same time? They aren't allowed to have them because they belong to these "Nations First" people? WTF is that? If the guns were purchased legally and properly registered, how the hell are they terrorists? Sheesh. Sounds like something the US might do, but Canada?

And secondly, Canada has an Anti-Terror unit? Who the hell would want to terrorise Canada? The Quebecois?

Actually, 10,000 rounds isn't all that much ammunition, particularly if you divide it among 14 shooters: about 714 rounds per. I've used more than that in two days.

Doing what? I'm honestly curious here. Target practice? Drills?

It depends what state you're in. My state, New Jersey, is rabidly anti-gun. A state like New Hampshire, which has more liberal gun laws might not mind at all. Still, federal law allows you to have something like 20,000 rounds of ammunition legally.


Yes-I am in NJ and it is a pain in the ass. A license is need to purchase or possess an air rifle. you can buy the pellets without one though.

Ihatevacations']ANd sincem y post edit is gonig to be left behind let me add it here

And you are hiding what should be a complaint against "anti-terrorism actions" under an a front of complaitns about gun control because you are obsessed with guns
I'm obsessed with guns? What the hell makes you think that? Feminism? Check. Gender? Check. Sexuality? Check. Guns? Natch.

Ihatevacations']You think some one that has been pissing off the local government is going to get off wondering around with 14 guns and 10k rounds? Fuck no, if it was the US they would've had their asses thrown in jail for who knows wtf, probably nothing in particular. I agree, they are being targeted for their politics. (Both men are West Coast Warriors (http://keyway0.tripod.com/index.html). However, I think the gun issue, and the 'terrorism' issue are linked here. The gun registration, as people have predicted, is being used as a way to get at those who are considered 'suspect'. It creates criminality where none previously existed, and makes labeling people as 'terrorists' easier and more effective. However, this is also very much a native issue, as the majority of rural natives are armed. Heavily. Because we hunt. So we, along with many rural people, are going to bear the brunt of this kind of crack down.

Actually, 10,000 rounds isn't all that much ammunition, particularly if you divide it among 14 shooters: about 714 rounds per. I've used more than that in two days.
But being transported all at once, in a truck...imagine a fiery crash and the ensuing chaos...

It makes normal people seem like criminals.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_arrests-native20050628

The Band in question Tsawataineuk First Nation, vouches for these people, and I believe that the guns are legal...but it seems like the RCMP are saying they may charge these men anyway under anti-terrorism laws. How ridiculous! These men have political affiliations the government does not like, and they had guns. The perfect excuse to call them terrorists and lock 'em up.
Goddamn anti-government nutcases!

If these guys from a white supremacist/Nazi group are going around with loads of guns and ten thousand rounds, hell yes the police should watch them and question them. I don't think that it would be right to throw them in jail without trial or anything like that, but for the community's and nation's safety, these guys should not just pass through unwatched. I don't want to wait until they commit a massacre in the name of their "civil liberties".

Ah...I was pretty much there anyway. I've never been rabidly anti-gun (though I still don't see the point of handguns...I would prefer to hunt with rifles, but whatever).

Concealable and easy to carry (versus a rifle) make it great for close quarters self-defense.

Doing what? I'm honestly curious here. Target practice? Drills?
Target practice, mostly. :)

10K rounds really isn't all that much. I try to buy in bulk of 1000 + rounds w/ purchases and I know quite a few people who go to shows/shoots that bring that or more w/ them.
Sure sounds like a lot, smeared all over the front page, eh?

Now you get to be called a "gun nut" who opposes any "reasonable" gun control (banning) measures.
That's okay. I'm already a damn dirty liberal, feminazi, racist Indian, depending on who you talk to.

I agree, they are being targeted for their politics. (Both men are West Coast Warriors (http://keyway0.tripod.com/index.html). However, I think the gun issue, and the 'terrorism' issue are linked here. The gun registration, as people have predicted, is being used as a way to get at those who are considered 'suspect'. It creates criminality where none previously existed, and makes labeling people as 'terrorists' easier and more effective. However, this is also very much a native issue, as the majority of rural natives are armed. Heavily. Because we hunt. So we, along with many rural people, are going to bear the brunt of this kind of crack down.
If they were being watched for terrorist activites, I doubt the fact that gun registration was what helped people pin point them. The whole group probably has people watching them all the damn time anyway and they just happened to catch them with close to a hand in a cookie jar.

Yes-I am in NJ and it is a pain in the ass. A license is need to purchase or possess an air rifle. you can buy the pellets without one though.
Good old firearms ID card. What a pain in the ass. Also both my pistols require a license, but I can buy my ammo with only a driver's license. No hollowpoints though. :(

Luckily I have a healthy disrespect for the law. :)

They aren't allowed to have them because they belong to these "Nations First" people? WTF is that?

"First Nations" = Canadian aboriginal (Indian band folk)

Look at the registration this way though: if they have paperwork for all this stuff, there will be no further problem. If it were NOT for registration, it would be a lot stickier letting them go later with that much ammo and all those weapons in the middle of downtown Vancouver.

Target practice, mostly. :)

Ah. Makes sense. Using what sort of weapons and for how long?

That story is really too much though. How can they have guns legally and illegally at the same time? They aren't allowed to have them because they belong to these "Nations First" people? WTF is that? If the guns were purchased legally and properly registered, how the hell are they terrorists?
That's what worries me. They were released almost immediately, but the guns have not been returned (who knows how long THAT will take!) and the band is itching to start this youth program. Christ, our kids have so few positive things to fill their time, and now they'll probabaly have to wait till next year:( It seems that this is going to be a long issue about native politics and definitions of terrorism.

And secondly, Canada has an Anti-Terror unit? Who the hell would want to terrorise Canada? The Quebecois?
Don't laugh...they did it once (FLQ) and Trudeau introduced marshal law via the War Measures Act. And yes, we have new anti-terrorism laws, post 911. Laws which include anti-poverty groups and other social activists, and some native rights campaginers. Scary stuff. We're more low key about that stuff up here, but our RCMP have extraordinary power to get away with shit, like kidnapping protesters, pepper-spraying, etc etc.

Ah. Makes sense. Using what sort of weapons and for how long?
A rather wide variety of weapons. You have a TG. :)

It creates criminality where none previously existed, and makes labeling people as 'terrorists' easier and more effective. However, this is also very much a native issue, as the majority of rural natives are armed. Heavily. Because we hunt. So we, along with many rural people, are going to bear the brunt of this kind of crack down.


Remember, only the "right" kind of people should be allowed to own firearms.

Goddamn anti-government nutcases!

If these guys from a white supremacist/Nazi group are going around with loads of guns and ten thousand rounds, hell yes the police should watch them and question them. I don't think that it would be right to throw them in jail without trial or anything like that, but for the community's and nation's safety, these guys should not just pass through unwatched. I don't want to wait until they commit a massacre in the name of their "civil liberties".
I'm not quite sure...is that sarcasm? :confused:

I'm obsessed with guns? What the hell makes you think that? Feminism? Check. Gender? Check. Sexuality? Check. Guns? Natch.

I agree, they are being targeted for their politics. (Both men are West Coast Warriors (http://keyway0.tripod.com/index.html). However, I think the gun issue, and the 'terrorism' issue are linked here. The gun registration, as people have predicted, is being used as a way to get at those who are considered 'suspect'. It creates criminality where none previously existed, and makes labeling people as 'terrorists' easier and more effective. However, this is also very much a native issue, as the majority of rural natives are armed. Heavily. Because we hunt. So we, along with many rural people, are going to bear the brunt of this kind of crack down.

As a hunter and rural person, I have to agree. I feel discriminated against by most gun laws, not just because I disagree, but because I need them for my way of life. This includes subsistence hunting and protection from wildlife.

I couldn't agree more that those guys are being harassed for political purposes.

It's been covered adequately, but the number of shells is not unusual - I reload my own ammunition and will shoot near that much in a good year by myself. Trap shooters (shotgun) will shoot that much in a summer.

Ah...I was pretty much there anyway. I've never been rabidly anti-gun (though I still don't see the point of handguns...I would prefer to hunt with rifles, but whatever).

quickness/speed of use... don't have to line it up with your shoulder... which might come in handy if someone's chasing you around the house.

Concealable and easy to carry (versus a rifle) make it great for close quarters self-defense.
I just use guns for hunting, so that's my issue with handguns (yes Syniks, I know there are handguns for hunting. I don't like them.)

Canadians, on the whole, do not tend to carry guns around for 'self-defense', so that's not an issue we use to deal with gun registration.

And secondly, Canada has an Anti-Terror unit? Who the hell would want to terrorise Canada? The Quebecois?

In fact, many of the same people who want to terrorize America. We're a liberal, free, nation like the USA is intented to be, and we're a close ally. If you take down our economy, America is really very screwed.

The trouble with gun control laws is that criminals (who we want to keep unarmed) are by definition law breakers. What's one more law? I personally hate the idea of a heavily armed population. However, I realize the genie can't be put back in the bottle. What we need to look at is the manufacture and sale more than possesion.

Ihatevacations']If they were being watched for terrorist activites, I doubt the fact that gun registration was what helped people pin point them. The whole group probably has people watching them all the damn time anyway and they just happened to catch them with close to a hand in a cookie jar.
Yes, I also believe this to be true. It was just the perfect opportunity. Now there will be questions about why this band chose THESE men to bring them guns, there will be questions about what this youth program is REALLY about, and so on and so forth...more natives will become militant because of this 'act against them', and more non-natives will get scared by big (HOT) indians with guns.

It reminds me of the tension in the Oka standoff years...(not yet, but I can see it building).

Good old firearms ID card. What a pain in the ass. Also both my pistols require a license, but I can buy my ammo with only a driver's license. No hollowpoints though. :(

Luckily I have a healthy disrespect for the law. :)


I have an unregistered Sheridan air rifle now. The rifles and shotguns are all at my families home in NY, where they were purchased and are stored legally and safe. I dont have the ID card yet. I dont have any pistols.

I'm planning on joining a local shooting range and go through all the legal steps to get the ID card.

It makes normal people seem like criminals.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_arrests-native20050628



The Band in question Tsawataineuk First Nation, vouches for these people, and I believe that the guns are legal...but it seems like the RCMP are saying they may charge these men anyway under anti-terrorism laws. How ridiculous! These men have political affiliations the government does not like, and they had guns. The perfect excuse to call them terrorists and lock 'em up.

Welcome to the side of , if not the Angels, at least, the good guys, Sinuhue. This kind of abuse is why the pro-rights side of hte Gun-Control issue is so hard-core today. Glad to have you with us on this one.

"First Nations" = Canadian aboriginal (Indian band folk)

Look at the registration this way though: if they have paperwork for all this stuff, there will be no further problem. If it were NOT for registration, it would be a lot stickier letting them go later with that much ammo and all those weapons in the middle of downtown Vancouver.
Not necessarily true. It seems that they are considering charges under the anti-terrorism act, not on gun possession. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out of course.

I just use guns for hunting, so that's my issue with handguns (yes Syniks, I know there are handguns for hunting. I don't like them.)

Canadians, on the whole, do not tend to carry guns around for 'self-defense', so that's not an issue we use to deal with gun registration.

In the US, most of the anti-gun groups are starting to go after common hunting rifles as "intermediate sniper rifles", "assault weapons" (with less powerful ammo) as to dangerous, and .22's to "keep them out of childrens hands".

Effectively all guns.

Remember, only the "right" kind of people should be allowed to own firearms.
:rolleyes:

Welcome to the side of , if not the Angels, at least, the good guys, Sinuhue. This kind of abuse is why the pro-rights side of hte Gun-Control issue is so hard-core today. Glad to have you with us on this one.
Just for the record, I'm still a fucking bitch lefty!

In the US, most of the anti-gun groups are starting to go after common hunting rifles as "intermediate sniper rifles", "assault weapons" (with less powerful ammo) as to dangerous, and .22's to "keep them out of childrens hands".

Effectively all guns.
I agree that there should be requirements about safe storage of guns and ammunition. It seems every couple of years another kid on the rez shoots himself or someone else by accident...the gun cabinets are good. I could even support registration to a point, if there was a guarantee it would stop there and not turn into an out-right ban. But such a guarantee does not exist. :(

quickness/speed of use... don't have to line it up with your shoulder... which might come in handy if someone's chasing you around the house.


I have kids in the house and thats a firearms issue. Although I have taught my 11 yrs old some basic gun safety, he isnt really as interested as I was at that age. My wife is very afraid of guns, having never seen one til she met me.
As far as an intruder chasing me around the house- I have a readily accessable K-Bar and a tomahawk, as well as a viscious streak a mile wide. Besides, when I'm not all cuddily, I can be extremely intimidating.

<snip>
As far as an intruder chasing me around the house- I have a readily accessable K-Bar and a tomahawk, as well as a viscious streak a mile wide. Besides, when I'm not all cuddily, I can be extremely intimidating.

Doesn't work so well with bear and coyotes.

I have kids in the house and thats a firearms issue. Although I have taught my 11 yrs old some basic gun safety, he isnt really as interested as I was at that age. My wife is very afraid of guns, having never seen one til she met me.
As far as an intruder chasing me around the house- I have a readily accessable K-Bar and a tomahawk, as well as a viscious streak a mile wide. Besides, when I'm not all cuddily, I can be extremely intimidating.
I also don't see guns as a good in-house defense plan in an immediate situation. Then again, living in a rural area, it's almost impossible for a stranger to sneak up on your property without due warning being give (dogs barking, motion-sensor floodlight blinding them and waking me up). So, worst case scenario, there is time to get into the gun cabinet to get my rifle, and into the safe to get the ammo (they have to be stored separately). Under no circumstances would I have a loaded firearm, pistol or rifle, laying around for 'easy access'.

Doesn't work so well with bear and coyotes.
Bears and coyotes don't tend to break a window, crawl in, and chase you around the house. You generally have time to get your gun and either scare them off, or shoot them.

If you're in the bush, you have a rifle to hand, even in the cabin. If kids are around, this is the time to teach them NOT TO TOUCH. We have a rack just above reaching height for kids to put the gun. I can still jump up (I'm short) and grab it, but unless the kids dragged a chair over (and we'd have time to stop them if they tried it) they wouldn't be able to get at the gun. But when you're in the bush, or at the cabin, you keep the kids in your sight at all times because of wild animals. Not so at home, where they can be a bit freerer, and possibly get into more trouble. Thus, locked guns at home, loose but high in the bush.

In the US, most of the anti-gun groups are starting to go after common hunting rifles as "intermediate sniper rifles", "assault weapons" (with less powerful ammo) as to dangerous, and .22's to "keep them out of childrens hands".

Effectively all guns.


I have a small AR-7 .22 survival rifle. I legally bought a Ram line 30 round banana clip for it. This, loaded with CCI stinger hollow points can be a very formidable weapon.

Doesn't work so well with bear and coyotes.

I've never met a bear in the wilderness, but camping in verde valley Arizona, had coyotes sniff my feet while I slept. In the morning, their paw prints were a foot from my bed roll. I'm not really worried about coyotes trying to get in my house, even though they've been spotted in my county.

Bears and coyotes don't tend to break a window, crawl in, and chase you around the house. You generally have time to get your gun and either scare them off, or shoot them.

Yes, agreed. Just wanted to make the point that there are threats other than human. Many NS posters reject the right to self-defense on the basis of adequate police protection. Many people can't call the police to have their problems solved.

I also don't see guns as a good in-house defense plan in an immediate situation. Then again, living in a rural area, it's almost impossible for a stranger to sneak up on your property without due warning being give (dogs barking, motion-sensor floodlight blinding them and waking me up). So, worst case scenario, there is time to get into the gun cabinet to get my rifle, and into the safe to get the ammo (they have to be stored separately). Under no circumstances would I have a loaded firearm, pistol or rifle, laying around for 'easy access'.


By the time you retrieved your safely stored gun, I would have reduced any intruder to chopped meat. Unless it was some trained team of commandos with det cord and flash bangs.

Unless it was some trained team of commandos with det cord and flash bangs.

In which you're probably screwed no matter what you do.

Yes, agreed. Just wanted to make the point that there are threats other than human. Many NS posters reject the right to self-defense on the basis of adequate police protection. Many people can't call the police to have their problems solved.
Police as protection is a joke. I've been involved in crime before. I've jumped people who owed me money right outside their front door.
The police don't show up until after the crime has been commited.

In which you're probably screwed no matter what you do.

Yep. And as far as I know, I've done nothing to attract that sort of attention anyway.

I've never met a bear in the wilderness, but camping in verde valley Arizona, had coyotes sniff my feet while I slept. In the morning, their paw prints were a foot from my bed roll. I'm not really worried about coyotes trying to get in my house, even though they've been spotted in my county.

Coyotes, particularly the very large eastern coyote (one female killed recently went 85 pounds), are a real threat to yard animals and livestock. They have killed I don't know how many dogs and cats just on my road - including some of mine. They kill beagles in the rabbit woods - my buddy nearly lost one this winter. They have attacked people here but they have been driven off so far.

Of course they won't go in the house, but a bear will on occasion. My neighbour shot one that had been in the house, another has shot several off his screened porch. But generally they don't, and the ones that do are predicated to that behavior due to misguided morons feeding them.

I personally survived a surprise black bear attack in the woods, was able to shoot it within feet of me.

Yep. And as far as I know, I've done nothing to attract that sort of attention anyway.

Neither have I. Hopefully that trend continues. ;)

Police as protection is a joke. I've been involved in crime before. I've jumped people who owed me money right outside their front door.
The police don't show up until after the crime has been commited.

right. I have nothing against police. They are really there to fill out reports after the fact. I intend to keep my family and myself safe through my own actions. I dont expect us to be protected by anyone else.

Good old firearms ID card. What a pain in the ass. Also both my pistols require a license, but I can buy my ammo with only a driver's license. No hollowpoints though. :(

Luckily I have a healthy disrespect for the law. :)Where exactly can't you get hollowpoints and what's the reason given?

I'm not quite sure...is that sarcasm? :confused:
No, I'm serious.

I don't think guns should be banned, and I think that Nazis should have free speech rights. I just don't think they they should be allowed to go out in public so heavily armed without police monitoring. Maybe in this case the police went too far.

Coyotes, particularly the very large eastern coyote (one female killed recently went 85 pounds), are a real threat to yard animals and livestock. They have killed I don't know how many dogs and cats just on my road - including some of mine. They kill beagles in the rabbit woods - my buddy nearly lost one this winter. They have attacked people here but they have been driven off so far.

Of course they won't go in the house, but a bear will on occasion. My neighbour shot one that had been in the house, another has shot several off his screened porch. But generally they don't, and the ones that do are predicated to that behavior due to misguided morons feeding them.

I personally survived a surprise black bear attack in the woods, was able to shoot it within feet of me.


You were lucky-glad to hear it.

I was attacked by an enraged 135 lb Alaskan Malamute. I had no weapon and almost didnt make it. He bit through my hands, wrists, forearms and one bicep with a crushing force you wouldnt believe.

By the time you retrieved your safely stored gun, I would have reduced any intruder to chopped meat. Unless it was some trained team of commandos with det cord and flash bangs.
Yeah, but after the dog biting his ass, the floodlight blinding him, and him (okay, or her) trying to get into my house, I'd be calmly waiting, gun at the ready. You on the other hand would be bored, and impatient for the intruder to get in, and more likely to run out with your machete, because you didn't use your time calmly unlocking and loading your gun. Then you'd be all flustered and out of breath, and I'd just look cool:)

Where exactly can't you get hollowpoints and what's the reason given?
They're illegal in New Jersey, but I can drive twenty minutes into Pennsylvania and load up on Cor Bon hollowpoints for my pistols. Not that I would ever violate the law :D

Police as protection is a joke. I've been involved in crime before. I've jumped people who owed me money right outside their front door.
The police don't show up until after the crime has been commited.
No one relies on the police in rural areas. I mean, come on...if it takes 20 minutes to drive to the nearest gas station, how long do you think it's going to take your local RCMP detachment to get a guy to you?

I've not heard this argument (reject guns because of adequate police) used here.

Yep. And as far as I know, I've done nothing to attract that sort of attention anyway.
Except post publicly, online, about illegal firearms you possess :D

I just use guns for hunting, so that's my issue with handguns (yes Syniks, I know there are handguns for hunting. I don't like them.)

Canadians, on the whole, do not tend to carry guns around for 'self-defense', so that's not an issue we use to deal with gun registration.Nor do very many Americans, really. With all the debate over concealed carry laws in the US, you'd think a lot of people were getting permits and carrying guns every day, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

No, I'm serious.

I don't think guns should be banned, and I think that Nazis should have free speech rights. I just don't think they they should be allowed to go out in public so heavily armed without police monitoring. Maybe in this case the police went too far.
Nazis? That is what I thought you were being sarcastic about. Where did Nazis come into this?

Yeah, but after the dog biting his ass, the floodlight blinding him, and him (okay, or her) trying to get into my house, I'd be calmly waiting, gun at the ready. You on the other hand would be bored, and impatient for the intruder to get in, and more likely to run out with your machete, because you didn't use your time calmly unlocking and loading your gun. Then you'd be all flustered and out of breath, and I'd just look cool:)

you never saw "The Patriot", did you? I would be far more intimidated by the site of me with a large knife in one hand and a tomahawk in the other.
Actually, just me empty-handed would likely be scarier to the average person that you with a flamethrower dripping flames. Maybe one day I'll post my pic.

you never saw "The Patriot", did you? I would be far more intimidated by the site of me with a large knife in one hand and a tomahawk in the other.
Actually, just me empty-handed would likely be scarier to the average person that you with a flamethrower dripping flames. Maybe one day I'll post my pic.

Coat those weapons in ketchup and you'll really be scary. ;)

You were lucky-glad to hear it.

I was attacked by an enraged 135 lb Alaskan Malamute. I had no weapon and almost didnt make it. He bit through my hands, wrists, forearms and one bicep with a crushing force you wouldnt believe.

Man! I've seen what coonhounds do to their quarry - it's incredible you didn't get worse. I had a close call with a coonhound gone berserk in the house, but I was able to knock him out with a chair.

My primary reason for posting this wildlife trivia is because I think most NS'ers are from less than rural areas and have no life experience with this. Hoping to add some perspective to why guns are necessary.

Except post publicly, online, about illegal firearms you possess :D

I only have the air rifle in my possession. I really doubt that would attract the ATF at 4am.
The rest, as I said, are still in NY, where I used to live. I may not buckel up when I drive, but I'm not serving time for illegal gun crimes.

Sinuhue has seen the light on the issue of gun rights :)


Personally, I'd rather have a ranged tazer. It would be more fun to punish someone with hundreds of thousands of volts instead of a bullet or two for trying to rape me :D

No one relies on the police in rural areas. I mean, come on...if it takes 20 minutes to drive to the nearest gas station, how long do you think it's going to take your local RCMP detachment to get a guy to you?

I've not heard this argument (reject guns because of adequate police) used here.

It's a standard here. Call 911 and let the Goblin rape/rob/kill you until the police arrive.

The recent SCOTUS decision shows how effective that is.

Actually, just me empty-handed would likely be scarier to the average person that you with a flamethrower dripping flames. Maybe one day I'll post my pic.
I believe you. You see, I look all sweet an innocent, then there is my whole pacifism thing. I'd have to ask an intruder to leave first. Then I'd insist, on threat of shooting him somewhere that would incapacitate, but not kill him. I may not intimidate him away, but I'm still confident I'd be okay, sweet innocent, pacifistic me:).

Man! I've seen what coonhounds do to their quarry - it's incredible you didn't get worse. I had a close call with a coonhound gone berserk in the house, but I was able to knock him out with a chair.

My primary reason for posting this wildlife trivia is because I think most NS'ers are from less than rural areas and have no life experience with this. Hoping to add some perspective to why guns are necessary.


I was 18 and taking care of 6 of them. The large male that bit me had been previously attack trained (which I found out at trial). I was stuck in the kennel with him,trying to keep him from getting my crotch or neck, his head was slick-covered with my own blood and gore. My father beat him senseless with a shovel, then got me to the hospital. Somehow, I remained awake after loosing too much blood, and my blood type is rare enough I never got the transfusion.

I just use guns for hunting, so that's my issue with handguns (yes Syniks, I know there are handguns for hunting. I don't like them.) PTHBLTH! :p
Canadians, on the whole, do not tend to carry guns around for 'self-defense', so that's not an issue we use to deal with gun registration.
I doubt you would've got far in the US either if you had 14 hunting rifles and 10 THOUSAND rounds of ammunition in your truck either. And you are hiding what should be a complaint against "anti-terrorism actions" under an a front of complaitns about gun control because you are obsessed with gunsI TRY to ignore Trolls, I really do.... :rolleyes:

Since the article did not mention the caliber(s) of the rifles, but since it DID mention that they were for a youth program, I am going to assume that they were probably .22 rifles. Most people purchase .22 ammunition in "bricks" of 1,000 rounds... usually for about $20US. It is not at all unreasonable to buy 10 bricks of .22 ammo. (buy 2, they're small).

Now, OTOH, if they had 14 AK-47s and 10,000rds of 7.62x39, I'd be a bit more curious... however, had that been the case, I'm SURE that that would have been in BOLD in the headline.

When I was shooting (pistols) competitively, I would go through 1500 rounds in a weekend. When I shot competitive .22, it was more like 200-300 rnds a day. Basic practice with my cartridge guns NOW takes 100-150 rounds per gun. I do that at least quarterly. IMO 10,000 rounds is no big deal.

And yes, this type of abuse by the government is exactly why we "gun nuts" are so rabid.

My primary reason for posting this wildlife trivia is because I think most NS'ers are from less than rural areas and have no life experience with this. Hoping to add some perspective to why guns are necessary.

My wife raises rabbits and various poultry. We have a large pack of Coyotes/Coy-Dogs near us that have come onto our property and attacked our dogs on several occasions. I keep a loaded shotgun handy just for this (not to mention any possible intruder).

They're illegal in New Jersey, but I can drive twenty minutes into Pennsylvania and load up on Cor Bon hollowpoints for my pistols. Not that I would ever violate the law :DOkay, but why are they illegal? Did somebody convince the public that they're more effective against bullet-resistant vests or something? And what do the police use in New Jersey?

Actually, 10,000 rounds isn't all that much ammunition, particularly if you divide it among 14 shooters: about 714 rounds per. I've used more than that in two days.

Full combat load for one american paratrooper is 265 rounds of 5.56 ammo. Enough for 3 days continuous combat until re-supply. That's a lot of rounds for 14 shooters by anyones definition.

Okay, but why are they illegal? Did somebody convince the public that they're more effective against bullet-resistant vests or something? And what do the police use in New Jersey?
Our former governor Jim Florio passed a gun law that banned "assault" weapons, large magazines and hollowpoints. I guess hollowpoints were targeted because they're more likely to kill you before you get to a hospital. I think an exception is made for law enforcement personell.

Liverbreath']Full combat load for one american paratrooper is 265 rounds of 5.56 ammo. Enough for 3 days continuous combat until re-supply. That's a lot of rounds for 14 shooters by anyones definition.

"Enough" by whose definition? I guess that's why many US troops in Iraq started carrying AK's w/ extra ammo because what the Gov't gave them wasn't enough.

"Combat" and target shooting/practice/training are also completely different animals.

I've gone through several hundred rounds in a few hours target shooting.

I only have the air rifle in my possession. I really doubt that would attract the ATF at 4am.The ATF is not concerned with air rifles. The F stands for firearms, not 'firearm like objects'.

. I guess hollowpoints were targeted because they're more likely to kill you before you get to a hospital. I think an exception is made for law enforcement personell.

So the police can kill more easily but you're not allowed to. Don't you love anti-gun logic?

Okay, but why are they illegal? Did somebody convince the public that they're more effective against bullet-resistant vests or something? And what do the police use in New Jersey?
They are illegal because they are mean... oops, I meant to say effective.

Hollow points, when they expand as they are designed to, transfer more kenetic energy to a target than a full-metal-jacket (military) bullet. Because they expand they are LESS effective against bullet resistant vests.

The difference is basically one of - given the same mass & velocity - which do you think is more likely to stop a fight, an Ice Pick or a sledgehammer?
I guess hollowpoints were targeted because they're more likely to kill you before you get to a hospital.Not necessairly true. Shot Placement is what kills. Blunt force trauma is what Stops Agression. A person can be shot several times with FMJ rounds and, unless they hit something vital, keep fighting. Hollowpoints OTOH act more like sledgehammers and impart ALL of their kenetic energy to the target rather than letting most of it pass through to the other side.

The Police are probably using hollow points because solids have a real bad tendancy to overpenetrate and hit people/things on the other side of the badguy.

My wife raises rabbits and various poultry. We have a large pack of Coyotes/Coy-Dogs near us that have come onto our property and attacked our dogs on several occasions. I keep a loaded shotgun handy just for this (not to mention any possible intruder).

Number 2 or number 4 shot works well, as does Remington Duplex in similar size. Others ok, but not as lethal in my experience.

Number 2 or number 4 shot works well, as does Remington Duplex in similar size. Others ok, but not as lethal in my experience.

I actually use #7 shot. My aim (pun intended) is to injure a few of them. Coyotes will then turn on the wounded ones and ussually flee the area during/after the ensuing melee.

I agree that there should be requirements about safe storage of guns and ammunition. It seems every couple of years another kid on the rez shoots himself or someone else by accident...the gun cabinets are good. I could even support registration to a point, if there was a guarantee it would stop there and not turn into an out-right ban. But such a guarantee does not exist. :(

That's an argumental fallacy, the slippery slope. I wouldn't be worried about that, because the NRA has way too much pull in Washington (and probably in Ottawa too) to allow that from happening. I agree with most of what's on this thread. I've got relatives in Alaska, and they have major trouble with moose and grizzlies. I doubt they would like to face a ten foot brown bear with nothing but a tomahawk. It would probably just catch it and pick its teeth with it. IMO, rifles should be allowed for hunting. Registration is unnecessary and impossible to properly implement.

I'm curious what you'd all say about the expiration of the assault rifle ban in the U.S.?

<snip>I'm curious what you'd all say about the expiration of the assault rifle ban in the U.S.?
That it had nothing to do with assault weapons and everything to do with "ugly guns"... Like this one...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/Shotforce-HRNEF-top.jpg

Oh, wait... that's a muzzle loader. My bad. :rolleyes:

That it had nothing to do with assault weapons and everything to do with "ugly guns"... Like this one...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/Shotforce-HRNEF-top.jpg

Oh, wait... that's a muzzle loader. My bad. :rolleyes:

Umm, that's not what I think of when I think of an assault rifle. I think more of an M16. Maybe your humor is lost on me.

Umm, that's not what I think of when I think of an assault rifle. I think more of an M16. Maybe your humor is lost on me.
OK, how about you try this: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm
This "test" demonstrates exactly how ambiguous and useless the "Assault Weapons Ban" was.

Besides, you get to look at some nice guns while you take it. :D

Umm, that's not what I think of when I think of an assault rifle. I think more of an M16. Maybe your humor is lost on me.

That was the whole purpose of the law. To make people think of M16's and AK-47's. The actual law had nothing to do w/ either of them, only firearms that "looked" like M-16's and AK-47's etc.

An Assault Rifle is an AK-47, M-16, etc.

An Assualt Weapon is one that looks like an Assault Rifle but is Semi-Automatic only .

It makes normal people seem like criminals.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_arrests-native20050628



The Band in question Tsawataineuk First Nation, vouches for these people, and I believe that the guns are legal...but it seems like the RCMP are saying they may charge these men anyway under anti-terrorism laws. How ridiculous! These men have political affiliations the government does not like, and they had guns. The perfect excuse to call them terrorists and lock 'em up.

Racism plain and simple against a tribe causing ruffled feathers for the local whites.

The arrest on the basis of terrorism was just a pretext. They could have easily charged them with something else. It's not like racist police ever needed a reason to take a native and dump him miles from town in the bitter cold and leave him for dead.

I really think your doing the natives a disservice by making this a gun issue when it is obviously a police misconduct matter.

Racism plain and simple against a tribe causing ruffled feathers for the local whites.

The arrest on the basis of terrorism was just a pretext. They could have easily charged them with something else. It's not like racist police ever needed a reason to take a native and dump him miles from town in the bitter cold and leave him for dead.

I really think your doing the natives a disservice by making this a gun issue when it is obviously a police misconduct matter.IMO her post is SPECIFICALLY about a Police Misconduct issue... that they used firearms as an excuse for the arrest. That they are keeping personal property (said firearms) on the pretext of searching the Registration Database to ensure they were purchased "legally".

Without the Gun Registration they would not have been able to do either and get away with it.

OK, how about you try this: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm
This "test" demonstrates exactly how ambiguous and useless the "Assault Weapons Ban" was.

Besides, you get to look at some nice guns while you take it. :D

Ok, so would you support a specific assault rifle ban?

Ok, so would you support a specific assault rifle ban?
There has been one in effect since 1934. It's called the National Firearms Act and it prohibits the purchase, sale or possession of fully automatic firearms, short-barreled (sawed off) shotguns, suppressors (silencers) or destructive devices (operable artillery pieces) without a Government Rectal Exam and a heavy Surtax.

Just because it LOOKS like an NFA firarm doesn't MAKE it an NFA firearm.

Ok, so would you support a specific assault rifle ban?

"Assault rifles" are already heavily regulated since 1934, requiring a Federal Firearms license to purchase/own one.

Umm, that's not what I think of when I think of an assault rifle. I think more of an M16. Maybe your humor is lost on me.

There's been some heated discussion about military-style weapons here in the past. I'm for the repeal. These rifles are not used in a significant amount of crime, if any, they are not fully automatic weapons, and they are not particularly powerful. They are used mainly by target shooters, hobbyists, and by collectors who pose no threat to humans. An FBI background check is required to buy them.

The danger of these is in the eye of the beholder. If they are not a problem, why ban them? And then there's the Second Amendment issue...

I've not heard this argument (reject guns because of adequate police) used here.
There's really no such thing as an adequate number of police. Even NYC which has the highest # of police both per capita and square mileage in the US can't effectively police the city and stop the crime.

Liverbreath']Full combat load for one american paratrooper is 265 rounds of 5.56 ammo. Enough for 3 days continuous combat until re-supply. That's a lot of rounds for 14 shooters by anyones definition.
Target practice ain't combat. Also, I'm sure they would like to give them more but it's a question of weight as well.

Full combat load for one american paratrooper is 265 rounds of 5.56 ammo. Enough for 3 days continuous combat until re-supply. That's a lot of rounds for 14 shooters by anyones definition.
265rds of 5.56 lasts a grand total of 10 minutes in a real firefight. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Regarding the amount of ammunition they had: They were taking the guns to a youth program out in the sticks where elders and hunters were teaching the younger generation to be self sufficient in the woods. It wasn't just for them.

Everything the guys did here was legal; gun control was instituted (well, "ammended" anyway) in Canada after Oka and Ipperwash. It was designed to compromise the abilities of the "gun culture" to continue their hobbies and harrass politically active native bands.

The difference is basically one of - given the same mass & velocity - which do you think is more likely to stop a fight, an Ice Pick or a sledgehammer?
Not necessairly true. Shot Placement is what kills. Blunt force trauma is what Stops Agression. A person can be shot several times with FMJ rounds and, unless they hit something vital, keep fighting. Hollowpoints OTOH act more like sledgehammers and impart ALL of their kenetic energy to the target rather than letting most of it pass through to the other side.

Or said more simply, a normal bullet will make a clean small hole in you when an hallow point will make a 1 inch hole of grounded meat.

Also, the logic behind Canadian gun law is
A)that a standard rifle or shotgun is all you need for hunting or home safety.
B)That a standard rifle or shotgun are not convenient to hide/use if you plan a murder or robbery.

That's an argumental fallacy, the slippery slope. How is that exactly? They keep adding guns to the 'banned list'...so the slipperly slope argument in this case is quite valid.

Without the Gun Registration they would not have been able to do either and get away with it.
And without our lovely new anti-terrorism laws, they wouldn't be able to consider pressing charges even if the guns ARE legal. Yay Canada! :headbang:

No, I'm serious.

I don't think guns should be banned, and I think that Nazis should have free speech rights. I just don't think they they should be allowed to go out in public so heavily armed without police monitoring. Maybe in this case the police went too far.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me where Nazis come into this story?

Goddamn anti-government nutcases!

If these guys from a white supremacist/Nazi group are going around with loads of guns and ten thousand rounds, hell yes the police should watch them and question them. I don't think that it would be right to throw them in jail without trial or anything like that, but for the community's and nation's safety, these guys should not just pass through unwatched. I don't want to wait until they commit a massacre in the name of their "civil liberties".
:confused:

How is that exactly? They keep adding guns to the 'banned list'...so the slipperly slope argument in this case is quite valid.
Shhh, quit ruining his rebuttal. They tend to get all whiny when you do that.

Liverbreath']Full combat load for one american paratrooper is 265 rounds of 5.56 ammo. Enough for 3 days continuous combat until re-supply. That's a lot of rounds for 14 shooters by anyones definition.

265 rounds is an hour of shooting a pistol on the range for me. 3 days continuous combat, my ass.

Just because the government decided it, doesn't mean it's actually reasonable--or accurate.

265 rounds is an hour of shooting a pistol on the range for me. 3 days continuous combat, my ass.

Just because the government decided it, doesn't mean it's actually reasonable--or accurate.

You usually carry a lot more ammunition than that. I used to carry 600 rounds of 5.56mm, plus a belt for the 240, and other useful items.

You usually carry a lot more ammunition than that. I used to carry 600 rounds of 5.56mm, plus a belt for the 240, and other useful items.

THAT makes a bit more sense--for an infantry guy.

No, I'm serious.

I don't think guns should be banned, and I think that Nazis should have free speech rights. I just don't think they they should be allowed to go out in public so heavily armed without police monitoring. Maybe in this case the police went too far.

The number of rounds you carry has nothing to do with how dangerous you are.

When the military sends someone out to do sniping, they usually carry less than 100 rounds.

A typical bolt-action hunting rifle with a low power scope is an effective sniping weapon out to 400 yards, possibly more depending on the skill of the shooter.

Far, far more dangerous than any pistol or "assault" weapon. Deadlier than the typical fully automatic weapon.

Deadliness is far more a function of the skill of the shooter, and the care taken in making the rifle. A finely made rifle, which may cost as much as 10,000 dollars, in the hands of a good marksman, is extremely deadly out to ranges where you would not see him firing at you, no matter how hard you looked.

Are you saying, therefore, that the police should follow me around?

I not only have several rifles that are extremely precise, but I have the extensive training, and I practice all the time. I also have tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition in my house - legally. I also wear a pistol concealed all the time - legally.

Add to that the fact that there are few police in the entire metropolitan area who shoot anywhere nearly as well as I do with a rifle - and most of them don't have rifles at hand - they have pistols, which are useless against a rifleman.

It's not necessary to follow people around who are abiding by the law. I don't know what the law is in Canada, but around here, that would be perfectly legal.

Murder is against the law. Possessing legal weapons and ammunition where I live is not.

I'm curious what you'd all say about the expiration of the assault rifle ban in the U.S.?I say

W00T! :D

10,000 rounds?? That's not overkill, it's smart! Wish I could afford that much.

Being against gun control is being pro-freedom. End of discussion. The only governments and people who want your guns also want to trample on its people's rights.

Just for the record, I'm still a fucking bitch lefty!

So???? Nothing says you have to be right-wing to oppose Gun Control, (in fact, there are several pro-gun groups that are otherwise quite liberal in the U.S.-at least, by American Standards...) As for being a "bitch"... I think you're a nice person, (from your posts on other subjects.) I wouldn't call you that dirty name either to your back, or to your face.

(after checking NRA bylaws...) NOPE, you can be a Lefty and still oppose Gun-control! You don't have to be a Republican or a a right winger. One of the earliest forms of the NRA was devoted to arming freed slaves after the Civil war and forming community defense organizations against the KKK and other racist gangs in the Deep South.' The Earliest gun-control laws in the U.S. were specifically to make it difficult for Blacks to own guns, and were passed by post-reconstruction Southern Legislatures.

With more and more Leftys realizing that disarmed citizens are one step from serfdom, we might be able to roll back some of the more onerous shit enacted into law and return the coincept of "Choosing" to the political process. I have a number of acquantances that hold-their-nose and vote Republican because of the Democrats' last forty years of supporting every gun-registration, ban, and restriction scheme dreamed up by the anti-gun lobby.
It was only the 2004 general election that the Democratic Party finally took the gun-control plank out of their platform here in the states-a result of the organizing pressure put on by the American NRA. I think you should definitely get involved in the Canadian version of the NRA (if for no other reason than to keep it focused on core-mission of preserving gun-rights/privelages), organize your fellow Natives as much as you can, or join existing rights organizations, and pick a political party and work for change there. It's tougher ot get meaningful change done that way in a multiparty system, but it's easier to get the work started.

Gun Rights are not incompatible with: Minority rights, Women's Rights, Environmentalism, Economic/Healthcare reform, Progressivism, etc. etc, it's only that the major groups pushing those other issues are opposed to gun rights that we have a problem at all-which is a patently ridiculous situation, since, as the "Pink Pistols" note on their website, "Armed Gays don't get Bashed." (yes, I'm straight, and I have handed out PP literature to gay and lesbian acquaintences.)

It's good to have more than one overall-point-of-view represented in the Firearms community, more than one point of view keeps the community churning instead of curdling, and keeps the membership from falling for attractive-sounding bullshit as a whole.

So, welcome again, you're still on the side of the 'good guys' in this one.

*snip*
I still don't get how Swimmingpool put Nazi's into this mix!!!???

I still don't get how Swimmingpool put Nazi's into this mix!!!???

Seeing that I'm not a Nazi, and I own a lot of firepower, and I still haven't committed any crimes, you would wonder what Swimmingpool is worried about.

I'm interested as to how you would feel if they were three middle aged anglo men in Montana,USA. Would 10,000 rounds cause you concern then?

You dont have to answer me, I'm just curious.
no:
it is legal
they were hunting rifles
it is not an issue, as montana's natives know how to hunt already.

Or said more simply, a normal bullet will make a clean small hole in you when an hallow point will make a 1 inch hole of grounded meat.

Also, the logic behind Canadian gun law is
A)that a standard rifle or shotgun is all you need for hunting or home safety.
B)That a standard rifle or shotgun are not convenient to hide/use if you plan a murder or robbery.
I was responding to a poster's question about New Jersey's law...

But as for (B), if I want to murder someone, give me a sawed-off shotgun any day. It's louder AND messier :D and is ballistically untracable. :eek:

I still don't get how Swimmingpool put Nazi's into this mix!!!???

He feels White Supremicists are now associated w/ and arming Aboriginal Canadians?

I was responding to a poster's question about New Jersey's law...

But as for (B), if I want to murder someone, give me a sawed-off shotgun any day. It's louder AND messier :D and is ballistically untracable. :eek:
you don't need a gun for murder.
choke them, and wear nitrile gloves

I still don't get how Swimmingpool put Nazi's into this mix!!!???

He's trying to Godwin the thread, because he doesn't like the direction. He should have read teh corrallary that states that intentionally creating a Godwin doesn't work.
It's also a "Similarity" fallacy-he's trying to compare your Native Rights activists to Neo-Nazis. Having worked with and known Warrior Society and AIM members before, his argument is truly a fallacy-most of those guys aren't the kind of bigoted, hate-ridden, self-pitying scum that your average skinhead or neo-nazi is. Even the "Militants" don't sit there planning to kill innocent people wholesale-most AIM guys can be reasoned with-a feat that is near-impossible with Neo-Nazis and KKK types.

He's trying to Godwin the thread, because he doesn't like the direction. He should have read teh corrallary that states that intentionally creating a Godwin doesn't work.
It's also a "Similarity" fallacy-he's trying to compare your Native Rights activists to Neo-Nazis. Having worked with and known Warrior Society and AIM members before, his argument is truly a fallacy-most of those guys aren't the kind of bigoted, hate-ridden, self-pitying scum that your average skinhead or neo-nazi is. Even the "Militants" don't sit there planning to kill innocent people wholesale-most AIM guys can be reasoned with-a feat that is near-impossible with Neo-Nazis and KKK types.
*thund'rous applause*

He's trying to Godwin the thread, because he doesn't like the direction. He should have read teh corrallary that states that intentionally creating a Godwin doesn't work.
It's also a "Similarity" fallacy-he's trying to compare your Native Rights activists to Neo-Nazis. Having worked with and known Warrior Society and AIM members before, his argument is truly a fallacy-most of those guys aren't the kind of bigoted, hate-ridden, self-pitying scum that your average skinhead or neo-nazi is. Even the "Militants" don't sit there planning to kill innocent people wholesale-most AIM guys can be reasoned with-a feat that is near-impossible with Neo-Nazis and KKK types.
Yeah, I figured that...either this or he just misread the article. But I want him to at least get his hiney back in here and defend his 'position'.

*thund'rous applause*

Thunder? Lightning! Lightning bolt SS runes!! YOU NAZI!!!

:)

Thunder? Lightning! Lightning bolt SS runes!! YOU NAZI!!!

:)
:confused: errrrmmm.... i'm jewish ;)

you don't need a gun for murder.
choke them, and wear nitrile gloves
Well, actually I prefer a garotte of 80lb test teflon coated fishing leader or a knife for wet work, but we were talking about the effacacy of particular firearms... :rolleyes:

Shotguns: One shot, one kill, fifteen 30cal 00 buck wound channels. :p

:confused: errrrmmm.... i'm jewish ;)
Never mind. He's making fun of Swimmingpool's attempt to compare native activists to Nazi anti-government types.

no:
it is legal
they were hunting rifles
it is not an issue, as montana's natives know how to hunt already.


I understand. I was making a point with Sinuhue. And she explained how she felt/would feel to me.

I have no problem with it.

guns dont kill people, people kill people. You can kill someone with a car, or a baseball bat.. but its not illegal to drive to the ballgame (stole this one from /NS issues). If you take away guns from all ppl (including cops), then the outlaws and criminals will be the only ones packing heat.

my suggestion... make gun registration more specific ie: with practice, and a gun test (like trying to get a driver's license)

guns dont kill people, people kill people. You can kill someone with a car, or a baseball bat.. but its not illegal to drive to the ballgame (stole this one from /NS issues). If you take away guns from all ppl (including cops), then the outlaws and criminals will be the only ones packing heat.

my suggestion... make gun registration more specific ie: with practice, and a gun test (like trying to get a driver's license)

guns dont kill people, people kill people. You can kill someone with a car, or a baseball bat.. but its not illegal to drive to the ballgame (stole this one from /NS issues). If you take away guns from all ppl (including cops), then the outlaws and criminals will be the only ones packing heat.

my suggestion... make gun registration more specific ie: with practice, and a gun test (like trying to get a driver's license)

guns dont kill people, people kill people. You can kill someone with a car, or a baseball bat.. but its not illegal to drive to the ballgame (stole this one from /NS issues). If you take away guns from all ppl (including cops), then the outlaws and criminals will be the only ones packing heat.

my suggestion... make gun registration more specific ie: with practice, and a gun test (like trying to get a driver's license) :gundge:

Wow. A quadruple post! (deletage time perhaps?)

Yeah, I figured that...either this or he just misread the article. But I want him to at least get his hiney back in here and defend his 'position'.

Unlikely. He's been called on it now, and he'd be attacking a minority if he defended it-which, for someone as brittle as he is, would be a major embarassment.

To elaborate:

historically, the AIM (American Indian Movement) and Warrior Societies have had very few violent incidents, and those incidents were both provoked by White-Dominated governments doing unethical shit (Wounded Knee in the 1970's) and the violence on the part of the Nativists was defensive (Okah, Gonessedoge (spelling, I'm not sure). By contrast, white-supremacists rob banks, defile holy ground (synagogues, churches), assault and kill random people (Portland incident), use violence, threats, and intimidation (too many incidents to list) as their primary.

It's a major difference, not cosmetic, but structural, from tactics, to motive, the two are not similar in the least save for a bias against the Government as it currently exists. (even there, it's a major difference in that most AIM want to hold the Government accountable to its promises, whereas most White Supremacists want to remake it into a racially-based tyranny.)