[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MBates

You are making invalid comparisons to laws that are rationally connected to the safety reason they were enacted.

Actually I was making what I assumed would be viewed as an obviously sarcastic post. Fair enough if you didn’t pick up on that though.

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.

You’re making the assumption that rationality isn’t subjective and citizens are incapable of opposing a law that the majority considers to be rational.

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].

Actually my response to Derek(and Azure) was that it’s silly to argue that we shouldn’t implement a law just because some people might break it, if that was the case we wouldn’t have any laws and criminal lawyers would be out of job. I’m just looking out for the worker as usual MBates

I actually didn’t make any comments specifically referencing the gun ban, unfortunately some people get too emotionally invested in these threads and often miss those kinds of minor details. I’ll be honest though I’m a little surprised that you appear to have fallen victim to this.

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

Again, I’m not saying that governments aren’t capable of coming up with silly laws or that everyone will follow every silly 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?

Can you point out where I suggested otherwise? Or where I stated people shouldn’t question the validity of what the government says? I’ll wait.

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.

Can you clarify what any of this has to do with what I posted or where I argued against what you’re saying here? Again, I’ll wait.

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.

I don’t disagree with you and personally I typically enjoy reading your takes but in this case you seem to be trying really hard to put words in my mouth.