Jump to content

Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Laker said:

Sounds highly selective.  Good for you.

Most people don't even know about the Cadets in the first place, so... not that selective, actually.  The supply is abundant, compared to the demand.  I only ever met one person who'd applied to one of those two courses, and not gotten a spot (and he got in the following year).  

There's other courses that are much more selective.  I wound up in Banff because I couldn't get into the Outward Bound course, or the Parachuting course; it was my third choice.  Didn't get into either of them the next year, either; ended up as a student-instructor at an intro-level Camp, close to home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 Amer

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. 

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 vo

Posted Images

9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It's simply a matter of Dogballs brain being locked into an endless loop of ".22, .22, .22, .22, .22".

Electroshock treatment might snap him out of it.

You're the one who raised the question of whether Canada's new confiscation program covers ordinary .22's, not me.

 

8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I have come around to the view myself, that if a person's response to a public safety issue regarding deadly weapons, is along the lines of lying/deflection/FUCK YOU LIBBY-RULL ASSHOLES!

How about when the response is along the lines of asking you whether .22's are weapons of war or not?

3 hours ago, frenchie said:
14 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Makes me wonder which "acceptable firearms industry standards" he is referencing and why the rule doesn't refer to them. It looks like the answer depends on what the meaning of "bore" is (other than a person who actually looks at and comments on gun confiscation rules).

I'll need you to be a bit more spell-it-out to understand what you're asking.  Which "he"? 


The part in quotation marks is a direct quote from your source, quoting Bill Blair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I have come around to the view myself, that if a person's response to a public safety issue regarding deadly weapons, is along the lines of lying/deflection/FUCK YOU LIBBY-RULL ASSHOLES!

How about when the response is along the lines of asking you whether .22's are weapons of war or not?

Something completely and totally irrelevant?

Comes under the heading of "deflection" see above.

- DSK

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

Something completely and totally irrelevant?

Comes under the heading of "deflection" see above.

- DSK

I consider it relevant for several reasons.

I ask because of the related press release:
 

Quote

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a number of her colleagues today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, a bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement:

“We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets....

 

And because the press release above refers to a bill proposing to ban ordinary .22's, calling them "weapons of war."

I ask because of posts like this one:

On 8/6/2020 at 12:07 PM, Mike G said:

If you think about it though, the more they spend on trips for Wayne, the less they have fighting to keep unstable people supplied with weapons of war.

And posts like this one:

On 3/26/2018 at 6:40 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:
On 3/20/2018 at 3:23 PM, Steam Flyer said:

I never did understand why you think .22s are harmless

I never did understand why you think strawmen are so fun, but I learned something about battlefield .22's today.

On 3/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, badlatitude said:

Did you tell them that the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons? 

8.jpg

Operator armed with the Ruger 10/22 Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000. Note that the sniper has a Sig Sauer handgun tacked in his vest.


I guess badlat must have forgotten to include his source.

http://ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm

Also because here in FL, our legislators want to ban and confiscate ordinary .22's and they use the same rhetoric.

And because countries like Canada and Australia have confiscation programs covering ordinary .22's.

Why do you think talking about the facts about gun bans and confiscation programs and the rhetoric used to support them is irrelevant deflection? I'm just quoting what people who disagree with me say and what they propose in legislation and constitutional amendments.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keith said:

The idea that a large portion of your American population is still packing firearms in 2020, is stupid enough to be funny.


So is leaving (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in the hands of Canadians for a couple of years before the confiscation program takes effect scary to you or funny or what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing my use of the confiscation list as a shopping guide, I took at look at the Feather AT-22 Auto Carbine.

It looks like what might happen if Phil Bolger designed an (assault weapon, ordinary .22).

P1170647-900x600.jpg

It got a pretty terrible review so I don't think I want one, despite being a Bolger fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's hardly any info on the web about the US Arms PMAI “Assault” 22 rifle. Apparently it's been banned in Canada since at least 2006 and it might or might not be a variant of a Beretta (assault weapon, ordinary .22). Other than that, sites that seem to have useful shopping info on it end up leading to spammy places. Oh well, the shopping continues...

Found an Intratec TEC22 on gunbroker for $735. The need for an Uglygun Admiration Society is becoming more evident as my shopping continues.

pix165362500.jpg

 

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

There's hardly any info on the web about the US Arms PMAI “Assault” 22 rifle. Apparently it's been banned in Canada since at least 2006 and it might or might not be a variant of a Beretta (assault weapon, ordinary .22). Other than that, sites that seem to have useful shopping info on it end up leading to spammy places. Oh well, the shopping continues...

Found an Intratec TEC22 on gunbroker for $735. The need for an Uglygun Admiration Society is becoming more evident as my shopping continues.

pix165362500.jpg

 

Holy shit that's one fugly firearm.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, frenchie said:
5 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

There's hardly any info on the web about the US Arms PMAI “Assault” 22 rifle. Apparently it's been banned in Canada since at least 2006 and it might or might not be a variant of a Beretta (assault weapon, ordinary .22). Other than that, sites that seem to have useful shopping info on it end up leading to spammy places. Oh well, the shopping continues...

Found an Intratec TEC22 on gunbroker for $735. The need for an Uglygun Admiration Society is becoming more evident as my shopping continues.

pix165362500.jpg

 

Holy shit that's one fugly firearm.  

Looks very appropriate for home defense.

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

Once again Americans are completely blind to their very own antiquated gun culture.

Your violent gun culture won't change until you properly address your lack of good management and proper control of dangerous firearms. 


I wonder why Canada's confiscation program for (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) has a two year delay? Isn't it urgent that you solve your gun problem? Why not start the confiscations yesterday?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing with using the confiscation list as a shopping guide, next up is the Chiappa Firearms M Four-22

Pretty scary looking! It's easy to see how the idea that this is a "weapon of war" became a mainstream TeamD thing. I still think actual soldiers would LOL once they got close enough to figure out what it really is.

prodotti_immagini_immagine2_358.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Continuing with using the confiscation list as a shopping guide, next up is the Chiappa Firearms M Four-22

Pretty scary looking! It's easy to see how the idea that this is a "weapon of war" became a mainstream TeamD thing. I still think actual soldiers would LOL once they got close enough to figure out what it really is. 

prodotti_immagini_immagine2_358.jpg

It is very easy to say how this turned common - some lobbyists have advocated it and some politicians agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a whole bunch of arrested adolescents had to have them to play at being soldiers.

It's called Tacti-Cool and that's what it's really all about.

Walter Mitty pretending to be Rambo.

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

And a whole bunch of arrested adolescents had to have them to play at being soldiers.

It's called Tacti-Cool and that's what it's really all about.

Walter Mitty pretending to be Rambo.

This is why it's puzzling to me that Trudeau wants to allow these dangerous people to keep their (ordinary .22's, weapons of war) for another couple of years. Why not begin the confiscation immediately?

Today on the (shopping, confiscation) list, the DPMS A-15 Panther 22. Almost a thousand bucks, a price that should keep the riffraff away, but you can't be too careful when it comes to ordinary .22's.

dpms-panther-arms-ar-15-22-long-rifle-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Information on the Leitner-Wise Rifle LW15-22 is pretty scarce and images are even harder to find. Apparently it's a good quality .22 that will fit on an AR-15 lower receiver. It hasn't been produced in a long time and I see none for sale anywhere. I guess a couple of Canadians must have them and the safety of the Canadian public demands that they be confiscated. The threat to public safety from those people seems to have as much evidence as the threat to Aussie public safety from disabled guns in museum collections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2020 at 3:05 PM, shaggy said:

Isn't any gun or weapon a weapon of war??  


That's the mainstream TeamD talking point but I don't think many of the parrots who repeat it actually believe it.

If someone close to you went into military service and got a choice to be issued a modern military rifle or a "military style weapon of war" like this S&W Victory 22:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Which one would you tell him to pick?

Please continue the tradition of not answering that question, since questions to which the answer is obvious, but which still won't be answered, are my favorite kind.

Anyway, getting back to shopping for weapons of war using Canada's (shopping, confiscation) list...

The Mitchell Arms CAR15/22 is a pretty plain looking battlefield .22. I like the extra thick rubber pad on the butt. Wouldn't want to bruise your shoulder with the kick of a .22!

Mitchell15-22.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, shaggy said:

Really, You did nothing to answer my question.  Both are Weapons, and have no place in modern society. 

So if Canada were a modern society, the thread title would simply read, "Canada bans firearms YES!"

My answer to your question is no, any gun or weapon is not a weapon of war. Also, none of my boats are warships.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

So if Canada were a modern society, the thread title would simply read, "Canada bans firearms YES!"

My answer to your question is no, any gun or weapon is not a weapon of war. Also, none of my boats are warships.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot with your warships and your firearms. 

Fortunately in Canada, we don't have to worry as Americans do with all those American crazies running around packing firearms.

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

Keep shooting yourself in the foot with your warships and your firearms. 

Fortunately in Canada, we don't have to worry as Americans do with all those American crazies running around packing firearms.

No, we just have to worry about our Canadian crazies. 

 

 

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

Keep shooting yourself in the foot with your warships and your firearms. 

Fortunately in Canada, we don't have to worry as Americans do with all those American crazies running around packing firearms.

Hah! My warships don't even have any mounted weapons.

So if you don't have to worry, does that mean that the topic confiscation program isn't even necessary at all? Shame to cause a bunch of "boating accidents" for no good reason. But maybe there are good reasons?

You might be buying into this:

On 5/7/2020 at 1:38 AM, Rain Man said:

Well, you folks are doing something wrong.  In 2017, in the USA, there were 39,773 gun deaths.  In Canada in the same year, there were 266.  Your population is 10 times ours, so if you were doing things our way, you would have only had 2660 deaths.  Your way caused an additional 37,113 deaths.  

But, hey, you do you.

 

But despite Rain Man's exclusion of suicide stats from the unsourced Canadian number, you're still at great risk of self murderizing yourself. In fact, you're the only person who can do it and you can't get away from yourself. PANIC!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit bored with the battlefield .22's so looked to see what else is on the confiscation list today.

Quote

Any instrument or device commonly known as “nunchaku”, being hard non-flexible sticks, clubs, pipes, or rods linked by a length or lengths of rope, cord, wire or chain, and any similar instrument or device.

Uh oh. Turns out I live in a damn weapons factory! I have sticks and strings all over the place in all kinds of types and sizes. None of them are connected, but I know knots and splices and am a drill owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I'm a bit bored with the battlefield .22's so looked to see what else is on the confiscation list today.

Uh oh. Turns out I live in a damn weapons factory! I have sticks and strings all over the place in all kinds of types and sizes. None of them are connected, but I know knots and splices and am a drill owner.

The problem with nunchaku is that they take a lot of practice to become proficient. However they can be VERY effective, a lot of different ways including as a self-launching baseball bat. About as much range and effectiveness as throwing a knife, and takes more practice, and of course they don't stick in the target.

- DSK

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The problem with nunchaku is that they take a lot of practice to become proficient. However they can be VERY effective, a lot of different ways including as a self-launching baseball bat. About as much range and effectiveness as throwing a knife, and takes more practice, and of course they don't stick in the target.

- DSK

A lot of practice and more than a few self-inflicted bruises. I have a friend who always wanted to practice with his after a few too many drinks.

The problem with banning them is that they're two sticks and a string.

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

A lot of practice and more than a few self-inflicted bruises. I have a friend who always wanted to practice with his after a few too many drinks.

The problem with banning them is that they're two sticks and a string.

The ban is communication, a word to the wise.  The word communicates something, to average people. Namely, the existence of a known problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I've never heard of Canada's nunchaku problem. If it's known to you, please share.

They are banned or restricted in dozens of countries IIRC.  Not sure why, but like most people who've spent a lot of time overseas, I try not to judge other countries' laws unless I truly understand the issues and history.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

They are banned or restricted in dozens of countries IIRC.  Not sure why, but like most people who've spent a lot of time overseas, I try not to judge other countries' laws unless I truly understand the issues and history.  

They're banned in various US places too, along with slingshots and stun guns. If there are historic issues that justify any of those, I haven't heard of them in this country nor in Canada, which is why I asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

If there are historic issues that justify any of those, I haven't heard of them in this country nor in Canada, which is why I asked.

Rather than waiting until you 'heard' something about it, you could probably learn more by researching the legislative history. If you actually cared, which you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

They're banned in various US places too, along with slingshots and stun guns. If there are historic issues that justify any of those, I haven't heard of them in this country nor in Canada, which is why I asked.

This is YOUR subject matter, and I smell a lawn dart-type problem with the track record of your thingees. 

Along similar lines, we find that .22's tally up some bad, nasty statistics, in general.  

 

Dude, trot out the slingshot photo, from the ghost database... <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:
20 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

If there are historic issues that justify any of those, I haven't heard of them in this country nor in Canada, which is why I asked.

Rather than waiting until you 'heard' something about it, you could probably learn more by researching the legislative history. If you actually cared, which you don't.

Tom apparently just wants to argue that GUNZ R GOOD or something.

Nunchucks are probably illegal because they are easy to conceal and if you have developed the skill, you can kill people with them. Of course, the same is true of bare hands/feet, but it takes a bit more dedication for that.

The theory I was taught is that the self-discipline of learning these 'arts' cures the inner ills that lead people to kill for any but the most absolutely necessary reason(s). Obviously this is not a universal truth.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

the self-discipline of learning these 'arts' cures the inner ills that lead people to kill for any but the most absolutely necessary reason(s). Obviously this is not a universal truth.

 

It's not necessarily the self-discipline, though that was long a favorite line of karate teachers for the little ones. If it was just about self-discipline, you wouldn't see so many NFL/NBA stars getting in trouble with the law.

In my opinion, it's more about the humility.  Practicing martial arts means you learn right away that there is always someone bigger, stronger, better than you out there, and you never know who until you square off, and if you fight that person, they will win and/or hurt you 100% of the time if they so choose.  Team sports allow one to rationalize/justify their lack of relative ability in much the same way that PHRF does for racers, and the consequences of losing a sparring bout are so much more grave than losing a basketball game.

Hard to be a sociopath or narcissist in that context, though as you point out, there are exceptions (even though TBI/CTE could be responsible for those rare instances).

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Rather than waiting until you 'heard' something about it, you could probably learn more by researching the legislative history. If you actually cared, which you don't.

Isn't legislative history just stuff politicians say when they want to pass a law? If you read the thread, I just quoted the mainstream TeamD press release saying that ordinary .22's must be banned because they're weapons of war and Steam told me it was irrelevant, instead wanting to talk about a strawman he made up about me without any basis in anything I have said.

What if the legislative history strikes me as complete BS scaremongering?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Tom apparently just wants to argue that GUNZ R GOOD or something.

Gunz R Tools. I guess you missed the "or something" but it continues to be that gun confiscation programs are foolish and are detrimental to boating safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Gunz R Tools. I guess you missed the "or something" but it continues to be that gun confiscation programs are foolish and are detrimental to boating safety.

Gunz R Tools... for ramped-up violence. And "boating accidents" is code for lawlessness.

Quite the combo, with dogballs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 9/6/2020 at 2:17 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Gunz R Tools. I guess you missed the "or something" but it continues to be that gun confiscation programs are foolish and are detrimental to boating safety.

Gunz R Tools... for ramped-up violence. And "boating accidents" is code for lawlessness.

Quite the combo, with dogballs.

Everyone knows that guns are essential for safe boating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other prohibited assault weapons include:

  •  

    Quote

     

    • 1 Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of

      • (a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or

      • (b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.

     

Doesn't Canada have bears?

And

  • Quote

    6 Any device that is designed to be capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person or an animal by discharging an electrical charge produced by means of the amplification or accumulation of the electrical current generated by a battery, where the device is designed or altered so that the electrical charge may be discharged when the device is of a length of less than 480 mm, and any similar device.

     

I guess that means only tiny stun guns are assault weapons?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2020 at 3:52 PM, Keith said:

No, most Canadians are quite happy with Canada's firearm regulations.

It's really nice to be able to go for lunch in a cafe, and not have some random human in there with a six-shooter in their holster on their hip, ready to shoot the place up.  

Now if we could do a better job stopping the illegal firearms smugglers from getting across our border, we would be even happier.  

All the Canadians I work with say they are not happy with the gun regulations.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2020 at 11:48 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

It's not necessarily the self-discipline, though that was long a favorite line of karate teachers for the little ones. If it was just about self-discipline, you wouldn't see so many NFL/NBA stars getting in trouble with the law.

In my opinion, it's more about the humility.  Practicing martial arts means you learn right away that there is always someone bigger, stronger, better than you out there, and you never know who until you square off, and if you fight that person, they will win and/or hurt you 100% of the time if they so choose.  Team sports allow one to rationalize/justify their lack of relative ability in much the same way that PHRF does for racers, and the consequences of losing a sparring bout are so much more grave than losing a basketball game.

Hard to be a sociopath or narcissist in that context, though as you point out, there are exceptions (even though TBI/CTE could be responsible for those rare instances).

 

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone get into a fight in the first place?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rok Dog said:

Why would anyone get into a fight in the first place?

I dunno, why do you get so mad about BLM? People do strange things.

For example

On 9/6/2020 at 5:15 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Isn't legislative history just stuff politicians say when they want to pass a law? If you read the thread, I just quoted the mainstream TeamD press release saying that ordinary .22's must be banned because they're weapons of war and Steam told me it was irrelevant, instead wanting to talk about a strawman he made up about me without any basis in anything I have said.

What if the legislative history strikes me as complete BS scaremongering?

Tom's incessant whining that he's afraid somebody is going to take away his .22 and lying about any tangent that he think might get other people to comment. Mistake on my part, I asked how many people had been killed with .22s, which the whole "weapons of war" bullshit is indeed irrelevant to. And of course he will not answer my question because it would make his "cause" look bad.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 8:27 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:
On 8/26/2020 at 8:11 AM, Steam Flyer said:

As for your outrage that .22s would ever be considered dangerous weapons, how many people have been killed by them?

Get some pics of the G.I.S. too, please. Those are cool little boats.

Randumb will be along shortly with the stats you want, but my contention has never been that they are not dangerous. Just that they are not "weapons of war."

Do you think .22's are weapons of war?

The actual question asked is above and I can't help it if Randumb is falling down on the job of saying how many people have been killed using .22's.

If the new question is how many I have killed, the answer is none, just like almost every (assault weapon, ordinary .22) owner. Not sure how that makes me or anyone else look bad.

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

All the Canadians I work with say they are not happy with the gun regulations.

Most probably think they are not strict enough (if they are a randomly selected group of Canadians).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 5:15 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Isn't legislative history just stuff politicians say when they want to pass a law? If you read the thread, I just quoted the mainstream TeamD press release saying that ordinary .22's must be banned because they're weapons of war and Steam told me it was irrelevant, instead wanting to talk about a strawman he made up about me without any basis in anything I have said.

What if the legislative history strikes me as complete BS scaremongering?

what ifs and press releases are very poor sources.  Legislative history has flaws, but it's part of the official record and is often attributable to real people and not comms officers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 5:17 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Gunz R Tools. I guess you missed the "or something" but it continues to be that gun confiscation programs are foolish and are detrimental to boating safety.

If guns were tools, they would be subject to the same products liability laws and public nuisance laws that manufacturers of every single other tool in America are subject to, wouldn't they?

They are not.

 

 

 

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

All the Canadians I work with say they are not happy with the gun regulations.

And yet the authors of those regulations keep getting elected.  Are you only working with Canadian criminals?

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

Why would anyone get into a fight in the first place?

Who knows?

That never entered into my calculations when I began training in martial arts.  The point is to be prepared, regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The actual question asked is above and I can't help it if Randumb is falling down on the job of saying how many people have been killed using .22's.

If the new question is how many I have killed, the answer is none, just like almost every (assault weapon, ordinary .22) owner. Not sure how that makes me or anyone else look bad.

So you are saying that a .22 has never been used in, say, a suicide?  Or an accidental shooting of a child no matter what the form of the .22 cartridge support? Does the shape of the cartridge support really matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2020 at 3:15 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Doesn't Canada have bears?

Yup. We can buy "bear spray". We cannot buy pepper spray for personal self defense (I think).

RCMP "What's that in your purse?"

Law abiding Canadian "Bear spray - going hiking later today"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rok Dog said:

All the Canadians I work with say they are not happy with the gun regulations.

They're in the minority. Two polls taken BEFORE the big Nova Scotia shootings. One was about a total ban on ALL guns. The second was about the upcoming gun ban on assault type weapons. 78% is pretty strong support that makes politicians think a gun ban is a good thing.

I'm sorry that it might make Tom's head explode 


raw_3w1j_gun-poll-2.jpg?resize=945,1024

GunsMetho.png?w=568

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what ifs and press releases are very poor sources.  Legislative history has flaws, but it's part of the official record and is often attributable to real people and not comms officers.

 

Senator Feinstein isn't a real person?

 

18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If guns were tools, they would be subject to the same products liability laws and public nuisance laws that manufacturers of every single other tool in America are subject to, wouldn't they?

They are not.

Except they are, as shown in another thread. But I'm sure if I take that evidence here I'll again just get the cross-posting objection and no real response.

16 hours ago, Laker said:

So you are saying that a .22 has never been used in, say, a suicide?  Or an accidental shooting of a child no matter what the form of the .22 cartridge support? Does the shape of the cartridge support really matter?

No, I have said the opposite, noting that the continued use of suicide stats in gun ban discussions (except, of course, Canadian suicide stats, as noted in post 326) implies to me that grabbers want to confiscate my old single shot .22. I was taught as a kid to treat it as a deadly weapon and despite the strawmen raised around here, continue to view it that way.

16 hours ago, Zonker said:

They're in the minority. Two polls taken BEFORE the big Nova Scotia shootings. One was about a total ban on ALL guns. The second was about the upcoming gun ban on assault type weapons. 78% is pretty strong support that makes politicians think a gun ban is a good thing.

I'm sorry that it might make Tom's head explode 


raw_3w1j_gun-poll-2.jpg?resize=945,1024

GunsMetho.png?w=568

 

I think the difference between the two polls shows how the propaganda surrounding "assault" weapons is actually working. Low information voters who don't yet realize that "assault weapon" means, in practice, "ordinary .22."

It is weird that one of the most ordinary, the Ruger 10/22, is not yet included but more expensive .22's are. The price tag on many of the .22's to be confiscated in a couple of years would seem to me to keep the riffraff out.

I still wonder why Canada is making those 78% wait? Why not stsrt the confiscations immediately?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If guns were tools, they would be subject to the same products liability laws and public nuisance laws that manufacturers of every single other tool in America are subject to, wouldn't they?

They are not.

 

Are you sure about that?

If someone takes a drill and drills into your head killing you, no product liability case.

If someone is drilling normally, and the drill explodes killing you, product liability case.

What is so hard to understand about that?

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

Are you sure about that?

If someone takes a drill and drills into your head killing you, no product liability case.

If someone is drilling normally, and the drill explodes killing you, product liability case.

What is so hard to understand about that?

And if someone sells you a defective gun, there is product liability.

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

Are you sure about that?

If someone takes a drill and drills into your head killing you, no product liability case.

If someone is drilling normally, and the drill explodes killing you, product liability case.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Cute, counselor.  Tom has an excuse, he is old and not a lawyer. What's yours?

I won't argue statue and case law here because you do not choose to be identified and therefore, not responsible to your state's regulator for lying in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

And if someone sells you a defective gun, there is product liability.

 

Yes, if the manufacture a defective product, there is liability.  Are you pretending the inquiry ends there?  Are you asserting to people here that gun manufacturers do not have an entirely different layer of protection that no other industry enjoys?  JZK is a known liar and cheat.  You are more subtle, usually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

Yes, if the manufacture a defective product, there is liability.  Are you pretending the inquiry ends there?  Are you asserting to people here that gun manufacturers do not have an entirely different layer of protection that no other industry enjoys?  JZK is a known liar and cheat.  You are more subtle, usually.

You just threw in the towel on your case.  There is product liability for defective guns just like any other product liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Is defective manufacture the only type of products liability, counselor?  Or are you publicly lying again in contravention of your oath and your state's ethical rules?

State the lie if you can.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Is defective manufacture the only type of products liability, counselor?  Or are you publicly lying again in contravention of your oath and your state's ethical rules?

Come on, state the lie.  

Which product liability types do you wish to see available against gun manufacturers that aren't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

Yes, if the manufacture a defective product, there is liability.  Are you pretending the inquiry ends there?  Are you asserting to people here that gun manufacturers do not have an entirely different layer of protection that no other industry enjoys?  JZK is a known liar and cheat.  You are more subtle, usually.

Are you talking about this?

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:
Quote

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Zonker said:

They're in the minority. Two polls taken BEFORE the big Nova Scotia shootings. One was about a total ban on ALL guns. The second was about the upcoming gun ban on assault type weapons. 78% is pretty strong support that makes politicians think a gun ban is a good thing.

I'm sorry that it might make Tom's head explode 


raw_3w1j_gun-poll-2.jpg?resize=945,1024

GunsMetho.png?w=568

 

Assault rifles have been banned (other than grandfathered ownership) since the mid 1970's.  I suspect the public has been misled about how much public safety will improve if we deprive a few pensioners of their gun collection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Why not stsrt the confiscations immediately?

Actually there has been no "confiscations". They banned a bunch of weapons, and there is supposed to be a buy back program but then a virus intervened and the buyback is on the back burner I suspect. Latest news I could find Aug 12st is they planned to hire a consultant to plan the buy-back program or even -gasp- allow ownership of grandfathered weapons (probably you could own them but not use them; dunno).

I don't think assault rifles have been banned since the 1970's. My brother (who was about 8-10 years old in the mid 70's) had a big collection for his shooting range business that included AR-15 and AK-47's and a 0.50 Barret.  Not sure how he owned them but I know they were legal. As soon as the gun ban was announced, he had to shelve a lot of guns and go out and buy new legal ones not on the banned list.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Actually there has been no "confiscations". They banned a bunch of weapons, and there is supposed to be a buy back program but then a virus intervened and the buyback is on the back burner I suspect. Latest news I could find Aug 12st is they planned to hire a consultant to plan the buy-back program or even -gasp- allow ownership of grandfathered weapons (probably you could own them but not use them; dunno).

From the topic post link
 

Quote

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced a ban on some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade "assault-style" weapons in Canada, effective immediately.

...

"As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed," Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said. "Enough is enough. Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives."

Trudeau said there will be a two-year amnesty period to allow people who already own these firearms to comply with the ban. Trudeau promised to pass legislation in the coming months to provide "fair compensation" to people who own these firearms.

 

When private property is taken for public use (or for a public purpose) and just compensation is paid, the normal legal term taken from our fifth amendment is a "taking." No one says that Suzette Kelo's home was subject to a "buyback" and I'm not interested in the way grabbers try to invent a new term for an old procedure. Can we just agree on "taking" instead of "confiscation" or "buyback"?

The rhetoric in that first sentence is why I think you got different poll results when asking about "assault weapons" aka "battlefield .22's." The thing is, ordinary .22's are not found on battlefields.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

From the topic post link
 

When private property is taken for public use (or for a public purpose) and just compensation is paid, the normal legal term taken from our fifth amendment is a "taking." No one says that Suzette Kelo's home was subject to a "buyback" and I'm not interested in the way grabbers try to invent a new term for an old procedure. Can we just agree on "taking" instead of "confiscation" or "buyback"?

The rhetoric in that first sentence is why I think you got different poll results when asking about "assault weapons" aka "battlefield .22's." The thing is, ordinary .22's are not found on battlefields.

The best part of Toms dumbfuckery is when he rambles about the applicability of the US constitution to other countries. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The best part of Toms dumbfuckery is when he rambles about the applicability of the US constitution to other countries.

 Canadian courts use the word "taking" the same way

"Buyback" is used to deceptively imply a couple of things that are just not true:

1. That the "sale" is voluntary.

2. That the property in question originally and rightfully belonged to the government in the first place.

It's gungrabby BS. Call a taking a taking, grabbers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really prefer "taking" I'm fine with that.  Nobody is coming to your house and taking anything. There is a 2 year period to get guns turned in and get cash.

Sorry if you worried that another country's "taking" might spill south of the border. You just hold them little .22 guns in your hand tightly and don't let it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 Canadian courts use the word "taking" the same way

"Buyback" is used to deceptively imply a couple of things that are just not true:

1. That the "sale" is voluntary.

2. That the property in question originally and rightfully belonged to the government in the first place.

It's gungrabby BS. Call a taking a taking, grabbers.

 

Canada does not give an inherent right to own a firearm in any of it's legislation.  It can, by regulation, determine your right to operate a motor vehicle for instance.  Don't get a republic mixed up with a constitutional monarchy.  It is quite obvious that "assault-type" and handguns are banned because the electorate as a whole does not want them.  The situation in Kenosha just reinforces the ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, F395 said:

This is from Fox News - it seems fitting for this topic. 

Canada petition urges Trudeau to reverse new gun control measures, sets record for signatures

https://www.foxnews.com/world/canada-petition-trudeau-gun-control-record-signatures

" The digital petition, e-2574, notched 230,905 signatures before it closed"

Wow. I'm stunned.  0.66% of the Canadian population signed it.  That's some record right there. The politicians must be quaking in their boots. (See poll results above) :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laker said:

Canada does not give an inherent right to own a firearm in any of it's legislation.  It can, by regulation, determine your right to operate a motor vehicle for instance.  Don't get a republic mixed up with a constitutional monarchy.  It is quite obvious that "assault-type" and handguns are banned because the electorate as a whole does not want them.  The situation in Kenosha just reinforces the ban.

Oh, it’s better. From Toms link

Quote

 This claim of de facto expropriation, or as it is known in United States constitutional law, regulatory taking, does not have a long history or clearly articulated basis in Canadian law.

Quote

 The U.S. constitutional law has, on this issue, taken a fundamentally different path than has Canadian law concerning the interpretation of expropriation legislation.  In U.S. constitutional law, regulation which has the effect of denying the owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land constitutes a taking of property for which compensation must be paid.  Under Canadian expropriation law, deprivation of economic value is not a taking of land, for the reasons I have set out at length earlier.  It follows that U.S. constitutional law cases cannot be relied on as accurately stating Canadian law on this point.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 Canadian courts use the word "taking" the same way

"Buyback" is used to deceptively imply a couple of things that are just not true:

1. That the "sale" is voluntary.

2. That the property in question originally and rightfully belonged to the government in the first place.

It's gungrabby BS. Call a taking a taking, grabbers.

 

In Canada, if you buy property, the Real Estate Agent is told to outline what "fee simple" means under Canadian law.  A lot of them don't which leads to many people thinking that Canada lives under an extension of US property law, which it does NOT.  Fee simple doesn't actually give you that much beyond the ability to reside on the land and pass that right to one's heirs.  Don't use US criteria to view Canadian rights.  (personally I am a tenant of the crown, which is a different kettle of fish)

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

My brother (who was about 8-10 years old in the mid 70's) had a big collection for his shooting range business that included AR-15 and AK-47's and a 0.50 Barret.  Not sure how he owned them but I know they were legal. As soon as the gun ban was announced, he had to shelve a lot of guns and go out and buy new legal ones not on the banned list.

Do you think that this made Canada any safer? If so, what kind of danger(s) was your brother creating with those guns?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zonker said:

If you really prefer "taking" I'm fine with that.  Nobody is coming to your house and taking anything. There is a 2 year period to get guns turned in and get cash.

Sorry if you worried that another country's "taking" might spill south of the border. You just hold them little .22 guns in your hand tightly and don't let it happen.

The taking process directed at (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is under way in several states already. Biden wants to tap Beto to take it national.

As my post above implies, it's holding peaceful people responsible for the actions of criminals and calling it a "buyback" just adds to the insult. As always, I'm concerned about boating safety. I already posted in a previous thread a link to Canadians joking about the unfortunate drowning of 10-22 magazines and I predict more boating accidents in your future. No, I don't want them to spread here.

Is "them little .22 guns" your way of admitting that they're really not "military grade" at all?

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

Canada does not give an inherent right to own a firearm in any of it's legislation.  It can, by regulation, determine your right to operate a motor vehicle for instance.  Don't get a republic mixed up with a constitutional monarchy.  It is quite obvious that "assault-type" and handguns are banned because the electorate as a whole does not want them.  The situation in Kenosha just reinforces the ban.

We have that right but it doesn't apply to (assault weapons, ordinary .22's). As noted in another thread, ownership of such guns is viewed as a public nuisance and taking them does not require any compensation, which is why our ongoing and proposed takings programs in various states offer none. It's also part of the reason that these programs are resulting in a lot more boating accidents than actual takings of guns.

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

Oh, it’s better. From Toms link

Quote

 This claim of de facto expropriation, or as it is known in United States constitutional law, regulatory buyback, does not have a long history or clearly articulated basis in Canadian law.

Quote

 The U.S. constitutional law has, on this issue, taken a fundamentally different path than has Canadian law concerning the interpretation of expropriation legislation.  In U.S. constitutional law, regulation which has the effect of denying the owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land constitutes a buyback of property for which compensation must be paid.  Under Canadian expropriation law, deprivation of economic value is not a buyback of land, for the reasons I have set out at length earlier.  It follows that U.S. constitutional law cases cannot be relied on as accurately stating Canadian law on this point.  

 

Fixed to make your argument a bit more ludicrous.

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

" The digital petition, e-2574, notched 230,905 signatures before it closed"

Wow. I'm stunned.  0.66% of the Canadian population signed it.  That's some record right there. The politicians must be quaking in their boots. (See poll results above) :)

Should this be taken as further evidence that the majority should not have to remain endangered for two years and the takings should begin right away?

Link to post
Share on other sites