|
Trapick posted:Other nations have underground bunkers able to withstand nuclear weapons, we have a closet. Let's be honest here: nobody gives a gently caress about Ottawa.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:
When people say space stuff are stupid and make people children, it's people like that who prove them right. flashman posted:The prime minister hiding in a closet pretty funny even if it was the best thing to do (or maybe because it was the best thing to do) It's super funny mostly because the security agents didn't try to get him out of the building or even the room they just hide him in the closet and told the whole caucus to defend the door with what they could.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:It's super funny mostly because the security agents didn't try to get him out of the building or even the room they just hide him in the closet and told the whole caucus to defend the door with what they could. Two options here, both equally entertaining: 1. They didn't have a plan and they were making poo poo up as they went along 2. They did have a plan, written down in a book, in advance, and that was it. OSI bean dip posted:Let's be honest here: nobody gives a gently caress about Ottawa. The people who can manage to live/work here for any length of time and not figure that out worry me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Two options here, both equally entertaining: Of all the things people give the RCMP poo poo for the fact they didn't/don't have a plan for the PM during an attack on Parliament may be the dumbest legitimate thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Now they obviously have to change the plan because everyone knows the super-secret prime ministerial hiding place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I'm glad we're having "mocking Stephen Harper for following his security detail's instructions while there was an active shooter in Parliament is actually good" discourse again. I think it's note-worthy for being one of the few times Harper actually followed the advice of unbiased experts while he was in power. flakeloaf posted:
To experience this fully you need to face east and lean on the rock in Sir Alexander Mackenzie park where he chiseled "from Canada by land". Still a hell of a long way away and only slightly more relevant than it was in 1793.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
That comedian wasn't mocking Harper for hiding in a closet. He sensed the dissonance among conservatives wherein they feel obliged to defend Harper from an obviously scurrilous attack, but still secretly view the act as a shameful one. He crammed his finger into that wound again and it's hilarious. The posters in this thread are getting too old and need to be sent to the Carousel already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
I don't want to live in a country that doesn't subsidize the trolling of right-wingers
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
We all laughed about it when it happened and I'm laughing about it again. Stuff that dork into a locker and take his lunch money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
You mean that she secretly wants to be in that closet?
Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Let's be honest here: nobody gives a gently caress about Ottawa. What about in 2112 when the US attacks? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Lobok posted:What about in 2112 when the US attacks? Man the new Mass Effect game aint looking so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Lobok posted:What about in 2112 when the US attacks? When that happens, I'll drive my gleaming red barcetta to YYZ and catch a flight to Xanadu.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
The US invades and annexes us in 2067, it's in the bible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Lobok posted:What about in 2112 when the US attacks? Is this from a comic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
I think Rempel's reaction is funny because a) freedom of speech  government officals shouldn't be telling private citizens what they can/can't say, and b) gun control and background checks could've kept that nutter from having an assault rifle.Astute readers will notice these are both issues her party campaigns on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Assault rifles are already prohibited and background checks are already a prerequisite for being allowed to own any gun in Canada, so I'm not sure what you think additional gun control would do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Assault rifles are already prohibited and background checks are already a prerequisite for being allowed to own any gun in Canada, so I'm not sure what you think additional gun control would do. They are not, though delving deeper into this will only reveal that the definition of assault rifle isn't especially useful and legal designations of guns are even less so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
If it's not capable of automatic or burst firing, it's not an assault rifle, and if it is capable of those, it's prohibited. Semi-automatic rifles which look scary, which is what people commonly mean when they say "assault rifle," are not prohibited. I don't really want to have this derail again though, since it never goes anywhere useful. What we should have is greater enforcement of the laws we already have in place; then, if those prove inadequate, we'll have a foundation on which we can add additional laws and regulations. Adding additional laws and regulations before we have proper enforcement of existing laws and regulations is foolish, and it will only serve to hurt the gun control cause.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:I think Rempel's reaction is funny because a) freedom of speech You can't possibly seriously think than an MP telling someone they're being an rear end in a top hat is a threat to freedom of speech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If it's not capable of automatic or burst firing, it's not an assault rifle, and if it is capable of those, it's prohibited. Semi-automatic rifles which look scary, which is what people commonly mean when they say "assault rifle," are not prohibited. Are you doing ok? You're suddenly making a lot of sense, and not being hyperbolic. Additionally, it should be noted that the rifle used by Zehaf-Bibeau was a Winchester model 94. It is a lever action rifle (manually operated, not semi or fully automatic) chambered in .30-30. It is just about as far away from "assault rifle" territory as you can get. It's a grandpa gun, not a scary black gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:You can't possibly seriously think than an MP telling someone they're being an rear end in a top hat is a threat to freedom of speech. No. It's the leader of the opposition who is attacking Critch's free speech. I mean, if you wanted to spin it that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
....calling someone an rear end in a top hat isn't attacking their freedom of speech.....
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Other nations have underground bunkers able to withstand nuclear weapons, we have a closet. An interesting tidbit we learned when touring the diefenbunker - it quickly became obsolete once new satellite-guided nuclear missiles could hit targets with pinpoint accuracy. When the bunker was built, nuclear missiles were not as precise, and a direct hit would have annihilated the bunker itself, but the chance of that happening was slim. Now we have missiles that are not only super accurate, but have the ability to hit a target multiples times with said accuracy. As a result, many expensive to maintain installations (such as the bunker in North Bay, ON) are being decommisioned for a less expensive command-and-control centre, with the rationale being "if we're going to get nuked, then we mine as well do it on the cheap". Still, if you get the chance, the diefenbunker is an interesting museum piece to visit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:....calling someone an rear end in a top hat isn't attacking their freedom of speech..... Sshhh you're ruining it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Please stop criticizing PK loving SUBBAN you are hurting his freedom of speech rights
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:Please stop criticizing PK loving SUBBAN you are hurting his freedom of speech rights I like to call them my free spee fee-fees
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:No. It's the leader of the opposition who is attacking Critch's free speech. I mean, if you wanted to spin it that way. Do all conservative women look the same to you
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Do all conservative women look the same to you Pretend I posted the FOX news female staff picture here. e: You know what, its funnier when I see it: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Additionally, it should be noted that the rifle used by Zehaf-Bibeau was a Winchester model 94. It is a lever action rifle (manually operated, not semi or fully automatic) chambered in .30-30. It is just about as far away from "assault rifle" territory as you can get. It's a grandpa gun, not a scary black gun. drat fine gun, good taste ^^^I would have sex with a lot of those Stepford women
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:drat fine gun, good taste Okay thanks Roger
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Never fired a lever action but after having to handle one for my gun safety I got the impression they are pretty sketchy safety wise and those Fox ladies are definitely pod people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Is this from a comic? Yeah, "We Stand On Guard". Came out last year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Pretend I posted the FOX news female staff picture here. Please don't post my stormfront-sourced spank bank material.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Never fired a lever action but after having to handle one for my gun safety I got the impression they are pretty sketchy safety wise and those Fox ladies are definitely pod people. On the first point, I grew up with lever action rifles. Your impression is correct. Fun little museum pieces, but you can probably do as much damage with hunting arrows and a bit of practice. Or maybe I'm just fantasizing from the Elven Postal scene in LOTR. On the second point, like a lot of male Homo sapiens my standards consist of: same species, consenting adult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Never fired a lever action but after having to handle one for my gun safety I got the impression they are pretty sketchy safety wise and those Fox ladies are definitely pod people. I read in a gun review for a Henry carbine that even if you don't use the half-cock safety, Henry uses technology that lets the hammer safetly rest against the round. I dom't think that's accurate at all and it's scary that people might believe it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
When I was being taught how to use a lever action half cock safety I blurted out 'is this where the term going off half cocked came from?' and got such a stink eye from the instructor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 23:38
|
|