Foolish

Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!

Recommended Posts

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131

After last weeks mass shooting in Nova Scotia, Trudeau has lived up to his promise (and one of the key reasons why I voted for him) and banned assault rifles.  Starting immediately, gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sorts of weapons in this country.  There is a 2 year amnesty period where the government will buy them from owners.  Of course the biggest challenge will be stopping Usanians from bringing them into the country.  I can see that along with checking your temperature for Covid 19, they will also swab your hands for gun powder. 

Interesting that this was passed by the Cabinet alone, without even going to parliament. (Although the budget for the buyback must pass parliament.)   And this happened just the day after gun wielding men stormed the state government in Michigan.  What a difference a border makes!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What type of gun did the shooter in NS use?  I asked that question a while ago and no one ever responded that I'm aware of.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

What type of gun did the shooter in NS use?  I asked that question a while ago and no one ever responded that I'm aware of.  

"The RCMP has confirmed that the Nova Scotia shooter used firearms obtained illegally in Canada and from U.S. sources to carry out his crimes. He was not licensed to own firearms.

Eyewitnesses have said he used a number of weapons during his attacks, including some sort of a long-barrelled rifle and a handgun. The RCMP has described at least one of his firearms as an "assault-style" weapon."

"The ban includes guns that have been used in past Canadian shootings, such as the Ruger Mini-14 which was used in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal in 1989, the M14 semi-automatic which was used in the 2014 Moncton shooting, the Beretta CX4 Storm which was used in the Dawson College shooting and the CSA-VZ-58 which the gunman attempted to use in the Quebec Mosque shooting. "

I read somewhere this morning that his rifle is among the list of 1500 banned rifles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

What type of gun did the shooter in NS use?  I asked that question a while ago and no one ever responded that I'm aware of.  

Who cares, they are proactively trying to avoid a Las Vegas type of massacre.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Trudeau has lived up to his promise (and one of the key reasons why I voted for him) and banned assault rifles.

If it was so critical, why did he wait until now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

If it was so critical, why did he wait until now?

They were ready for it in early March, but something else got in the way. And you have to admit that it will be pretty tough for the right wing opposition to argue against it, just a week after Nova Scotia.  Timing is everything in politics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Foolish said:

They were ready for it in early March, but something else got in the way. And you have to admit that it will be pretty tough for the right wing opposition to argue against it, just a week after Nova Scotia.  Timing is everything in politics.

 

Its too bad that rather than severely cracking down and going to a tight licensing registration system, they are going whole hog.

This should be a shot across the bow for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Its too bad that rather than severely cracking down and going to a tight licensing registration system, they are going whole hog.

What we are trying to do is create a public mindset that these things are just unacceptable, completely.  I think that the mindset is just as important as the actual legislation. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Foolish said:

"The RCMP has confirmed that the Nova Scotia shooter used firearms obtained illegally in Canada and from U.S. sources to carry out his crimes. He was not licensed to own firearms.

Eyewitnesses have said he used a number of weapons during his attacks, including some sort of a long-barrelled rifle and a handgun. The RCMP has described at least one of his firearms as an "assault-style" weapon."

"The ban includes guns that have been used in past Canadian shootings, such as the Ruger Mini-14 which was used in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal in 1989, the M14 semi-automatic which was used in the 2014 Moncton shooting, the Beretta CX4 Storm which was used in the Dawson College shooting and the CSA-VZ-58 which the gunman attempted to use in the Quebec Mosque shooting. "

I read somewhere this morning that his rifle is among the list of 1500 banned rifles.

 

The article claims he "illegally" obtained the firearms. How much more "illegal" does it have to be? YCMTSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

What type of gun did the shooter in NS use?  I asked that question a while ago and no one ever responded that I'm aware of.  

AR 15 variants 2 of them a least and he apparently had an arsenal of weapons and ammo per his dad.  A real nutter so this was to be expected.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/canada-assault-weapons-ban-trudeau-nova-scotia-shooting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights website.  I'm so glad that we have no right to bear arms in Canada:

"In a historic, sweeping ban, Justin Trudeau and Bill Blair have decimated the firearms industry in Canada. A segment that contributed over $8B to the GDP, employs over 40, 000 Canadians in 4500 small businesses across the country.

A staggering 1500 models and variants of rifles were wiped off the market today, with plans to confiscate them from legal owners who have done nothing to warrant such a far-reaching attack. This will impact hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have followed every rule and regulation asked of them, and committed no crime. Legal owners have a two year amnesty to decide if they will forfeit their property for compensation or deactivate them in order to keep them.

The list can be found on the government of Canada’s site: Canada Gazette

Trudeau and Blair used the horrific tragedy in Nova Scotia, a crime committed by an unlicensed criminal with illicit firearms, to prop up his failed policy.

They also circumvented democracy by using an OIC rather than legislation that would have required a debate, study of the issue and votes by parliamentarians.

The CCFR’s Rod Giltaca & Tracey Wilson will be attending a technical briefing today on request by the Minister of Public Safety.

Stay tuned for our course of action in the coming days."

 

I have to admit that I'm very suspicious with their statement that the segment employs over 40,000 Canadians. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Its too bad that rather than severely cracking down and going to a tight licensing registration system, they are going whole hog.

This should be a shot across the bow for the US.

We already have an existing tight licensing and transportation system for firearms in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent some time earlier this year in the US (there is a thread about it).  

For the Americans reading this thread, a helpful piece of advice is to stop thinking of Canadians as the same as Americans who just happen to live a bit farther north.  You are better to think that Canada has its own history and culture as different from the US as, say, Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland. 

With that in mind, Canadians are *horrified* at mass shootings.  We will take bold steps to prevent them.  We look in shock and confusion at the US and will do what we can to not have that level of gun violence.  So from that perspective, the recent move by our Prime Minister is probably pretty consistent with what most people want and will generally receive broad acceptance.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bugsy said:

I spent some time earlier this year in the US (there is a thread about it).  

For the Americans reading this thread, a helpful piece of advice is to stop thinking of Canadians as the same as Americans who just happen to live a bit farther north.  You are better to think that Canada has its own history and culture as different from the US as, say, Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland. 

With that in mind, Canadians are *horrified* at mass shootings.  We will take bold steps to prevent them.  We look in shock and confusion at the US and will do what we can to not have that level of gun violence.  So from that perspective, the recent move by our Prime Minister is probably pretty consistent with what most people want and will generally receive broad acceptance.  

Fucking-A. Or fucking-eh, whichever.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foolish said:

They were ready for it in early March, but something else got in the way.

So much for public safety. But it isn't about public safety, it is just about control.

1 hour ago, Foolish said:

And you have to admit that it will be pretty tough for the right wing opposition to argue against it, just a week after Nova Scotia.  Timing is everything in politics.

What is there to argue against? Your parliament didn't pass anything.

Just a decree from on high.

14 minutes ago, Bugsy said:

We will take bold steps to prevent them.

I guess the next one will just result in no private firearm ownership, then? Do the door-to-door searches happen after that?

51 minutes ago, Keith said:

We already have an existing tight licensing and transportation system for firearms in Canada.

And yet your gov't leadership decided that a person with illegally obtained firearms will now set the rules for the law abiding. Imagine that.

" Firearms capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 Joules (e.g. sniper rifles) "

Far to dangerous for your average civilian to own: https://revivaler.com/w-j-jeffery-600-nitro-express-rifle/

Not a "sniper rifle", but I'm sure your #metoo PM knows best.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foolish said:

I'm so glad that we have no right to bear arms in Canada:

And you are proud that there was no process, just a pronouncement from on high.

Why have a parliament at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

So much for public safety. But it isn't about public safety, it is just about control.

What is there to argue against? Your parliament didn't pass anything.

Just a decree from on high.

I guess the next one will just result in no private firearm ownership, then? Do the door-to-door searches happen after that?

And yet your gov't leadership decided that a person with illegally obtained firearms will now set the rules for the law abiding. Imagine that.

" Firearms capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 Joules (e.g. sniper rifles) "

Far to dangerous for your average civilian to own: https://revivaler.com/w-j-jeffery-600-nitro-express-rifle/

Not a "sniper rifle", but I'm sure your #metoo PM knows best.

 

Canadians don't share your exceptional Americana government paranoia.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And you are proud that there was no process, just a pronouncement from on high.

Why have a parliament at all?

EO’s are bad. Sometimes...

AR 15s are bad all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bugsy said:

I spent some time earlier this year in the US (there is a thread about it).  

For the Americans reading this thread, a helpful piece of advice is to stop thinking of Canadians as the same as Americans who just happen to live a bit farther north.  You are better to think that Canada has its own history and culture as different from the US as, say, Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland. 

With that in mind, Canadians are *horrified* at mass shootings.  We will take bold steps to prevent them.  We look in shock and confusion at the US and will do what we can to not have that level of gun violence.  So from that perspective, the recent move by our Prime Minister is probably pretty consistent with what most people want and will generally receive broad acceptance.  

I think you'd discover that your way of thinking isn't so much Canadian as it is pragmatic and rational.  However in my land of sky fairies... Ya know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Keith said:

Canadians don't share your exceptional Americana government paranoia.

So why bother with a parliament? From here it looks like he can just rule by decree.

Or is it "paranoia" to ask what your PM will do when this happens again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

And you are proud that there was no process, just a pronouncement from on high.

Why have a parliament at all?

Actually this was a key election promise, so it was decided by the people as a whole.  (or at least by those who voted Liberal in our minority parliament.)  But I just think that it is a fantastic move and sure to help reduce killings.  Not all killings, but certainly some.   We absolutely don't want to become blase about it, like the US has become. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Actually this was a key election promise, so it was decided by the people as a whole.

So bypassing parliament is acceptable for campaign promises?

So if I start looking at the status of liberal promises from the last campaign, I'll find that they were all just mandated by the PM?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So bypassing parliament is acceptable for campaign promises? to reduce murder.  Yes it is.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So bypassing parliament is acceptable for campaign promises?

So if I start looking at the status of liberal promises from the last campaign, I'll find that they were all just mandated by the PM?

 

To be fair he got the mandate from the people.  Canadians as a whole are not a bunch of trigger happy gun nutters like you.

Shocker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two questions...

-  how come handguns aren't included?

and

-  when the fuck did handguns become legal in Canada?!?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenchie said:

how come handguns aren't included

A few months ago, the federal government gave the cities the power to ban handguns in the city.  They have always been legal, but just for target shooting with extreme conditions on storage and transport.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Foolish said:

"The RCMP has confirmed that the Nova Scotia shooter used firearms obtained illegally in Canada and from U.S. sources to carry out his crimes. He was not licensed to own firearms.

Eyewitnesses have said he used a number of weapons during his attacks, including some sort of a long-barrelled rifle and a handgun. The RCMP has described at least one of his firearms as an "assault-style" weapon."

"The ban includes guns that have been used in past Canadian shootings, such as the Ruger Mini-14 which was used in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal in 1989, the M14 semi-automatic which was used in the 2014 Moncton shooting, the Beretta CX4 Storm which was used in the Dawson College shooting and the CSA-VZ-58 which the gunman attempted to use in the Quebec Mosque shooting. "

I read somewhere this morning that his rifle is among the list of 1500 banned rifles.

 

There have been 1500 mass shootings in Canada all with discrete types of assault weapons?

How many different types of assault weapons are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foolish said:

Actually this was a key election promise, so it was decided by the people as a whole.  (or at least by those who voted Liberal in our minority parliament.)  But I just think that it is a fantastic move and sure to help reduce killings.  Not all killings, but certainly some.   We absolutely don't want to become blase about it, like the US has become. 

Nope, if it was decided by the people as a whole it would have been a referendum on the topic.

If it was the result of "I'm going to ban assault rifles!!  I'll give everyone a doughnut" you would have to prove which promise they were voting on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Foolish said:

So bypassing parliament is acceptable for campaign promises? to reduce murder.  Yes it is.

 

What, I thought you were proud of the unilateral actions of your PM? Why change your angle on it now?

1 hour ago, Foolish said:

Actually this was a key election promise

You just said an hour ago that decrees from the PM were acceptable, because it was a campaign promise.

He promised lots of things, macleans even has a handy list of them online - how many of them got implemented by a OIC?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

There have been 1500 mass shootings in Canada all with discrete types of assault weapons?

How many different types of assault weapons are there?

At least 1500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Foolish said:

"The RCMP has confirmed that the Nova Scotia shooter used firearms obtained illegally in Canada and from U.S. sources to carry out his crimes. He was not licensed to own firearms.

 

 

Thank god for another law. That'll Stop em. 

Must be wonderful to live in a country where a couple dozen deaths every few years is the only thing worthy of this much angst and attention. 

Guns are FUN and you want to take that away because it kills a small number of people.  Fortunately  no other fun things kill. Might have to address their worth as FUN if they did. 

What is your moral basis for allowing alcoholic FUN and Banning gun FUN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pun Slinger said:

Thank god for another law. That'll Stop em. 

Must be wonderful to live in a country where a couple dozen deaths every few years is the only thing worthy of this much angst and attention. 

Guns are FUN and you want to take that away because it kills a small number of people.  Fortunately  no other fun things kill. Might have to address their worth as FUN if they did. 

What is your moral basis for allowing alcoholic FUN and Banning gun FUN?

Too bad they kicked you out but I totally understand why they did it.  Would it be FUN if you were killed with a GUN?

Its an interesting question!

Edit: It would make a great Dr Seuss title.  Maybe I should write a children’s book asked on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Its too bad that rather than severely cracking down and going to a tight licensing registration system, they are going whole hog.

This should be a shot across the bow for the US.

I thought "assault weapons" were already banned in Canuckistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Pun Slinger said:

Thank god for another law. That'll Stop em.

Of course it will. If it doesn't, they will just come up with a new definition to prove that it did.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of nervous Nellie's here in the gun totin' U.S. of fricking A.  Getting closer boys.  Maybe we need more "Let's storm the capital with gunz" to show them who's boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smells like sanity .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Foolish said:

What we are trying to do is create a public mindset that these things are just unacceptable, completely.  I think that the mindset is just as important as the actual legislation. 

this.

 

US gun nutters love to spout that 2nd amendment crazies have to have a particular mindset about guns and safety. That the right mindset is #1 to prevent shootings.

Nothing creates that mindset better than Canada's action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JSL said:

Smells like sanity .

Prohibition always works well.

We can tell by the total lack of drug related crime, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Prohibition always works well.

We can tell by the total lack of drug related crime, right?

Well, we all know what your mindset is....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Foolish said:

From the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights website.  I'm so glad that we have no right to bear arms in Canada:

"In a historic, sweeping ban, Justin Trudeau and Bill Blair have decimated the firearms industry in Canada. A segment that contributed over $8B to the GDP, employs over 40, 000 Canadians in 4500 small businesses across the country.

A staggering 1500 models and variants of rifles were wiped off the market today, with plans to confiscate them from legal owners who have done nothing to warrant such a far-reaching attack. This will impact hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have followed every rule and regulation asked of them, and committed no crime. Legal owners have a two year amnesty to decide if they will forfeit their property for compensation or deactivate them in order to keep them.

The list can be found on the government of Canada’s site: Canada Gazette

Trudeau and Blair used the horrific tragedy in Nova Scotia, a crime committed by an unlicensed criminal with illicit firearms, to prop up his failed policy.

They also circumvented democracy by using an OIC rather than legislation that would have required a debate, study of the issue and votes by parliamentarians.

The CCFR’s Rod Giltaca & Tracey Wilson will be attending a technical briefing today on request by the Minister of Public Safety.

Stay tuned for our course of action in the coming days."

 

I have to admit that I'm very suspicious with their statement that the segment employs over 40,000 Canadians. 

I'd be suspicious of every word. CCFR is our NRA. Very toothless though since nobody pays any attention to them except the gun nutters.

$8B? In Canada? Maybe if it was 99.9%exports.

I wonder if Dogballs wife's Dogballs is illegal now. :D

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot here - there is little support for "People Killer" weapons or their Rambo fantasy lookalikes.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

What, I thought you were proud of the unilateral actions of your PM? Why change your angle on it now?

You just said an hour ago that decrees from the PM were acceptable, because it was a campaign promise.

He promised lots of things, macleans even has a handy list of them online - how many of them got implemented by a OIC?

 

 

In reality, in a Westminster form of government, I believe legally determining the type of firearm allowed even goes as far down as the deputy minister, let alone parliament.  If hunting rifles were banned, yes that impinges on treaties etc., but banning a defined firearm such as a Ruger 9mm, pffft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need to do now is regulate gun import to the point where each manufacturer must retroactively apply for an import permit for each model of weapon.  And set the importation permit fee at about $1M per permit, non-refundable and payable on application.  This will stop the mfr's (you can read that both ways) making minor tweaks to the design to try to circumvent the model restrictions.  

We don't need that shit here.  We just don't.  There are just too many irresponsible gun owners - I've been shot at on my mountain bike when riding with my son on a popular trail.  Redneck yahoos were taking pot shots into the forest without thinking what was in that forest.

Want to own guns as a hobby and not for hunting?  There's a whole big country that has that right guaranteed in their constitution, just a short car or plane ride away.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need for anyone who is not actively involved in the military to own, or use an assault rifle. They are not hunting rifles. They are definitely not target rifles. All they are is penis projection.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

There is no need for anyone who is not actively involved in the military to own, or use an assault rifle. They are not hunting rifles. They are definitely not target rifles. All they are is penis projection.

There's no reason to own a knife with a blade xx inches long either.it's a very slippery slope you're on. I hear city people all the time say no one needs pick up trucks too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has a foot on both sides of the pasture and realizing it is a barbed wire fence, I see so many times that Canadians and US do not view each other as having significant differences in culture and acknowledging this difference as well as the similarities.  But this is also reflective of a great culture difference between Washington State and Alabama for instance.  Heck, at the moment a great cultural difference between Portland and Eastern Oregon.  The culture in Canada (and seemingly Portland) is anti-personal firearms except for hunting.  This culture difference shows in lower gun violence numbers, but in both instances seems to be the method of choice for depressed older males.  I would caution the US people here to realize that Second Amendment bullshit does not travel across the border.  Institutionally defense has always been a government prerogative and continues to be.  Militias are raised only in support of the government.  They also are raised in terms of proper equipment, not a bunch of infantry rifles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

There's no reason to own a knife with a blade xx inches long either.it's a very slippery slope you're on. I hear city people all the time say no one needs pick up trucks too.

 

Smart people in the country say that, too. Fuckin' useless vroom-vroom machine.

I had a pick up truck when I needed one, it got the care accorded to any useful tool but after a few years it was not a shiny show-off piece. I don't have one now which looks a bit out of place in our neighborhood.

90% of the privately owned pick ups around here are driveway decorations, useful primarily for keeping the owner in debt and displaying the starz'n bars while playing boom-boom music at stop lights.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

I hear city people all the time say no one needs pick up trucks too.

You really don't need a car at all. In fact, the only people who should be allowed to drive are trained gov't professionals working in emergency services or mass transit.

If you disagree with this, you just consider the ~36K deaths per year to be acceptable losses. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning 1500 variants of firearm is typical politician response and invites gaming the system.

You could address the vast majority by the application of 3 rules.

If it's a centrefire cartridge

AND

it has a removable magazine

AND

it's a semiauto action

It's banned.

Really simple to assess & apply and captures all the variants I can think of. Could be extended to pump action if manufacturers started gaming the system.

Note I don't specify magazine size because a removable mag, even if the factory only provides 5 round capacity, can always be easily upsized by the accessory manufacturers. A fixed magazine rifle is a lot harder & more obvious to modify and would be immediately illegal to own/use.

FKT

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Foolish said:

What we are trying to do is create a public mindset that these things are just unacceptable, completely.  I think that the mindset is just as important as the actual legislation. 

and the mindset is that gunz are for cowards . .

the gunz-humping posts above are astonishing . . 

from posters who are normally halfway sane .. 

People, gunz keep you safe just like the Sword of Damocles 

nukes keep you safe. 

Which is to say - not at all 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

and the mindset is that gunz are for cowards . .

the gunz-humping posts above are astonishing . . 

from posters who are normally halfway sane .. 

People, gunz keep you safe just like the Sword of Damocles 

nukes keep you safe. 

Which is to say - not at all 

Having shot numerous coyotes that were ripping up local chickens, I'm going to have to say they do keep certain things safe.

Poison and trapping aren't any better options.

 

But FKT's suggestion wouldn't stop me from shooting coyote.  So I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Having shot numerous coyotes th

exceptions are made for varmints . .

does not require a nuke or an assault gun  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Having shot numerous coyotes that were ripping up local chickens, I'm going to have to say they do keep certain things safe.

Poison and trapping aren't any better options.

 

But FKT's suggestion wouldn't stop me from shooting coyote.  So I like it.

Nothing in the Canadian gun laws would either.

You just won't be able to pretend your some sort of Rambo badass at the same time - you'll just have to settle for a normal hunting rifle, not a pretend military weapon..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

So bypassing parliament is acceptable for campaign promises?

So if I start looking at the status of liberal promises from the last campaign, I'll find that they were all just mandated by the PM?

 

Maybe you don't know how a minority Parliament works. Any of the opposition parties, there are four, can put forward a motion of non-confidence in the government. If the motion is approved by Parliament the Government falls and a new election happens. Since there are more opposition members than government members this could be possible - except that three of the opposition parties support strong gun controls, in some cases stronger than this. The only party that would support the motion is the Conservatives but it would be entirely tone-deaf for them to make such a motion at this time. Of course, the Conservatives have shown the ability to be tone deaf in the last few years but I suspect they would not want to move even further away from where most mainstream Canadians are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "last few years"?

That is an outstanding piece of British understatement. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we could get into the whole business with this Sloan bozo and Scheer's response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Maybe you don't know how a minority Parliament works. Any of the opposition parties, there are four, can put forward a motion of non-confidence in the government. If the motion is approved by Parliament the Government falls and a new election happens.

trying to explain multi party consensus government and policies to a polarized 2 party advocate

yehh

good luck with that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

trying to explain multi party consensus government 

The parliamentary system has a lot to recommend it . .

but I dunno about that "consensus" part 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The parliamentary system has a lot to recommend it . .

but I dunno about that "consensus" part 

When it works, it can work well. Like any system that isn't destroyed by corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Well we could get into the whole business with this Sloan bozo and Scheer's response.

Scheer and his evil twin. The Tories have an unerring ability to shoot themselves in the foot.

Rona was the only chance they had and they blew it.

They didn't even have the brains to elevate and groom Diane Watts.

image.png.8367d202d9bccb9acfb40e7464ee8f15.pngimage.png.b6ed8f20d484a50d2e02cbd4b6336827.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

The parliamentary system has a lot to recommend it . .

but I dunno about that "consensus" part 

When it's a minority it's consensus.

Well, at  least 51% consensus. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first thing we found when we changed to a proportional representation system was politicians had to learn to talk to one another

they hated it

which i guess is proof it works

we have gone from the standard one of the two main parties as a virtual communist party doing whatever it wants

to where there are always at least two parties forming a government

 

i cannot recommend a proportion representation system enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

What type of gun did the shooter in NS use?  I asked that question a while ago and no one ever responded that I'm aware of.  

No one gives a fuck what was used, except gun nuts.

Lots of gunz banned is good news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, astro said:
12 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

What type of gun did the shooter in NS use?  I asked that question a while ago and no one ever responded that I'm aware of.  

 

All but one of them were American guns.

Does that answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I wonder if Dogballs wife's Dogballs is illegal now. :D

I don't see it on the list, but my question would be whether "assault weapons" includes ordinary .22's as it does in Australia and in the magazine confiscation program your country has been running.

And the answer, of course, is yes.

15 hours ago, Foolish said:

The list can be found on the government of Canada’s site: Canada Gazette

Olympic Arms K22 Rimfire Target Match looks like a pretty ordinary .22 to me.

It's a sad day for boating safety in Canada. Like the magazine confiscation program this one is likely to cause more "boating accidents" than actual confiscations. It will also cause resentment from those gun owners who don't feel that owning an ordinary .22 means they're responsible for murderers' actions.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Banning 1500 variants of firearm is typical politician response and invites gaming the system.

You could address the vast majority by the application of 3 rules.

If it's a centrefire cartridge

AND

it has a removable magazine

AND

it's a semiauto action

It's banned.

Really simple to assess & apply and captures all the variants I can think of. Could be extended to pump action if manufacturers started gaming the system.

Sounds like it would apply to museum collections, as it does in your country, though I'm still wondering what kinds of problems those collectors' guns have caused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:

So why bother with a parliament? From here it looks like he can just rule by decree.

Much like when Trump went against what noted Constitutional scholar Obama had decided and usurped the power to ban bump stocka. I still agree with Obama on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steganographic Tom said:

It's a sad day for boating safety in Canada.

Oh really Tom?

As ususal you have no evidence to back that up.  Bullshit as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Tom after he heard about Canada.

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, astro said:

Oh really Tom?

As ususal you have no evidence to back that up.  Bullshit as always.

Actually, I linked to a Canadian gun forum in which people were discussing the unfortunate boating accidents that befell their "large" (meaning over 5 rounds) capacity magazines. Unfortunately, some dumbass twat who went by "random" got banned and the resulting purge deleted the thread. I could find it again but would rather go fishing today, so... bye!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Sounds like it would apply to museum collections, as it does in your country, though I'm still wondering what kinds of problems those collectors' guns have caused?

Tom, the second word is 'off'.

You may choose your own first word.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Actually, I linked to a Canadian gun forum in which people were discussing the unfortunate boating accidents that befell their "large" (meaning over 5 rounds) capacity magazines. Unfortunately, some dumbass twat who went by "random" got banned and the resulting purge deleted the thread. I could find it again but would rather go fishing today, so... bye!

That's the kinda boating I wanna do ... where I need more than a five round magazine!  Bring IT ON Baby!

BANG! Funkin BANG RULE 10 Baby!  Do yo speak it?

Here's Tom after he heard about the Canadian decision.

image.png.db6c852cf58f7e42a8c94ae5a70b5ca4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Olympic Arms K22 Rimfire Target Match looks like a pretty ordinary .22 to me.

It was interesting to learn that the leader of canada thinks a HK416 & G36 are 20mm firearms.

The things I learn from "expert" gun ban types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Tom, the second word is 'off'.

You may choose your own first word.

Is this your normal response when asked what issues museum collections caused? Does the mere appearance of a semiauto firearm cause murders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

All but one of them were American guns.

So taking away firearms from the law abiding will solve the issue of smuggling?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phill_nz said:

the first thing we found when we changed to a proportional representation system was politicians had to learn to talk to one another

they hated it

which i guess is proof it works

we have gone from the standard one of the two main parties as a virtual communist party doing whatever it wants

to where there are always at least two parties forming a government

 

i cannot recommend a proportion representation system enough

Two elections ago Trudeau ran on a platform that included voting reform and then did nothing. I voted for him two elections ago but not in the last election when he went from majority to minority status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Trudeau ran on a platform that included voting reform and then did nothing.

what was the reform he wanted

they have touted it here as well

 

they want to go back to the old way

they even had a binding referendum .. it failed.. seems the population of voters prefer the proportional representation system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that not one Canadian has voiced any concern about this change in gun policy. The couple of Americans crying about it are smart enough to realize that a change like this in the US's nearest neighbour just increases the pressure at home, in particular since the political swing in the US is definitely gun grabber.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

what was the reform he wanted

they have touted it here as well

 

they want to go back to the old way

they even had a binding referendum .. it failed.. seems the population of voters prefer the proportional representation system

He wasn't specific only that it would be a system different than 'first past the post'. Some form of proportional or ranked ballots were the two most common ones discussed at the time. A few municipalities use ranked ballots now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Some form of proportional or ranked ballots were the two most common ones

so close to the nz or the aussie ones

i have voted in both

i might be parochial but i think the nz method is better .. a couple of tweaks might be worth trying but nothing major needs adjusting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Interesting that not one Canadian has voiced any concern about this change in gun policy. The couple of Americans crying about it are smart enough to realize that a change like this in the US's nearest neighbour just increases the pressure at home, in particular since the political swing in the US is definitely gun grabber.

Ok - here are some concerns:

Procedure.  Issuing this by regulation is just another link in a chain of actions that suggest this government believes it rules by divine right, and not answerable to the house.  Look at the abuse of process for the SNC scandal, or the proposal to have unlimited power to tax and spend "temporarily until the end of 2021" in the first draft of C13.

Racial preference - if nobody, absolutely nobody, has any legitimate need for any of these weapons, why is there an exemption for first nations?  Are the deer on reserves that much more dangerous?

Handguns - much more commonly used for murder, but not a priority?

This is a classic "sounds good, solves nothing" plan that will accomplish nothing other than depleting the treasury.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tax Man said:

Handguns - much more commonly used for murder, but not a priority?

I'm still waiting for a non-expat Canadian to illuminate this for me.  Why'd they get left out? 

And when did they become legal in the first place? 

When I lived there, the criminal code outlawed any firearm under 24 inches long.  Only exception was for on-duty cops & soldiers. 

It'd been that way since... forever, far as I knew; definitely since I was a little kid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, to be clear - I have no issue with Canada doing this.  Your country, your laws. 

However, If I were Canadian and a lawful gun owner who followed all the rules and never caused an issue - I would be fucking pissed that this was passed by decree where the PM didn't even have the guts to bring it before the parliament and force a debate and force everyone to be counted.  Was he worried it might not pass?  If so, then that's EVEN more reason to being it before the authorized legislature.  Democracy is only as good for as long as it's exercised correctly.  I fucking hate that our shitstain POTUS as well as all the SS's before him have the ability to exercise power unilaterally without going through the elected representatives that this country was founded on as the correct way to enact changes.  It's wrong even if the cause is right and just.  Either democracy counts ALL the time, or it doesn't.  It's just as wrong in CA as it would be here, regardless of how popular or how right you all feel the measure is.  If it is that popular and right, then do it in the light of the day before and with the consent of the full parliament.  IIRC, your retarded cousins, the pusstralians did the same thing by rushing their bans through in the middle of the night without debate and without parliament's full consent.  

Again, for me the issue is not about the gunz themselves.  As I said your country, your rules.  What worries me is the unilateral decree by your boy king taking away the rights of a huge segment of your population that had done nothing wrong and was not ever going to do anything wrong.  You might like the outcome in this case.  But what if later down the road some of YOUR rights you hold dear get removed in the dark of night with no discussion because some other segment of the population doesn't like it?  Either rights, laws and processes are important, or they are not.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minute