Liberals promise to prohibit semi-automatic assault rifles, allow cities to ban handguns

[Army Guy]

Justin needs to hunt all the votes he can get, after his recent scandal and lets face it most liberals find fire arms scary, so it's a match made in heaven.   they have been brain washed into thinking that it is these legally owned  wpns are  responsible for gun violence, the finger behind the trigger has nothing to do with it...and yet when was the last time a criminal purchased a wpn through legal means...

This is another example of making a decision without fully thinking it through....typical of this liberal government...

here is what the police chiefs think about a hand gun ban , they won't be supporting it, as it does nothing to treat the main problem, illegal hand guns coming from the US, and under ground markets...Again why would they not even think to use the police chiefs as a resource of info, ask the experts I say....I mean what do they know about policing anyways, it's like the CF-18 replacement and the contract to purchase older than ours F-18 from Australia, this is not what DND had in mind, it was some liberal politician that decided because they know better than the experts.. it points out they are not acting for the nation as they claim...they are acting only in their best interests...sad really, maybe one day God will stop punishing us and give us a leader that will work for Canadians , and the nation....  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387

[Argus]

Army Guy, I'm surprised at your naivety. Do you really think the Liberals don't know such a policy would be a waste of time and money? Of course they do! The point of the policy is not to deter crime and violence but to win votes! Liberal support is mainly in urban areas where people know very little about firearms. Those are the people whose votes he's going for. They hear 'assault weapon' and they think "Well sure that should be banned!'. Not one in a hundred will have any clue about what constitutes an 'assault weapon'. They just know it sounds, well, violent!

Trudeau proposes spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back rifles which are called 'assault weapons' because they're mostly made to look sort of military for marketing purposes. But the actual function of these rifles is virtually identical to other rifles not on the list. So we will spend half a billion buying and junking these weapons, and their former owners will then buy identical rifles which don't look so sexy.

And urban liberals will champion their guy for doing the sensible thing and addressing gun violence!

The Liberals are the style over substance party because with left wing voters, that's what works.

[Army Guy]

Sorry Argus, I should have know better...

[scribblet]

The announcement was intended to deflect from the Trudeau problem and it's working...  

Essentially, they intend to ban hunting rifles and sport-shooting rifles, which they've termed as 'military-style assault rifles'. Actual assault rifles are already banned, so the rifles that they're referring to are ones currently classified as 'prohibited'. As the name implies, they're not easy to get, and the licences and background checks to get them are very strong but I don't think a lot of people realize this. 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

Police say criminals get their guns illegally most often, coming from the US.  They aren't going to get drugs illegally through the US and then not get guns LOL.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Essentially, they intend to ban hunting rifles and sport-shooting rifles, which they've termed as 'military-style assault rifles'.

Do you have any kind of credible* proof that this is the plan, or have you just pulled this opinion out of someone else's alt-right a$$?

*credible proof =  A: actual statements by the government on their website, on Facebook, on Twitter, in an interview, in publically released policy documents;  B:  documents or policies leaked to responsible, trustworthy journalists or media outlets - like someone did with the initial brownface photo.

Edited September 21, 2019 by dialamah

[scribblet]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Do you have any kind of credible* proof that this is the plan, or have you just pulled this opinion out of someone else's alt-right a$$?

*credible proof =  A: actual statements by the government on their website, on Facebook, on Twitter, in an interview, in publically released policy documents;  B:  documents or policies leaked to responsible, trustworthy journalists or media outlets - like someone did with the initial brownface photo.

I don't know any 'alt right'anything' ,  and quit with the assumptions read the liberal statements,  they just announced it yesterday.  maybe they don't know they are allready prohibited,  in which case we should be very worried.   not to mention the cost of the buy back could be as much as  billion.

Edited September 21, 2019 by scribblet

[scribblet]

13 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Police say criminals get their guns illegally most often, coming from the US.  They aren't going to get drugs illegally through the US and then not get guns LOL.

Many of which are smuggled through reserves but no one wants to discuss that.

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Justin needs to hunt all the votes he can get, after his recent scandal and lets face it most liberals find fire arms scary, so it's a match made in heaven.   they have been brain washed into thinking that it is these legally owned  wpns are  responsible for gun violence, the finger behind the trigger has nothing to do with it...and yet when was the last time a criminal purchased a wpn through legal means...

This is another example of making a decision without fully thinking it through....typical of this liberal government...

here is what the police chiefs think about a hand gun ban , they won't be supporting it, as it does nothing to treat the main problem, illegal hand guns coming from the US, and under ground markets...Again why would they not even think to use the police chiefs as a resource of info, ask the experts I say....I mean what do they know about policing anyways, it's like the CF-18 replacement and the contract to purchase older than ours F-18 from Australia, this is not what DND had in mind, it was some liberal politician that decided because they know better than the experts.. it points out they are not acting for the nation as they claim...they are acting only in their best interests...sad really, maybe one day God will stop punishing us and give us a leader that will work for Canadians , and the nation....  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387

There can be no doubt that liberalism has to be a disease. I have never spoken to or ever heard a liberal make any common sense or logic at all. Just emotional talk is what they are good for. All liberals speak before they think. They appear to be quite totally clueless about anything. One of the many stunned things that the liberals ever did was to create a gun registry. They seem to have forgotten when they created this taxpayer bloated gun registry bureaucracy that criminals do not register their guns. All the liberals have done is made it harder for honest law abiding gun owners to have to go thru their stupid and useless alt-left liberal paper work which apparently has cost the Canadian taxpayer's billions of their tax dollars. But what's a few billion tax dollars being wasted when it comes to those liberal fools. I pray too gawd that Blackface gets his ass kicked in the next election.  

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Army Guy, I'm surprised at your naivety. Do you really think the Liberals don't know such a policy would be a waste of time and money? Of course they do! The point of the policy is not to deter crime and violence but to win votes! Liberal support is mainly in urban areas where people know very little about firearms. Those are the people whose votes he's going for. They hear 'assault weapon' and they think "Well sure that should be banned!'. Not one in a hundred will have any clue about what constitutes an 'assault weapon'. They just know it sounds, well, violent!

Trudeau proposes spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back rifles which are called 'assault weapons' because they're mostly made to look sort of military for marketing purposes. But the actual function of these rifles is virtually identical to other rifles not on the list. So we will spend half a billion buying and junking these weapons, and their former owners will then buy identical rifles which don't look so sexy.

And urban liberals will champion their guy for doing the sensible thing and addressing gun violence!

The Liberals are the style over substance party because with left wing voters, that's what works.

I guess that this is why Canada is in big time financial trouble these days. Canada is loaded with leftist liberal, socialists, communist minded people who pretty much know nothing about anything. They all live and survive on emotionalism and the alt left liberal Canadian media and all appear to lack any common sense and logic. I have to wonder at times are they really able to think for themselves at all? It would appear as though the media and our PC politicians do all their thinking for them. Bloody sad indeed. They do not even want to take the time to listen to the other side of the story. It's these fools that are destroying this once great nation, and just do not seem to care one bit about it either. 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, scribblet said:

The announcement was intended to deflect from the Trudeau problem and it's working...  

Essentially, they intend to ban hunting rifles and sport-shooting rifles, which they've termed as 'military-style assault rifles'. Actual assault rifles are already banned, so the rifles that they're referring to are ones currently classified as 'prohibited'. As the name implies, they're not easy to get, and the licences and background checks to get them are very strong but I don't think a lot of people realize this. 

 

This Blackface fiasco will disappear off the Canadian map just like the scandals that Teflon Don Trudeau has been able to avoid being charged for or booted out of the government. A poll taken today showed that 31.5% of the people questioned said that they thought Trudeau would be a better PM for Canada. WTH? Have those people not read the news lately or are they just as nuts in the head as I thought most Canadians are? 

No matter what the government tries to do about guns, the criminals will still get their guns, and they are not even going to apply for a permit to have one either. The only people that will be applying for a gun are the honest people who do intend to use a gun for hunting or protection purposes only. I cannot see someone applying for a licence to own a gun, and when asked what are you going to use the gun for, say, I want to kill someone with it. Why do our politicians keep making useless laws and create silly ass new programs and agendas that do nothing for Canada or Canadians. What is with these bozos? What is with most Canadians? 

Edited September 21, 2019 by taxme

[Nefarious Banana]

44 minutes ago, taxme said:

I guess that this is why Canada is in big time financial trouble these days. Canada is loaded with leftist liberal, socialists, communist minded people who pretty much know nothing about anything. They all live and survive on emotionalism and the alt left liberal Canadian media and all appear to lack any common sense and logic. I have to wonder at times are they really able to think for themselves at all? It would appear as though the media and our PC politicians do all their thinking for them. Bloody sad indeed. They do not even want to take the time to listen to the other side of the story. It's these fools that are destroying this once great nation, and just do not seem to care one bit about it either. 

Cut to the chase . . . . get rid of Quebec and we'll have a country again.  With Quebec gone, Ottawa is powerless.  Simplistic?  Yes, but Quebec never signed into being a part of this country, has never contributed to the concept of the country of Canada.  If Quebec doesn't leave, all transfer payments must stop.  Quebec is Canada's parasite, an insatiable tapeworm. We won't have a country until we swallow the medicine and shit-out our parasite.

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Cut to the chase . . . . get rid of Quebec and we'll have a country again.  With Quebec gone, Ottawa is powerless.  Simplistic?  Yes, but Quebec never signed into being a part of this country, has never contributed to the concept of the country of Canada.  If Quebec doesn't leave, all transfer payments must stop.  Quebec is Canada's parasite, an insatiable tapeworm. We won't have a country until we swallow the medicine and shit-out our parasite.

Gawd man, you sure do not hold back and have no problem telling it like it is. Good for you. Indeed the ROC needs to cut to the chase. But sadly, most of the English speaking people living in this country like to take the easy way out and keep their mouths shut about Quebec. They are the reason why Quebec is allowed to continue with it's destruction of the ROC for all these decades. Quebec always has and always will keep shafting the ROC with their many useless leftist liberal Quebec leading globalist programs and agendas that have pretty much destroyed this once great nation and has not done a dam thing to try and keep and make Canada great. There is not much left of Canada anymore thanks to those leeches and parasites from Quebec who have been allowed to run and ruin and keep ruling over this once great nation of ours.

The french will never leave Canada because they know that they cannot survive w/o the ROC. Why the ROC puts up with their french shit really does baffle me. As long as they run and own Ottawa, they will never  leave, and why would they? They own the whole dam country. We have just about all of our so called ROC Canadian politicians outside Quebec who constantly kiss azz Quebec. The color of their noses says it all. The likely hood of Quebec ever leaving on it's own will never happen. The ROC needs to boot them out and separate from them. Works for me.   

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

Many of which are smuggled through reserves but no one wants to discuss that.

Ya that would be deemed racist. Someone needs to call a spade a spade without fear of being called racist.  Sometimes the truth offends people, tough.

[scribblet]

Liberals don't even know what an assault rifle is so how can they ban them.  An AR15 style rifle is a semi-Automatic, not an assault weapon.  Soldiers use assault weapons in battle not Canadian citizens doing target practice defending their homes, hunting or protecting their farms. 

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Ya that would be deemed racist. Someone needs to call a spade a spade without fear of being called racist.  Sometimes the truth offends people, tough.

It isn't the fear of racism. It's the fear that if they acknowledge it then someone is likely to ask what they intend to do about it. And none of them have the balls to confront the issue as the reserves, particularly the Mohawk reserves, are quite hostile to Canadian police on their territory and likely to resist any attempt to stop smuggling.

[Zeitgeist]

If he can ban genuine assault rifles like those Norincos, and leave the hunting rifles alone, that would work well, as long as there aren’t many arguments on where to draw the line.  

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

If he can ban genuine assault rifles like those Norincos, and leave the hunting rifles alone, that would work well, as long as there aren’t many arguments on where to draw the line.  

The Liberals want an un-armed population.  Fact is that the existing gun laws are adequate if enforced.  Alan Rock brought the registry in to look good to the urban Ontario folks.  Another colossal waste of taxpayers $$.  

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

If he can ban genuine assault rifles like those Norincos, and leave the hunting rifles alone, that would work well, as long as there aren’t many arguments on where to draw the line.  

How many people have been gunned down in the streets of Toronto and Vancouver by those 'Norincos'?

[Spiderfish]

First off, what is the Liberal definition of an assault rifle?  The term "assault rifle" is generally defined as a selective fire rifle chambered in a medium caliber which is magazine fed.  If this is the agreed term, I have great news for the Liberals...these weapons are already prohibited.  Of course Trudeau already knows this, so that leaves us with one of two possibilities regarding what his agenda might be.  Either Trudeau Liberals are pandering to Canadians who are uneducated about gun classification and actually plan on doing nothing, or they are planning to modify the definition to accommodate their gun confiscation agenda.  both possibilities are intentionally disingenuous and dishonest...but I have come to expect no less from Liberal party policies.

If the Liberals intend on creating their own definition of "assault weapon", what will be the parameters? Will the determining characteristics for prohibited status be based on caliber?  How about colour?? Wood or composite stock? Or will it just be a lazy and thoughtless blanket ban on all center fire carbine rifles? Liberals have an obligation to clear this up so people who actually have some knowledge on classification of guns can not only weigh the policy objectively, but also to ensure to the public that the Liberals aren't a bunch of clueless morons when it comes to firearms legislation or are just spewing out hollow talking points to pander to the uneducated who insist that "something must be done to stop gun violence".

It's easy to champion a ban on something when it doesn't affect you...when you're not a gun owner, hunter, or sport shooter.  It's easy to say "why not ban assault weapons?"  but the fact is assault weapons are already banned, so anyone with a shred of intelligence should be digging a bit deeper and asking what the Liberals actual agenda is.  And if they simply want to ban all semi-automatic center fire rifles, why not just be honest with Canadians and say so?  Anyone with a modest ability to rationalize knows the answer is simple, Liberals know that taking legal firearms away from law abiding, responsible Canadians who are already heavily regulated and controlled will not do a damned thing to stop gun crimes.  And basing a flawed policy on such an insidious and despicable mistrust of a large segment of the law-abiding Canadian population would be a pretty hard sell, even for Trudeau who has made virtue-signalling an art form and regional animosity an effective tool in his bag of tricks.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Spiderfish

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

If he can ban genuine assault rifles like those Norincos, and leave the hunting rifles alone, that would work well, as long as there aren’t many arguments on where to draw the line.  

You are aware that any rifle in Canada is limited to a 5 rd magazine, with exception of 2 rifles both are limited to 8 rds, any other magazine holding more is illegal in Canada, they may look like 30 rd mags but are pinned to only hold 5....." liberals are chasing anything that looks like an assault rifle, any rifle capable of taking a 30 rd or more mag...

Just a note , back in the days when the military used bolt action , the rule of thumb was to fire 8 aimed rds a min on average, some one that was good could fire 10  aimed rds a min at the enemy...the average mass shooting event lasted over 15 mins, you do the math.......the point here is a trained person with a bolt action rifle could have the same results as someone with a full auto or semi auto....

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You are aware that any rifle in Canada is limited to a 5 rd magazine, with exception of 2 rifles both are limited to 8 rds, any other magazine holding more is illegal in Canada, they may look like 30 rd mags but are pinned to only hold 5....." liberals are chasing anything that looks like an assault rifle, any rifle capable of taking a 30 rd or more mag...

Just a note , back in the days when the military used bolt action , the rule of thumb was to fire 8 aimed rds a min on average, some one that was good could fire 10  aimed rds a min at the enemy...the average mass shooting event lasted over 15 mins, you do the math.......the point here is a trained person with a bolt action rifle could have the same results as someone with a full auto or semi auto....

How fast can a shooter all hopped up on adrenaline swap out a spent magazine for a full one? How many loaded magazines can someone practically carry? How many rounds can they fire at a target that also happens to be a crowd of people? The point here is that your math probably means squat.

Its a sad commentary when kill ratios factor into a debate about gun control or a diminishment thereof.  There's a good reason for the phrase figures lie and liars figure.

[Yzermandius19]

Y'all are acting like "assault" weapons bans aren't already arbitrary as it is. Plenty of "hunting" rifles that are perfectly legal are just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, then these "assault" rifles they ban. These bans are not based on logical considerations, but emotional ones, it's just a scary label to scare rubes who know nothing about guns, it has nothing to do with lethality, it's mostly based on cosmetic features that don't impact effectiveness of the firearm whatsoever.

If you think assault rifles are significantly more dangerous than most sporting or hunting rifles, it's because you think scary looking guns are more lethal than they actually are, based purely on how scary the label they are classified under sounds and how militarized a gun looks to an ignorant observer.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

How fast can a shooter all hopped up on adrenaline swap out a spent magazine for a full one? How many loaded magazines can someone practically carry? How many rounds can they fire at a target that also happens to be a crowd of people? The point here is that your math probably means squat.

Its a sad commentary when kill ratios factor into a debate about gun control or a diminishment thereof.  There's a good reason for the phrase figures lie and liars figure.

Once again talking about something you know nothing about...and it's shits like you that are having an influence on gun control today....

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Once again asking hard questions I can't answer...and it's shits like you that are having an influence on gun control today....

In your face too.

You can always pack up your stupid guns and move to Texas.