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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
Smart people in the country say that, too. Fuckin' useless vroom-vroom machine.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.
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.I hear city people all the time say no one needs pick up trucks too.
and the mindset is that gunz are for cowards . .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.
Having shot numerous coyotes that were ripping up local chickens, I'm going to have to say they do keep certain things safe.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
Nothing in the Canadian gun laws would either.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.
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.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?
trying to explain multi party consensus government and policies to a polarized 2 party advocateMaybe 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.