Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
9,762
1,765
Back to the desert
Look, to be clear - I have no issue with Canada doing this.  Your country, your laws. 

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

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed gunowner
14,113
254
Seattle, Wa
Either rights, laws and processes are important, or they are not. 
Your claim to these "rights" is fluff,  basically, wrt guns. This claim first emerged in Goldwater circles after the GCA '68. The claim gained legs and became urban myth, which is right where you come in.

There is no legal foundation for personal gunplay out of doors. None.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
9,762
1,765
Back to the desert
Hi Joe.  

Paul Revere:  "The British are coming, the British are coming!  Gather your muskets and meet indoors at the nearest pub so we can resist the invasion.  Just whatever you do.....don't go outside!  

And don't worry about the airports, the Colonial Air Force Militia is on it"

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,801
Sandusky Sailing Club
What an amazing display of both ignorance and arrogance as . . 

the gun-humpers of a country that they have turned into a shooting gallery, 

and which has seven times the rate of gun violence as Canada, 

have the audacity to lecture the Great White North on firearms regs. 

They really do think they are "exceptional", and they are: 

exceptionally stupid 

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
9,762
1,765
Back to the desert
What an amazing display of both ignorance and arrogance as . . 

the gun-humpers of a country that they have turned into a shooting gallery, 

and which has seven times the rate of gun violence as Canada, 

have the audacity to lecture the Great White North on firearms regs. 

They really do think they are "exceptional", and they are: 

exceptionally stupid 
I'm not lecturing them on firearm regs, Reichista Olliver - I'm talking to them about basic democracy and fairness.  There is a difference.  

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
9,762
1,765
Back to the desert
Two really stupid  comments: 

1. So I presume you are calling for workplace and family democracy too? 

2. You would not recognize "basic democracy" if it bit you in the kiester. 
Actually, that's ONE really stupid comment.  WTF are you even talking about with workplace and family democracy and how TF does it relate to my comments about Canada's bypassing their own legislative processes?

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,801
Sandusky Sailing Club
Either democracy counts ALL the time, or it doesn't.
This is what you wrote - since you know almost nothing about democracy, you must never have looked into 

the extensive literature and research on economic democracy, as well as democratic families. 

A reasonable person might conclude that, when you wrote "ALL the time", that is what you meant. 

But apparently, you did not know the meaning of what you wrote. 

And likewise, I'm sure you are blissfully ignorant of the literature on "preemption" - in which 

Reichista state governments deny the decision making power of local elected officials to 

regulate firearms, set their own minimum wages, and more. 

The Reich believes in democracy except when it doesn't. 

 

Laker

Super Anarchist
4,156
259
PNW
Look, to be clear - I have no issue with Canada doing this.  Your country, your laws. 

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

Again, for me the issue is not about the gunz themselves.  As I said your country, your rules.  What worries me is the unilateral decree by your boy king taking away the rights of a huge segment of your population that had done nothing wrong and was not ever going to do anything wrong.  You might like the outcome in this case.  But what if later down the road some of YOUR rights you hold dear get removed in the dark of night with no discussion because some other segment of the population doesn't like it?  Either rights, laws and processes are important, or they are not.  
He did not ban firearms.  He banned specific examples, which can be done for many reasons.  This does not affect the basic law which affords the ability to hunt and provide for life. There is no inherent right in this case.  The restriction of arms "law" could be a regulation enacted at the ministerial level.  The optics would be wrong though for all the people who believe their right is for unrestricted use.  The rights, laws and processes are being followed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ishmael

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
48,181
9,446
Fuctifino
This asshole wouldn't get anywhere near the door to Parliament, let alone inside. I think we're doing it better up here.

1588277664257.jpg


 

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,602
58
New Jersey
I believe legally determining the type of firearm allowed even goes as far down as the deputy minister, let alone parliament.
Provide a cite.

  The rights, laws and processes are being followed. 
Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

There is no legal foundation for personal gunplay out of doors. None.
I guess hunting is illegal due to the statute of northampton as well? It truly is an all-purpose 14th century law. From another country.

Still awaiting your cite on suicide method effectiveness, Joe. I'm sure your very mistaken assertion was just a typo.

 

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,602
58
New Jersey
Poor bpm57. Can't stand the thought that people he supports have responsibilities.




 
So the next time a drunk driver kills someone, you will do the right thing and support total bans on alcohol and no more private cars?

Just like you supported similar laws the last time someone drove a vehicle into a crowd, right?

It sure is amazing how legal firearm owners are somehow responsible for every crime committed, yet somehow for every other crime it is only the person that is responsible.

 

Steam Flyer

Super Anarchist
40,081
7,607
Eastern NC
So the next time a drunk driver kills someone, you will do the right thing and support total bans on alcohol and no more private cars?

Just like you supported similar laws the last time someone drove a vehicle into a crowd, right?

It sure is amazing how legal firearm owners are somehow responsible for every crime committed, yet somehow for every other crime it is only the person that is responsible.
Somebody sold that Canadian his weapons illegally. That person should be tracked down and pay the full penalty.

If you take the right to own/carry a deadly weapon then you should take the safety of those around you as an equally serious responsibility.

Otherwise somebody else with a gun should just fuckin' shoot yer ass in self defense, because you -will- end up killing one of us.

Rights without responsibility simply don't work

- DSK

 

Olsonist

Super Anarchist
27,487
3,229
New Oak City
Blah blah blah. It sure is amazing how legal firearm owners are somehow responsible for every crime committed,  more blah.
Despite your verbal diarrhea, you accidentally hit on something there. Yes, society is beginning to hold legal gun owners responsible for gun carnage which speaks to my earlier point about y'all avoiding your responsibility.

 

Laker

Super Anarchist
4,156
259
PNW
Provide a cite.

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

I guess hunting is illegal due to the statute of northampton as well? It truly is an all-purpojse 14th century law. From another country.

Still awaiting your cite on suicide method effectiveness, Joe. I'm sure your very mistaken assertion was just a typo


I am amazed at your grasp of the Canadian constitution.  There is no law allowing access to firearms.  There are laws allowing the ability to provide for oneself and one's family.  This over-rides the law on hunting.  Without a law on the provision of firearms, there is no reason to take it to parliament.  Do you get a say in regulations given by the state on the type of personal protective equipment for a jobsite?  Not within statutory law. Same thing.  Actual equipment goes down at least one level.  In the Canadian system, process has been followed.  Not from a US perspective mind you. Different culture.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top