I don't see why people feel the need to debate with police officers like that. Kudos to the officer as he seemed to know his shit and was professional.

It just seems to me that the only reason they were carrying was to provoke a response and to bait the cops out there to see how they would react. Thanks for wasting taxpayers dollars/time

I doubt they care about crime, I doubt they actually give a damn about the 2nd amendment. They did it for the lulz

This officer was much more reasonable and articulate than most "filmed encounters" you see online.
Seems like the 2 guys filming were a bit disappointed at their failed trolling attempt.

Listen carefully....that tower of a man that inspected the firearm is a member of the SWAT team.

Not your average beat cop.

This is all about getting a reaction. As gun happy of a Nation we seem to be I have managed to go through life never really publicly seeing them. In my interactions with firearms they have always been kind of the dirty little secret you hide at home. I remember how shocked I was to see soldiers carry automatic riffles in a Paris train station. So honestly if I had seen these two gentlemen out in about carrying these weapons I would of been freaked out.

I'm very surprised the officer did not get out of the car with his gun drawn. I know were suppose to be a gun tolerant society but how did that officer know that they were not about to go on some kind of rampage? I hate to bring race into it but was it because they were white? I have to doubt this is how they would of reacted if the two civilians had been African American. Which is odd because and I may be wrong about this but every time I hear about a mass killing in America the suspect/s is/are usually white.

What a pair of douche bags, purposefully going out and looking for trouble. Bravo to the police officer.

What a couple of fucking douche-bags. Hoping upon hope for a confrontation, and then so woefully disappointed when "the man" didn't play into their plans.

Had they been carrying holstered, semi-automatic pistols then SURE, all that bullshit about semi vs. full auto might have been justified, but no, you're carrying FUCKING SUBMACHINE GUNS. Let's just wander around with grenade launchers on our backs and then act offended when the man stops us.

Thanks for wasting our tax dollars you fucking idiots.

I'm all for gun ownership, 2nd Amendment, etc, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to carry an MP5 around on the street like that. Except for trolling police officers, obviously.

Upvoting for conduct of the officers, not for the douche baggery of the two guys.

*law *controversy *stupidity

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by KnivesOut.

There is a lot of hate for cops in general these days, but I have to admit I was incredibly impressed by this officer. He was direct, reasonable and calm. He handled the situation perfectly and I wish we had more police officers like him. These douchebags were cruising for a fight and were being total asses to him, rattling off facts the got from a random google search.

Well done, Officer M. Nork.

>> ^Hive13:

There is a lot of hate for cops in general these days, but I have to admit I was incredibly impressed by this officer. He was direct, reasonable and calm. He handled the situation perfectly and I wish we had more police officers like him. These douchebags were cruising for a fight and were being total asses to him, rattling off facts the got from a random google search.
Well done, Officer M. Nork.


Yes he was incredibly nice to the armed white guys. I wonder what kind of reception a 20 year old black kid would get. Probably shotgun to the chest and stories about how the Black Panthers are back.

>> ^ShakeyMcBones:

I'm all for gun ownership, 2nd Amendment, etc, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to carry an MP5 around on the street like that. Except for trolling police officers, obviously.


It is a .22 long rifle. It isn't an MP5. I know, I own one. Sure, it looks awesomely MP5-ish and that's exactly why the cop wanted to inspect it, which he did, and returned it back to them without another thought.

The 2nd amendment grants and most states have full open carry laws. I would be much more worried about a guy carrying around a concealed .45 semi-auto pistol or a pump-action shotgun than two dipshits with a .22.

So you want a legitimate reason to carry around a .22. Maybe they just bought it and are walking home. Maybe they are walking to a shooting range. Maybe they are going small game hunting with their relative and are headed to his house. Maybe they just want to carry around a gun and show it off. That's why we have open carry protection at the federal and state levels.

Now, in this case, they were clearly doing it for a police reaction because they Googled some factoids about open carry and were gunning (yeah, sorry about the pun) for a controversial YouTube video.

I kinda get what they're about. They felt that their rights were being trampled by poor police work, and they wanted proof of it, so they went trolling for it. The experiment was successful in that it produced a result, just not the result they were expecting. I'm glad they did it and released it, because now hopefully fewer like-minded others will go around trolling the same way.

Yeah, after re-watching it, I heard the part where he mentions it's a .22. That does look like a bad ass-gun though.

Edit: I meant to say a bad-ass gun, NOT a bad ass-gun. Nobody likes an ass-gun, especially one of inferior quality.

>> ^Hive13:

>> ^ShakeyMcBones:
I'm all for gun ownership, 2nd Amendment, etc, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to carry an MP5 around on the street like that. Except for trolling police officers, obviously.

It is a .22 long rifle. It isn't an MP5. I know, I own one. Sure, it looks awesomely MP5-ish and that's exactly why the cop wanted to inspect it, which he did, and returned it back to them without another thought.
The 2nd amendment grants and most states have full open carry laws. I would be much more worried about a guy carrying around a concealed .45 semi-auto pistol or a pump-action shotgun than two dipshits with a .22.
So you want a legitimate reason to carry around a .22. Maybe they just bought it and are walking home. Maybe they are walking to a shooting range. Maybe they are going small game hunting with their relative and are headed to his house. Maybe they just want to carry around a gun and show it off. That's why we have open carry protection at the federal and state levels.
Now, in this case, they were clearly doing it for a police reaction because they Googled some factoids about open carry and were gunning (yeah, sorry about the pun) for a controversial YouTube video.

I'm amazed at the psychic powers the above posters have speculating on the reason they are carrying. One post (with accurate info, .22 long rifle) was pretty right on. There is no reason to say they were baiting. You have no idea and are just guessing. I thought around here you get flamed for that.

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm

Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.

If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.

But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.

It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.

>> ^Buck:

I'm amazed at the psychic powers the above posters have speculating on the reason they are carrying. One post (with accurate info, .22 long rifle) was pretty right on. There is no reason to say they were baiting. You have no idea and are just guessing. I thought around here you get flamed for that.


Yes, it's a guess, but it's a pretty safe guess.

Don't know too many people who walk around with semi-auto rifles just for shits and grins and have their camera phones ready before the cops even get out of the car.

They were prepared for a potential confrontation.

>> ^Hive13:

So you want a legitimate reason to carry around a .22. Maybe they just bought it and are walking home. Maybe they are walking to a shooting range. Maybe they are going small game hunting with their relative and are headed to his house. Maybe they just want to carry around a gun and show it off.

Maybe to a gun enthusiast those are the kind of things that spring to mind. To non-enthusiasts (which I guess is most people) it just looks like you're carrying around a machine that's solely designed to kill things.

I'd rather you didn't.

>> ^VoodooV:

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm
Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.
If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.
But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.
It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.


I don't think you would have many gun enthusiasts complaining about a show of competency in safety before owning a gun, because most enthusiasts are emphatic about this themselves...the cost and red tape may become an issue for some but eh...can't please everyone.

Did you watch the video of the old man? I just rewatched it and based on the 2 main camera angles of the video it was safe to shoot within the building (you could not easily account for people on the other side of the wall/door). When he opens fire he is almost even and a couple feet to the side of a bystander, but according to the 2 views the only people in the radius of where he fired were the robbers.

Not only that, but he had decent form (2 handed grip with bent knees and squared shoulders) and paused his movements when he fired, all of which point to someone experienced with the firearm. If anything I'd say he showed great poise for an untrained person.

~~~~ troll tire deflating noise ~~~~

That cop was awesome. Two idiots out looking for a confrontation so they can post a video about how teh evuls nazi police state can take away their guns, and instead the cop is a total pro, and then even offers them the opportunity to shoot real automatics at a course!

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.

Fuck, that mentality scares me.

As a former combat arms Marine, I've had countless hours behind the butt of an assault rifle and I still don't think I could have really done shit in a situation like Aurora. If I had a clear shot, sure, that's easy enough as long as I'm not shot first. But when you have people running around and screaming (not to mention the fucking smoke screen) I'd be very hesitant about returning fire.

Compare that to some 22 year old thinking he's Billy Badass who took a 4-hour concealed carry permit class. Suddenly he's fucking Rambo and thinks he can save the world. Never once do these idiots think about ANY of the details.



>> ^dag:

Couple of Ayn Rand loving freedom fighters. If we only these guys were at that Batman screening I'm sure they would have handled the situation well.

I'd be very pleased to see a new law stating that in order to buy a gun, you must take an approved course (that happens monthly or so) that is tax-funded either by state police or local police with federal aid.

This would ensure that all the moron Rambo wannabes actually know something about the weapon they bought and how to properly wield it, and no one's 2nd Amendment rights are infringed.


>> ^VoodooV:

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm
Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.
If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.
But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.
It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.

Was the very last line in that video "did he put magazine in my butt"?!

The cop all other cops should aspire to be.
This should be training footage in police academies everywhere.

>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.


I'd be ok with armed open carry civilians..if crime really was that rampant. But it's not! We're just not fighting for our lives on a daily basis here. We have a gov't that allows for peaceful change and we vote for a president every four years. These people who casually throw around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" just haven't really experienced a truly oppressive gov't Oh crap, the price of a latte went up. Time to lock and load fellas!! First world problems.

If I'm just walking along and I see these kids openly carrying, How am I supposed to know that they're going to protect me if some armed robber magically jumps out from the bushes? How do I know these kids aren't the robbers themselves? I'm sorry, we don't live in a world where we can easily identify our protectors with their shining auras and perfect teeth and the bad guys can be identified with their black top hat and their furled mustache.

I'm ok with an armed citizenry. Just not to this degree. It just shows how insecure and paranoid we are.

I just feel the 2nd amendment serves more of a symbolic function than an actual practical one. All it really says is that you have a duty to do something if your gov't truly becomes oppressive. By who's judgement? Again, we have people throwing around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" whenever a vote doesn't go their way. That's not oppressive gov't people. Come back to me when we actually can't vote anymore. Any successful revolt is going to need large popular support. If you don't have that, then maybe your revolt wasn't meant to succeed.

Here's the thing though, when has the lack of a 2nd amendment ever stopped anyone from overthrowing their gov't if enough people thought it was oppressive throughout history? if an oppressive gov't revokes your right to firearms. Do you just go home and twiddle your thumbs? No, you revolt anyway. Oppressive gov'ts don't just sit around and wait to be overthrown. If they make you an outlaw for having a gun and revolting...so what? being labeled an outlaw never stopped a successful revolt. If they take away your guns...you steal them back. To me it just doesn't seem to make a difference if we have a 2nd amendment or not. A modern military is not going to be deterred by dad's old shotgun. so even if you were allowed only home defense weapons and you needed to revolt. The first thing you do is that you steal some military weapons and/or you find sympathetic members of the military to side with you. if the gov't really has gotten that bad, you'll find entire outfits willing to defect I'd be willing to bet. You're going to need military training for your revolt in any case. 2nd amendment just tells you that you aught to revolt if gov't gets bad. Doesn't say anything about whether or not revolt would be easy. 2nd Amendment or no, ANY revolt is going to be massively bloody.

So hey..maybe we should put down the guns and solve our problems like adults in the 21st century. No one wants a revolution on their hands.

It would be hard to say what their intent was if you saw someone carrying such a ridiculously looking powerful gun. Kudos for the professional stop, and what a bunch of time wasting douches. What reason would they have to be carrying a semi-automatic firearm, without a case, and slung over the shoulder anyways? I think they could intimidate other citizens, and that would be reason enough to say wtf, please desist.

>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.

Lol you can carry something like that out in the open AND don't need to tell your name or show your ID? Here in Finland you need to carry ID with you at all times which can be a pain but it seems to do more good than harm. Sometimes sacrificing your "freedom" to do something in order to promote safety is a fair trade.

Nah, it would never work. You know, openly carrying a sword is illegal!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

(...)Fine, solution 2.0: still banning guns but everyone gets a sword.
Seriously, this is not as crazy as it sounds.
1. It's hard to use a sword well. People will have to train with it for years. This kind of training builds character and discipline.
2. Swords are awesome.
3. It's possible to defend yourself using a sword, but pretty hard to hold up a bank with one.
4. Gun fights are boring, sword fights are epic.

Great cop. Total control of the situation, didn't let them rile him. They were obviously out for a confrontation but all they got was a calm, reasonable and friendly encounter with a policeman just doing his job and doing it properly.

If all cops were like this there'd be a hell of a lot less problems around. These guys would probably be out defending the cops rather than looking for a confrontation.

Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi autopmatic, examine, 2nd amendment' to 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, examine, second amendment' - edited by xxovercastxx

*length=4:58

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:58 - length declared by bareboards2.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I'm very surprised the officer did not get out of the car with his gun drawn. I know were suppose to be a gun tolerant society but how did that officer know that they were not about to go on some kind of rampage?

You think they might be deranged and your plan to calm them down is to pull a gun on them? You may want to rethink that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, examine, second amendment' to 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, MP5, examine, second amendment' - edited by calvados

>> ^Hive13:


Well done, Officer M. Nork.


I think Officer Nork was just as ready to shoot these assholes and have a calm lunch after.


BTW letting people walk around with 30 shot machine guns (even if they are reduced to semi-auto) is some Mad Max shit. How many terrified people clutching sweaty pistols in their houses that night? Or did the cops go around explaining to all the frightened people that called them that actually what they saw on the street today was normal?

Wow. Just wow.
Love it.

I don't understand why so many people are terrified of guns. They simply aren't scary. Up until the early 1900's, almost every family living in the US had a gun in the house. The United States wouldn't even exist if the colonials hadn't hidden and stockpiled their gun from the British as that was the first thing the British did when moving into a new town.....confiscating the guns. This emasculated the men, most volunteer "soldiers", and made revolt much less likely and population control much more manageable.

The 2nd amendment was created not for hunting or for sport, but for the civil defense of our citizens against tyranny and control. The authors of the constitution remembered how hard it was having weapons removed by government control and wanted to have measure in place to allow citizens to legally carry arms to defend themselves against similar actions in the future. It is a very empowering right.

In 2008, there were 75 deaths by firearm of children aged 1-15, 24 of which were actually suicides that were included in that gun death total. By contrast, 1,543 children of that same age group were killed in moving vehicle accidents and 735 by drowning. Therefore, we should be SIGNIFICANTLY more afraid of cars and pools than of guns by a wide margin, yet we don't have people calling the police because some kids are in a swimming pool or riding in a car.

Every male in Switzerland has a government issued semi-auto rifle. Literally every one (420,000+), yet they have some of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.

"Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms." - Wikipedia (of course)

My point is that guns are not inherently dangerous, significantly less in fact than a car or water statistically speaking. Having an armed society is a very good thing. Fearing people with guns only gives the gun power that it wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, there are shitty people out there doing bad things with guns, but I am more afraid of the distracted soccer mom in her minivan talking on the phone while beating her kids in the backseat while jugging a Starbucks latte driving 10 MPH over the limit (which I see all the time) than anyone carrying a gun. A good percentage of armed robberies aren't even committed with real guns, but the power that people without solid gun knowledge gives those guns, even fake, is what makes them dangerous.

Also, just an FYI, there are over 270,000,000 guns held by private citizens in this country yet 14,000 murders were committed by guns in 2010, and gun crime is down 11% since that time. That is a very low number of firearm murders considering how many guns are actually out there.

I am climbing off my soapbox now.

I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.

This video was far more useful and educational than the inevitable footage of sh1tsta1ns "protesting" at the upcoming political conventions. Millions wasted in security and police overtime so hordes of gimme-gimmes can find an excuse to riot.

I would rather encounter two White dudes calmly walking along with displayed guns than 3 or more of Obama's sons.

And so would you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I would rather encounter two White dudes calmly walking along with displayed guns than 3 or more of Obama's sons.
And so would you.


Fuck you, you racist cunt. Do not presume to say what I would or would not rather encounter.

>> ^Buck:

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.


Actually, I'm not and I do.

Your argument, that gun control takes guns out of the hands of citizens and into the arms of criminals has nothing to do with what's happening here.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.

On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.

BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.

Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

@Buck

DO NOT drag Canadian gun ownership into your thought process. Your entire post is invalidated if you refer to Canadian gun ownership the way you do American gun ownership.

Buying a gun in most of (if not all) of the U.S. is basically passing a 3-15 day background check. If you don't have a felony, history of mental health problems, or even some larger misdemeanors, you get your gun.

Canadians need to first off pass a safety course (C.anadian F.irearms S.afety C.ourse) then mail away an application for gun ownership. If you're granted the PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you can then go out and buy sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. (Air rifles that are capable of a muzzle velocity of over 500 feet per second require the license.)

Handguns, and anything fully automatic are still prohibited.

If you want a handgun, you can take a CRFSC (R for Restricted) test and pass it, and then you're allowed to own and use Handguns. Fully automatic weapons, however, are still prohibited.

TL;DR:

Canadians have to jump through hoops and actually pass safety courses and tests before even being allowed to mail off your application and be considered for gun ownership.

Americans have to not be crazy, not have been in jail, and be able to wait up to two weeks.

Comparing gun ownership between the two is NOT valid.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I have the solution to the US's gun problems: ban guns.
BUT BUT BUT the 2nd amendment! Ah, but the second amendment say people are allowed to keep their arms. No-one is proposing mass amputations (as if the health system could manage it!).
Oh, that's not what "arms" means?
Fine, solution 2.0: still banning guns but everyone gets a sword.
Seriously, this is not as crazy as it sounds.
1. It's hard to use a sword well. People will have to train with it for years. This kind of training builds character and discipline.
2. Swords are awesome.
3. It's possible to defend yourself using a sword, but pretty hard to hold up a bank with one.
4. Gun fights are boring, sword fights are epic.


ChaosEngine | Free Trenchcoats 2016!!!

yet another moron who seems to think troll means "someone who disagrees with me"

you've already lost when you use troll in that manner as you're admitting you can't think of another good argument

>> ^hpqp:

ChaosEngine | Free Trenchcoats 2016!!!


I humbly accept your nomination. Shame neither of us live in the US, otherwise you could've been my running mate

Did you even read my post? I specifically mention that I am from Canada and that the US is different. Second I have my PALR and know quite a lot about our gun laws here in Canada.

Cool story tho

EDIT: I realized I cut the "Canada vs US" out of my abbreviated post here, so I can see what you mean.

>> ^Shepppard:

@Buck
DO NOT drag Canadian gun ownership into your thought process. Your entire post is invalidated if you refer to Canadian gun ownership the way you do American gun ownership.
Buying a gun in most of (if not all) of the U.S. is basically passing a 3-15 day background check. If you don't have a felony, history of mental health problems, or even some larger misdemeanors, you get your gun.
Canadians need to first off pass a safety course (C.anadian F.irearms S.afety C.ourse) then mail away an application for gun ownership. If you're granted the PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you can then go out and buy sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. (Air rifles that are capable of a muzzle velocity of over 500 feet per second require the license.)
Handguns, and anything fully automatic are still prohibited.
If you want a handgun, you can take a CRFSC (R for Restricted) test and pass it, and then you're allowed to own and use Handguns. Fully automatic weapons, however, are still prohibited.
TL;DR:
Canadians have to jump through hoops and actually pass safety courses and tests before even being allowed to mail off your application and be considered for gun ownership.
Americans have to not be crazy, not have been in jail, and be able to wait up to two weeks.
Comparing gun ownership between the two is NOT valid.

I concead your points.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.
On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.
BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:
Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.
Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.