Jump to content

Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

  


This makes me wonder whether the confiscation of battlefield .22's and other WMD's has begun yet in the frozen north?

Canada's far too easy access to battlefield .22's seems to me to be a yuge problem! Can you not see that?

i opened the door that said tom ray and the room was empty 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 562
  • 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

16 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

  


This makes me wonder whether the confiscation of battlefield .22's and other WMD's has begun yet in the frozen north?

Canada's far too easy access to battlefield .22's seems to me to be a yuge problem! Can you not see that?

Bloody Keyboard GIF - Bloody Keyboard Typing GIFs

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

 

6 hours ago, Ishmael said:
6 hours ago, Zonker said:

What is there was a country with fewer guns.... ah fuck, never mind.

Lost cause. Just stop that shit from coming over the border.

But what about confiscating the battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that are already in Canada? It has been over a year since this thread was started. Have the confiscations begun? Are you getting more than a few percent compliance? If so, people who run other confiscation programs are going to wonder how you achieved it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about a toddler killing somebody in the US.

There has been no confiscation program in Canada. Just a lot of weapons being banned. They're still talking about compensation but no word yet.

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

There has been no confiscation program in Canada. Just a lot of weapons being banned. They're still talking about compensation but no word yet.

The need to take them seemed pretty urgent when the thread started. Have the mass shootings continued? I haven't heard of any. Maybe Canadian owners of battlefield .22's aren't all that dangerous?

Offering compensation is very civilized of you. Down here, the banned weapons are just declared a public nuisance and keeping them after the deadline can get you a felony. So more of a plain stick than a carrot-with-stick approach. That might bring compliance rates up to double digits when the grabbing begins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Canada, Six Months from “Confiscation Day”
 

Quote

 

...

Now, a scant six months away from the amnesty deadline of April 30, 2022 – a blink of an eye given the speed of government operations – gun owners and firearm businesses are left to speculate about the operation of the confiscation and grandfathering options, compensation, and pretty much anything else related to the implementation of this gun ban.

Taxpayers, too, remain as much in the dark on how much this will cost as they were when Trudeau’s gun grab was announced, although a government report released in June offered a very broad estimated cost of anywhere between CAD$47 million to $756 million. Even so, the report’s authors were careful to add a “floor not ceiling” caveat that there are “too many outstanding questions on how this program will be implemented to currently develop a complete picture of the true potential cost of the program.” 

...

 

If I asked for a project proposal and someone came back with "oh, somewhere between $47k and $756k, but that guess is a floor, not a ceiling" I'm not really sure how I'd react. I don't think I know enough sailorly curse words.

Canada does seem to have bipartisan unity on the wisdom of banning battlefield .22's.

Quote

“We will maintain the assault weapon ban and maintain the 2020 restrictions put in place – full stop,” O’Toole told reporters.

But there's no reason a court fight over the confiscation should delay the actual confiscation.
 

Quote

 

...

“The court case should not delay the enactment of the mandatory buyback that has been promised by the Liberals, nor any other gun-control measure, for that matter,” Rathjen said in reaction to the court schedule.

“These are two independent processes,” she told iPolitics. “Since we are talking about public safety measures, court challenges by pro-gun interests are not a legitimate reason to delay their implementation.”

...

 

There's no question that Canadian owners of battlefield .22's are a threat to public safety. Why else would they need to have their weapons taken?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the OP;

Canada gunshot death rate - 1.94 per 100,000 people

USA gunshot death rate - 12.21 per 100,000 people.

 

Now who did you say had the right idea?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Getting back to the OP;

Canada gunshot death rate - 1.94 per 100,000 people

USA gunshot death rate - 12.21 per 100,000 people.

 

Now who did you say had the right idea?

I can hear Tom flipping furiously through the pages of his NRA talking points guide from here...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rain Man said:

I can hear Tom flipping furiously through the pages of his NRA talking points guide from here...

Nah, I replied in the thread about self-murders and I continue to fail to see the relevance of suicides to confiscating battlefield .22's.

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

Nah, I replied in the thread about self-murders and I continue to fail to see the relevance of suicides to confiscating battlefield .22's.

It is really unclear what, if any guns will be confiscated as "battlefield .22s". The law gets vague here because guns used in IPSC competition have an obvious "sporting use". Certainly for Canadians who wish to legally own restricted weapons, the ISPC is their best advocate. 

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

It is really unclear what, if any guns will be confiscated as "battlefield .22s". The law gets vague here because guns used in IPSC competition have an obvious "sporting use". Certainly for Canadians who wish to legally own restricted weapons, the ISPC is their best advocate. 

Heh. I don't think that's going to fly when it comes to the Feather AT mentioned upthread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Canadian gun owners caused some more violence
 

Quote

 

Toronto Police Service said that day at noon — in broad daylight — its officers carried out a search warrant on the property. It's unclear what information they had and how many officers were at the scene, but the service said it was looking for guns. Family said no warrant was left behind. 

Quentin Dixon, Rodger's longtime friend, said officers bearing assault rifles had Jessie at gunpoint while she was unloading groceries from the vehicle.

Some officers were wearing plain clothes while others wore tactical gear, according to family, friends, neighbours and Michael Smitiuch, the family's lawyer, all of whom CBC spoke with this week. 

They say Toronto police brought their own ambulance and paramedics with them when they first arrived, a move Toronto defence lawyer Kim Schofield, who has worked on numerous cases involving the SIU, said was "very unusual." 

Schofield said officers are also usually required to give the family a copy of the search warrant.

...

"The group of police officers moved over to the shop door entrance and nothing was said ...  within seconds, four gunshots rang out," Dixon said.

...

 

Bringing an ambulance and not leaving a warrant are both weird, I guess, but none of that would be necessary if the government would just recognize the danger posed by gun owners and finish banning and confiscating them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

3 hours ago, Zonker said:

If fewer and fewer US households own guns (only 35%), and the trend continues... Won't there be a point when the US population decides to change the gun laws due to popular demand? 

Well, you're going to spend between between CAD$47 million to $756 million (or maybe more) confiscating battlefield .22's and other weapons of war.

As I said, I think you might, if you're lucky, achieve double digit compliance rates. And I mean low double digits.

When that happens, it will indicate to me that gun owners did not, in fact, support the confiscation program.

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

  

Well, you're going to spend between between CAD$47 million to $756 million (or maybe more) confiscating battlefield .22's and other weapons of war.

As I said, I think you might, if you're lucky, achieve double digit compliance rates. And I mean low double digits.

When that happens, it will indicate to me that gun owners did not, in fact, support the confiscation program.

Popularity does not drive constitutionality, except in Libertarian circles. Did you not read any of Kolbe? Do you not read SAILING ANARCHY?

You are Dogballs, the inspired, high-handed, cheerleader, coach, and inspiration...on felony row. 

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

Which is a WAG right?

Not sure which you're asking about? The cost?

It's a couple of guesses bundled together, apparently.

Quote

Applying this to the government dataset, the result is a preliminary cost estimate ranging from $47 million to $188 million (tiered compensation), and $56 million to $225 million for the market value approach. Applied to the CSAAA dataset, the estimate amounts are $158 million to $632 million (tiered compensation), or $180 million to $756 million using market value. 

Those datasets attempt to guess how many covered firearms Canadians own.

They seem to presume a high, or maybe 100%, compliance rate, but a gun that has an unfortunate boating accident will never require any compensation.

As for the compliance rate guess, it's based on looking at compliance rates with other confiscation programs in America and Australia and New Zealand. Low double digits is kinda optimistic but Canadians are easygoing, eh? That's a heck of a lot better than New Jersey is doing, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to compliance rate. Comparing to the US is foolish. Our gun owning culture is very different. We have no 2nd Amendment. (see below)

Comparing to Australia and NZ might be similar - except we look to our southern neighbours and are thus more exposed to the mass shootings which have become so common there, and I think even some of our gun owners are upset by this. 

If they are fairly compensated (who knows), I think there will be reasonably high compliance. Especially if the penalties for holding on to a banned weapon are high enough. 

 

You may have missed our Throne Speech last week. The government proposed legislation to allow provinces to ban all handguns in their province. That's offloading a responsibility to other governments because I don't think it will be as politically popular with the assault weapon ban. ~1/2 the gun murders in Canada were with handguns. But progress marches on, if slowly. 

 

Interesting reasons as to why Canadians own guns:

The previous review touched on the reasons for owning firearms. Based on the findings of three surveys, Gabor reported that about 70 percent of firearm owners said hunting was the primary reason they owned firearms (Gabor, 1994: 12). These findings were since confirmed by ICVS data (Block, 1998) where nearly 73 percent of respondents said they owned firearms to hunt. They also owned them to target shoot (18.4 percent), and because there has always been a firearm in the respondents’ homes (10 percent). Another 7.4 percent of those surveyed collected firearms, and 4.6 percent had them for protection (Block, 1988: 12).

The extent to which Canadians own firearms to protect themselves from criminals or animals is the subject of some controversy. However, survey findings have consistently shown that the proportion of Canadians who state self-defense or self-protection as a reason or their main reason for owning a firearm is very low. Even when those who use a firearm in their job are included in that figure, it is still likely to be lower than five percent (Block, 1998: 12-13; Gabor, 1997:5; Sacco, 1995)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh...

Quote

On the one hand, more states are allowing Americans to carry weapons in public without permits, and the gun-rights movement could be on the verge of a major Supreme Court victory. On the other, the National Rifle Association, which advocates on behalf of gun owners, faces an existential crisis that’s mostly due to the NRA’s own missteps.

As a political scientist who has studied gun politics and policy for over 30 years, I’m confident that there is no precedent for this contradictory situation. Moreover, there’s no reason to believe that the NRA’s problems will influence how the courts treat gun-rights cases.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/29/the-nra-could-be-winning-its-long-game-even-as-it-appears-to-be-in-dire-straits/print/

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

was referring to compliance rate. Comparing to the US is foolish. Our gun owning culture is very different. We have no 2nd Amendment. (see below)

Comparing to Australia and NZ might be similar - except we look to our southern neighbours and are thus more exposed to the mass shootings which have become so common there, and I think even some of our gun owners are upset by this. 

If they are fairly compensated (who knows), I think there will be reasonably high compliance. Especially if the penalties for holding on to a banned weapon are high enough. 

Well, your guess might be as good as mine on compliance rates. I think your post reveals why it will be low.

Of course gun owners are upset by violent criminals! We're sort of human too! The big difference of opinion is about whether gun owners are RESPONSIBLE for the actions of violent criminals, which would justify taking their guns away.

By and large, past behavior indicates gun owners do not feel responsible for the actions of criminals and so don't cooperate with the confiscation programs that attempt to hold them responsible.

We've tried endlessly upping mandatory minimums and even using the death penalty, but without a credible threat of being caught, all those hypothetical penalties don't seem to bring compliance with prohibition programs, whether they target guns or drugs.

I've complimented your nation in the past for at least acting like guns are legitimate property for people to own and offering compensation. It is likely to bring a higher compliance rate than our approach of declaring gun ownership a nuisance and taking the guns without compensation. Still, if the compensation is market value, I'd point out that those people can sell their guns for that amount today and choose not to do it. They're likely to continue to make the same choice, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother is an avid gun nut owner and hunter. He runs a shooting range near Whistler for international tourists to come and shoot things when they aren't skiing.

(www.whistlershooting.com - check them out if you are ever in the area. Americans, please ignore. You'll be shocked at the cost of bullets and thus the cost to shoot here)

Anyway he hates Justin Trudeau for the ban, but he already bought new legal guns to replace the banned ones. I'm sure when the compensation/buyback is figured out, he'll be right there turning in the guns and grumbllng about how much they are worth. 

As a whole we are very law abiding society. We may complain about the laws but we typically obey them, even when we think they are stupid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

  

11 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
14 hours ago, Liquid said:

Yeah, not!!

That's a S&W 22 target pistol.

Is that the "Battlefield Dogballs" he's always going on about us banning?

I'm not sure whether Canadians are allowed to have those, but was pretty specific about the battlefield .22's to be banned and confiscated in your country, since a list was helpfully provided.

It's weird that Canadians can still buy a 10-22 like my wife's battlefield .22.

But whether a .22 is an ordinary .22 or a battlefield .22 just depends on whether it's included in an assault weapons ban, so is location-specific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PeterSailor said:

Jumped ahead 2 pages in that thread, and Tommy still whining about .22s. Not surprised from someone whose country think Kinder Surprise are more dangerous than guns.

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing. I believe the clinical term is "obsession".

obsession-by-calvin-klein-for-women-edp-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing.

Everyone is saying it!

For those interested more in facts than popular gossip, there are lots of threads in PA where I talk about things other than guns. Grabbers come along and bring up guns and I politely thank them, that's it.

You can go to Cruising Anarchy and see political posts about guns from triggered Canucks like Sloopy and Ish, but you can't find a single post over there where I do the same thing they do.

But I'm the problem. Everyone (who obstinately ignores facts) is saying it.

Seems to me the real problem in this thread is that there are still lots of Canadians with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that need confiscation and nobody is getting around to it.

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

Everyone is saying it!

For those interested more in facts than popular gossip, there are lots of threads in PA where I talk about things other than guns. Grabbers come along and bring up guns and I politely thank them, that's it.

You can go to Cruising Anarchy and see political posts about guns from triggered Canucks like Sloopy and Ish, but you can't find a single post over there where I do the same thing they do.

But I'm the problem. Everyone (who obstinately ignores facts) is saying it.

Seems to me the real problem in this thread is that there are still lots of Canadians with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that need confiscation and nobody is getting around to it.

https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2021_12/image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

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

https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2021_12/image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

I saw it the first time.

Asprirational memes are nice and everything, but the whole point of this thread is that there are Canadians who are armed with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war and they need to have those confiscated asap because of the dangers these people are creating.

Maybe you should wait until they're actually disarmed before repeatedly bragging about it?

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

I saw it the first time.

Asprirational memes are nice and everything, but the whole point of this thread is that there are Canadians who are armed with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war and they need to have those confiscated asap because of the dangers these people are creating.

Maybe you should wait until they're actually disarmed before repeatedly bragging about it?

https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2021_12/image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/1/2020 at 1:26 PM, Foolish said:

There is a 2 year amnesty period where the government will buy them from owners.

It didn't go quite that way.

So far, 160 battlefield .22's and other weapons of war have been taken.
 

Quote

 

...

“If an individual or business were to relinquish a newly prohibited firearm or device before the implementation of the taking program, they won’t be eligible for compensation once the program is announced,” the RCMP said this week in response to questions iPolitics asked it last month.

“Government officials are currently in the process of refining requirements and developing program design and implementation options for a taking program,” said the RCMP’s media-relations branch.

“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of Dec. 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” added Sgt. Caroline Duval, the spokesperson who forwarded the Mounties’ response.

“In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”

...

 

So it's kind of surprising that as many as 160 were taken, given that no one is yet eligible for any compensation.

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

Where in the article does it mention "battlefield .22s"?

What an odd question!

The article references firearms "affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC)."

The list was posted back on page 1:

On 5/1/2020 at 2:03 PM, Foolish said:

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

Since I view such lists as shopping lists, I was interested and looked at the guns to be taken.

Just as in civilized countries like Australia, just as in the US Congress, just as in New Jersey, battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" in Canada.

If you're going to try to argue they should not be, you're on your own. I tried and lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2021 at 11:59 AM, Ishmael said:

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing. I believe the clinical term is "obsession".

obsession-by-calvin-klein-for-women-edp-

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

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

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

The casual acceptance of lies is a weird thing.

I count at least half a dozen "Tom" threads, if that means threads on political subjects that seem to be of interest only to me, on the front page at the moment. Admittedly, that counts an extended troll of randumb, but the rest are actual political issues, just not ones where partisan axes are ground.

You can indeed go back years in any of them and see the same thing: posts about the topic. And occasional interruptions from grabbers who want to emphasize my heresy on the gun issue.

You seem like a reader who may have actually done this, so why the casual acceptance of Ishmael's lie about me?

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

What an odd question!

The article references firearms "affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC)."

The list was posted back on page 1:

Since I view such lists as shopping lists, I was interested and looked at the guns to be taken.

Just as in civilized countries like Australia, just as in the US Congress, just as in New Jersey, battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" in Canada.

If you're going to try to argue they should not be, you're on your own. I tried and lost.

Ruger is a king of the 22. Only Rugers on the list are 556, same for S&W...

How many on the list are actual .22LR calibers???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

You seem like a reader who may have actually done this, so why the casual acceptance of Ishmael's lie about me?

I can't be bothered to follow the back and forth. I was commenting on some perfume, not guns. 

 

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

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

It was extremely well named. After I got a waft of it on a female customer, I asked her what she was wearing, taking pains to explain I wanted to buy it for my wife. My wife got a bottle of it on the next occasion. It's been over a decade, and it's still my favourite.

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

Ruger is a king of the 22. Only Rugers on the list are 556, same for S&W...

How many on the list are actual .22LR calibers???

Common sense gun control is sometimes difficult to comprehend. For example, my wife's gun is a Ruger battlefield .22, slated to be banned in both the US Congress and in the FL legislature, but you can just buy one in Canada. So they're not battlefield .22's above a certain latitude or something.

If you read the thread, I discussed several of the .22 items on the Canadian shopping list. I'm not sure I got them all and don't feel like counting if you don't feel like reading, so... some is the answer to your question.

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

I can't be bothered to follow the back and forth. I was commenting on some perfume, not guns. 

 

Ah, unaware, gotcha.

If you should ever develop a desire to discuss a political subject other than guns with me, despite Ishmael's lies, opportunities to do so can be found here and here and here and here and here and here and here just to start. But don't let a pile of facts get in the way of enjoying lying grabber gossip.

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

 my wife's gun is a Ruger battlefield .22

Exactly which Ruger 22 does she have? They do not make a 'Ruger Battlefield 22'!

You have made this stupid label you call 'battlefield 22" - it's meaningless but to you!

There is NO such thing!!

FYI: When you make the shape of a gun with your hands, it's not a real gun and doesn't shoot battlefield 22 ammo, what ever the fuck that is.....

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

Exactly which Ruger 22 does she have?

It has a terrifyngly scary (aftermarket) folding stock,

, and a pistol grip, 

(, if that's the one I'm remembering)

It shoots the same (dot) twenty two rimfire round as the others.

 

? Tom, a pic ? 

( with appropriate warnings for the children, of course )

 

1 hour ago, Liquid said:

You have made this stupid label you call 'battlefield 22"

NO.

team grabbers, in the legislation, call it that

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

Exactly which Ruger 22 does she have? They do not make a 'Ruger Battlefield 22'!

You have made this stupid label you call 'battlefield 22" - it's meaningless but to you!

There is NO such thing!!

FYI: When you make the shape of a gun with your hands, it's not a real gun and doesn't shoot battlefield 22 ammo, what ever the fuck that is.....

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Just do as I did and read the assault weapons ban proposals in Congress. She has a 10-22 carbine which had an adjustable stock up until an unfortunate boating accident early last year. I'm not saying whether she replaced the lost stock or not, but hypothetically, if she did, that would be a battlefield .22.

Not sure what's stupid about that label. Assault weapons bans target weapons of war. Just read any press release. So if a .22 is subject to such a ban, it's a weapon of war. Or, battlefield .22.

I admit that I used to go around this forum calling .22's ordinary or "squirrel shooters" but I have been educated as to their military nature and now use a more acceptable term.

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

blah blah.... .22's ordinary or "squirrel shooters" but I have been educated as to their military nature and now use a more acceptable term.

That's your origin story for Battlefield 22???? A term 'more acceptable' to you and that you have made up!?  It's still udder BS...

What military specs .22LR for killing humans? 

Why isn't the smallest, cheapest and most widely available round used in ALL military?????

 

Which would you rather be hit with:

A brick at 5 MPH

or

The same brick at 15 MPH

 

 

22223.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guess which hits* are from a .22LR vs a .223/5.56 (green tip) from the same distance (~100 yards)?

 

* Some are previously painted over plus different caliber hits closer in.

Hint: 8 from big boy rounds!

The smallest indents are from a .22LR among 9MM and .357 Mag...

target1.jpg

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

That's your origin story for Battlefield 22???? A term 'more acceptable' to you and that you have made up!?  It's still udder BS...

Most here were upset when I called them squirrel shooters and have not objected now that I recognize that battlefield .22's are part of the ordinary military equipment.

8 hours ago, Liquid said:

What military specs .22LR for killing humans? 

I guess you missed this?

  

On 3/26/2018 at 6:40 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

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? 

http://www.ruger1022.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/8.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.

Expand  


I guess badlat must have forgotten to include his source.

 

Anyway, I guess the search for an acceptable term for the weapons subject to bans continues. If it's defined as a "weapon of war" in press releases and defended in court because all "assault weapons" are "the like" of an M-16, what do you call such a .22? How do you distinguish it from those .22's that are not to be banned?

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

Most here were upset when I called them squirrel shooters and have not objected now that I recognize that battlefield .22's are part of the ordinary military equipment.

I guess you missed this?

  

 

Anyway, I guess the search for an acceptable term for the weapons subject to bans continues. If it's defined as a "weapon of war" in press releases and defended in court because all "assault weapons" are "the like" of an M-16, what do you call such a .22? How do you distinguish it from those .22's that are not to be banned?

Battlefield .22s are the most prolific and lethal weapons known to man. Shit, you've got a 20 year old picture proving it!

Why anyone warrior/sniper would choose something like a battlefield .308 over a .22 is just crazy talk.... 

 

Gotta run, I'm going to the range with the kid to shoot battlefield paint balls! This weekend we're going to shoot some sporting clays with our battlefield 12 gauges! Might even do some indoor shooting with our battlefield 9MMs... we may even break out the battlefield .357 Magnum revolver. Probably drive my battlefield Chevy pickup too!

 

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

Battlefield .22s are the most prolific and lethal weapons known to man. Shit, you've got a 20 year old picture proving it!

Why anyone warrior/sniper would choose something like a battlefield .308 over a .22 is just crazy talk.... 

 

Gotta run, I'm going to the range with the kid to shoot battlefield paint balls! This weekend we're going to shoot some sporting clays with our battlefield 12 gauges! Might even do some indoor shooting with our battlefield 9MMs... we may even break out the battlefield .357 Magnum revolver. Probably drive my battlefield Chevy pickup too!

 

Don't forget to drink some battlefield beer afterwards.

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

Maybe also consume some battlefield weed!

And top it off with a nice battlefield single malt scotch.

VIuwyMU.jpg

And some battlefield mud.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Liquid said:

Battlefield .22s are the most prolific and lethal weapons known to man. Shit, you've got a 20 year old picture proving it!

Why anyone warrior/sniper would choose something like a battlefield .308 over a .22 is just crazy talk.... 

I didn't say they're more lethal than an M-16, I'm just aware of the TeamD party line that they're "the like" of one and should therefore be banned. Not sure what the grabber party in Canada is, but they obviously join Aussie grabbers in feeling the same way, or the answer to your earlier question about how many battlefield .22's they want to confiscate would not have been "some."

I guess you don't want to come up with a different name to distinguish those .22's that are to be taken from those that are OK to own, so I'll just continue to use battlefield .22's the describe the ones subject to bans.

Even if you manage teach me stuff I already know about ballistics, that won't change one simple fact: battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" around the world and there's no way in hell grabbers are going to back off from that, or any other, gun control position. You might not like it or agree, but battlefield .22's are a fact of political life and will continue to be.

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

And top it off with a nice battlefield single malt scotch.

VIuwyMU.jpg

And some battlefield mud.

 

Check out those sweet battlefield kilts and battlefield bagpipes!

 

9 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I didn't say they're more lethal than an M-16, I'm just aware of the TeamD party line that they're "the like" of one and should therefore be banned. Not sure what the grabber party in Canada is, but they obviously join Aussie grabbers in feeling the same way, or the answer to your earlier question about how many battlefield .22's they want to confiscate would not have been "some."

I guess you don't want to come up with a different name to distinguish those .22's that are to be taken from those that are OK to own, so I'll just continue to use battlefield .22's the describe the ones subject to bans.

Even if you manage teach me stuff I already know about ballistics, that won't change one simple fact: battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" around the world and there's no way in hell grabbers are going to back off from that, or any other, gun control position. You might not like it or agree, but battlefield .22's are a fact of political life and will continue to be.

I think you are battlefield confusing the battlefield weapon with real battlefield ammo...

 

So, I'm going to battlefield fuck off now

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Liquid said:

I think you are battlefield confusing the battlefield weapon with real battlefield ammo...

I didn't write the rules in Canada that classify battlefield .22's as weapons of war.

I didn't write the assault weapons bans in Congress that do the same.

I didn't write the assault weapons ban in the FL legislature that does the same.

If grabbers would stop classifying battlefield .22's as weapons of war, I'd stop talking about it.

They never will, nor will I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2022 at 11:10 AM, Liquid said:

Gotta run, I'm going to the range with the kid to shoot battlefield paint balls! This weekend we're going to shoot some sporting clays with our battlefield 12 gauges! Might even do some indoor shooting with our battlefield 9MMs... we may even break out the battlefield .357 Magnum revolver.

NO!

You WON"T.

If you had bothered to read the legislation that Tom has posted, (many times)

Your 12 guage is WAR ammo,

Your 9mm is WAR ammo

Your .357 mag is INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE,,

, and the preferred caliber of criminals and insurrectionists.

 

If you had bothered to read the legislation,,,

 

Turn your guns in to be melted down into Peace Bricks.

Seattle to melt buyback guns into peace bricks | KBOI (idahonews.com)

 

 

 

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

I didn't write the rules in Canada that classify battlefield .22's as weapons of war.

I didn't write the assault weapons bans in Congress that do the same.

I didn't write the assault weapons ban in the FL legislature that does the same.

If grabbers would stop classifying battlefield .22's as weapons of war, I'd stop talking about it.

They never will, nor will I.

The zone has now been flooded, with bullshit. 

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

I didn't write the rules in Canada that classify battlefield .22's as weapons of war.

Didn't you?

Where does any legislation specifically cite a "battlefield .22"?

While you're at it, could you also cite the legal definition of "battlefield .22"?

I'm really concerned that my Henry lever action .22 is a battlefield weapon..... I think I'll melt my AR-15 down myself now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Liquid said:

Didn't you?

Where does any legislation specifically cite a "battlefield .22"?

While you're at it, could you also cite the legal definition of "battlefield .22"?

I'm really concerned that my Henry lever action .22 is a battlefield weapon..... I think I'll melt my AR-15 down myself now!

I already asked if you had a more appropriate term.

Look at the topic post and read the article to find out what they're banning. Or maybe I should just spoon feed you?
 

Quote

 

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

...

"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."

 

So once again, and as always, the people describing what they're banning say they're banning "military" weapons. This is really news to you?

And once again, they proceed to ban, among other things, some .22's. I guess that part might be news to you, but that's certainly not my fault.

I'm just buying into what THEY are saying. Take it up with them for once!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...