[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Don't tell me you just compared Nuclear friggin weapons to seal hunting...

I'm comparing one country demanding that nobody but nobody tell them what to do while maintaining the right to do so to others. This also touches back on a situation over a year ago when the US enacted rules to enter their own borders and a lot of Canadians here went ballistic that the US had such nerve only to get even more angry when the US started telling us that we would have to provide detailed flight manifests for any flight even touching US territory (even ones that go site to site in Canada).

It was very hypocritical in my opinion.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

And when that doesn't work what should we do then? Because it won't.

Same thing we do with NK, PK, and CH. Recognize that they have them and strive to never give anybody reason to use them. You can't get a whole lot less stable then NK yet the predictions of nuclear attack on SK haven't materialized.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

And who are you going to find to lead that battle?

I'd expect us. For a country that claims to be a world leader to allow such a transgression simply means we aren't.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

More carrots, less sticks? Could work.

That is exactly right. That is exactly where Canada should be leading.

[2Cdo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

What criteria do we have (or the US) for gun ownership? The prevaling theme is still that people who have no business having such weapons will get them.

We already have that right now. The only diffrence is only bad people with bad intentions possess them.

$1:

I read it. The belief that people will need these weapons for self defence will likely make any required test less then that of a soldier training for the field. After all gun rights advocates point to the need of everyday people needing them, people who may need that gun right away. Various gun waiting laws are always being attacked because you just never know when you will need to by that Uzi.

I don't even consider need, just desire to own. I don't need a boat or a motorbike but I can!

$1:

Picture a standard scene with several police officers crouching behind a cruiser with guns drawn. The female officer fires a round into the pavement about half a foot from another officer. Looked like the kind of thing that gets somebody automatically taken off field work and stuck to a desk.

Okay, I've seen that clip before! Now this is just my opinion but the average police officer has little more experience with weapons than the average citizen. Most officers DON'T qualify annually because the get a "buddy" to write it off for them. Most officers never have to draw, let alone shoot their firearm ever in their entire career. What weapons knowledge they might possess is strictly related to whatever weapon their force employs.

When I teach weapons safety in the army I like to break the ice by asking if anyone has ever seen the show cops and watched how they handle weapons. i then inform them that if they ever handle their weapons like I see on that show I will personally throw them off the range and charge their asses!

[DerbyX]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

We already have that right now. The only diffrence is only bad people with bad intentions possess them.

I think that if there wasn't such a large market for guns then they wouldn't be making as many and there would be far less available for the bad people. Never-the-less your point seems to reinforce mine. If all the bad nations have nukes then we should. Of course since nobody considers themselves as the bad nation they will all do likewise.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

I don't even consider need, just desire to own. I don't need a boat or a motorbike but I can!

Sure. We are all like that. People posting here with nukes don't really say (or prove) that Canada needs nukes but rather they want us to have them.

They feel it provides security and prestige and elevates us to the big boy levels. Of course that is exactly why the others want them too.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Okay, I've seen that clip before! Now this is just my opinion but the average police officer has little more experience with weapons than the average citizen. Most officers DON'T qualify annually because the get a "buddy" to write it off for them. Most officers never have to draw, let alone shoot their firearm ever in their entire career. What weapons knowledge they might possess is strictly related to whatever weapon their force employs.

When I teach weapons safety in the army I like to break the ice by asking if anyone has ever seen the show cops and watched how they handle weapons. i then inform them that if they ever handle their weapons like I see on that show I will personally throw them off the range and charge their asses!

On one hand you say you have no problem with assault weapon ownership by test vetted owners but then in your opinion the bulk of our police aren't even qualified because they are sidestepping required tests or those tests are simply inadequate.

Thats what I'm afraid off also. I think it likely that any large scale testing we would initiate that would allow all Canadians access to assault weapons would likely be inadequate.

[Akhenaten]

DarbyX DarbyX:

People posting here with nukes don't really say (or prove) that Canada needs nukes but rather they want us to have them.

Strange. I haven't read any post here that said that.

.

[saturn_656]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm comparing one country demanding that nobody but nobody tell them what to do while maintaining the right to do so to others. This also touches back on a situation over a year ago when the US enacted rules to enter their own borders and a lot of Canadians here went ballistic that the US had such nerve only to get even more angry when the US started telling us that we would have to provide detailed flight manifests for any flight even touching US territory (even ones that go site to site in Canada).

It was very hypocritical in my opinion.

I wasn't one of the "ballistic" group. I feel the US can make whatever border entry requirements it feels like.

$1:

Same thing we do with NK, PK, and CH. Recognize that they have them and strive to never give anybody reason to use them. You can't get a whole lot less stable then NK yet the predictions of nuclear attack on SK haven't materialized.

And things with North Korea have been going SO well...

$1:

I'd expect us. For a country that claims to be a world leader to allow such a transgression simply means we aren't.

So you'd expect us to lead (or even participate in) an attack against our most important ally (and only remaining world superpower) on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

You have got to be joking.

[Proculation]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

DarbyX DarbyX:

People posting here with nukes don't really say (or prove) that Canada needs nukes but rather they want us to have them.

Strange. I haven't read any post here that said that.

.

We have nukes anyway. They are not ours but we could seize them to threaten Moscow.

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I wasn't one of the "ballistic" group. I feel the US can make whatever border entry requirements it feels like.

Didn't say you did. Still doesn't change the fact that loads of Canadians freak out if it even seems like another nation is telling us what to do (then complains when QC acts as hypocritical) while holding the opinion we are entitled to do just that.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

And things with North Korea have been going SO well...

Thats the point. NK isn't doing so well yet they have nukes and we can't do thing one about it. We can't argue that other nations are too unstable to have nukes when they would be hard pressed to be less stable then NK.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So you'd expect us to lead (or even participate in) an attack against our most important ally (and only remaining world superpower) on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

You have got to be joking.

I would expect us to act accordingly and back our claims of freedom and fairness, things we fight for even if its our allies in the wrong.

Thats the right thing to do and we aren't half the nation we pretend to be if we simply ignore our friends doing things we howl in outrage at when our not so friends do it.

I don't actually think or expect Canada would attack the US if they bombed Iran. I expect there would be a lot of outrage at the US as well as support.

I expect nothing but the same hypocrisy that is the reason why western countries aren't nearly as awesome as they think they are.

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

DarbyX DarbyX:

People posting here with nukes don't really say (or prove) that Canada needs nukes but rather they want us to have them.

Strange. I haven't read any post here that said that.

.

We have nukes anyway. They are not ours but we could seize them to threaten Moscow.

Where? If you mean US nukes on Canadian soil I think you might be mistaken. I don't believe the US has their nukes on our soil and they might consider such an act to be an act of war.

[Proculation]

We had them back in the Cold War like the Soviets put some in the Warsaw pact countries.
There are still some left in northern Quebec.

[Tman1]

You're saying there are nuclear weapons in northern Quebec? Does Trudeau, the one who got rid of them in 1971 know this?

[DerbyX]

Tman1 Tman1:

You're saying there are nuclear weapons in northern Quebec? Does Trudeau, the one who got rid of them in 1971 know this?

Quebec does have some mighty big bombs in the province.

The Canadiens, the Alouettes.

[ziggy]

Anyone care to hazard a guess on how many unexploded nuclear warheads are missing in the ocean?

[Tman1]

I tossed a few into the pacific last trip to Vancouver. They might still be there.

Now where did I put that remote control detonator.

[Hyack]

ziggy ziggy:

Anyone care to hazard a guess on how many unexploded nuclear warheads are missing in the ocean?

51, plus a few nuclear reactors...

[ShepherdsDog]

ziggy ziggy:

Anyone care to hazard a guess on how many unexploded nuclear warheads are missing in the ocean?

I'm less concerned about them than the ones that walked off Russian bases in the 90s.