Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
It was a little before my time but I guess I should just safely assume that there was a big underground market for cars without seatbelts after manufacturers were forced to start installing them in all new vehicles.
Don’t get me started on building supplies that contain asbestos.
|
You are making invalid comparisons to laws that are rationally connected to the safety reason they were enacted.
When governments arbitrarily prohibit things (claiming it to be for some purpose that is not accepted by the citizens it affects, not supported by any data, and in fact runs counter-purpose to the data that does exist - and common sense) there is often widespread disobedience of the prohibition.
One historical example? It actually took over the word - 'prohibition'.
[Beat by Derek Sutton - and Iggy your response to him proves the error of your argument rather effectively. Responsible gun owners not only accept but are solidly in favour of the very serious, strict and highly effective regulatory regime we currently have. You are now implying that it is either ban guns or let kids own them without restrictions...which nobody is asking for].
Another example? Does anyone know anybody who ever grew or sold or consumed marijuana before it was allowed? Probably not because after all it was a criminal offence - and the government repeatedly said society would be destroyed if not for the law banning it. I imagine no otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals because they thought marijuana was not worthy of being criminalized and just ignored the law
So back to the topic. You might ask yourself why is that well known crazed right wing gun nut NDP MP Charlie Angus writing about "...how the Liberal government promise to ban hand guns morphed into
a massive overreach including hunting rifles and shotguns" while referencing the "hugely problematic" "11th hour amendment thrown into Bill C-21..."?
https://twitter.com/user/status/1599741479705903109
Could it be because that is a viewpoint reasonable people can hold based on what the government is actually doing?
An example of that?
As another poster mentioned recently - check out the Ruger No. 1.
The Minister has repeatedly declared no hunting rifles are being banned (sometimes he sneaks in the term 'conventional hunting').
I would ask anyone to explain how a Ruger No. 1 could in any way be characterized as anything other than a basic hunting rifle.
It is a falling block lever action
single shot rifle (when all we seem to hear about is the government saying it is only banning semi-auto rifles with large magazine capabilities - you know 'weapons of war'). If you wanted to do anything other than shoot a deer or a paper target - and most especially if you wanted to try and conduct any form of a mass shooting - the Ruger No. 1 would arguably be the worst possible modern firearm you could select.
To be the most fair possible to the government, maybe they really did not mean for the ban list to apply as wide as it appears to on its face (on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used). But then that is what happens when you sneak in last minute amendments to what was already a Frankenstein's Monster of terrible legislative drafting.
Either way, in my view, athletes or anyone else who sees their government doing something while flat out denying that is what they are doing should feel perfectly free to speak truth to power as much or as little as they see fit.