Trudeau to spend a billion dollars pleasing anti-gun nuts

[Argus]

3 hours ago, cougar said:

Your line of logic, now involving toasters i so bizarre, I cannot follow it.  

Try killing 25 people with your old toaster in a few hours and see how that works out for you.

I could kill 25 people over several minutes fairly easily with a knife - or even faster with my truck. People have done so in numerous places. But the point is that the regulation will not deter anyone from killing 25 people in a few hours or a few minutes. People will still get guns if they want them. Yet this will cost a billion dollars. For nothing.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, cougar said:

Those semi-automatics were purchased legally too.  This is why they are going to be buying them out instead of simply seizing them.

Argus can write the Canadian military a letter recommending toasters to be used as weapons in next military operations.  I am sure the commanders will follow his logic and buy his old toaster for good money.

None of the banned weapons would even be in consideration for use by the Canadian military or any other military. Did you not read anything which has been written on this topic? They're just ordinary rifles with macho coverings. They can shoot 5 times before being reloaded, half as many as a hand gun. They do not have an automatic fire option, nor fittings for things like flash suppressors or bayonets.

Characteristics

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."^[16] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:^[2][3][4]

• It must be capable of selective fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.^[5]
• It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles.

For example:

• Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd).^[17]
• Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

Definitions and usage - assault weapon

Main article: Assault weapons legislation in the United States

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.^[2][10][11] Some jurisdictions define revolving cylinder shotguns as assault weapons.^[12][13] Legislative definitions do not include fully automatic weapons, which are regulated separately as Title II weapons under federal law.^{[14][n 1]} A key defining law was the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.^[14] At that time, the United States Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."^[3]

Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

• Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine^[11][14]
• Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,^[14] which reduces the overall length of the firearm^[16]
• A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon^[14]
• Bayonet lug,^[14] which allows the mounting of a bayonet
• Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,^[14] compensator or muzzle brake
• Grenade launcher^[14]
• Barrel shroud^[14]

Edited May 3, 2020 by Argus

[cougar]

Just now, Argus said:

I could kill 25 people over several minutes fairly easily with a knife - or even faster with my truck. People have done so in numerous places. But the point is that the regulation will not deter anyone from killing 25 people in a few hours or a few minutes. People will still get guns if they want them. Yet this will cost a billion dollars. For nothing.

No, all you have at your disposal is your toaster, no knives or guns!

You know the point which is being made?  A fast shooting gun can kill more people in a shorter period of time and there is absolutely no reason why a peaceful citizen should be in possession of such a weapon in peaceful times.

I actually think having toasters as weapons in the next war is not such a bad thing.  You do not need to kill anyone, all you need to do is win the war.

Look at rams, bears, elk etc, they do not fight to kill one another!

[Argus]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

No, all you have at your disposal is your toaster, no knives or guns!

You know the point which is being made?  A fast shooting gun can kill more people in a shorter period of time and there is absolutely no reason why a peaceful citizen should be in possession of such a weapon in peaceful times.

Would you care to define this term you keep using "Fast shooting"?

[cougar]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

Would you care to define this term you keep using "Fast shooting"?

Faster than your two barrel shooting gun, where you shoot 2 times and then reload.  People went hunting for lions and man-eating tigers with these guns in the not so distant past.

Present day morons need an AK-47 style weapon to hunt for deer!

Edited May 3, 2020 by cougar

[Guest]

Do these new restrictions apply to semi-automatic shotguns? I tried control F for a few in the Gazette and I couldn't get one find.

One could probably do a lot of damage with one of those.

[taxme]

On 4/30/2020 at 9:51 AM, ProudConservative said:

Normally, I'd call myself an antigun liberal... but the way the government is incompeitant, it won't be long before we need our citizens armed. After a pandemic, where are we going to find this money Argus?

If you want to reduce crime, he's a thought create some jobfare (not welfare) programs to help out citizens with mental illnesses. Early intrervention can steer people away from gangs, or becoming an indoctrinated mass shooter.

In state States, Thousands of American's are showing up to protestes armed to the teeth... It's giving the government goosebumps, and they're starting to reopen the economy. We don't have that in Canada.

Nothing makes sense with this lockdown. Why not make it manditory for people to wear masks in growcery stores, instead of forcing every business to go bankrupt? You force all citizens to wear masks, and their is no need for a lockdown. It makes me believe our government has gone totalitarian, and wants this plandemic to continue, so they can make us poor (dependent on government), and implement a digital control grid.

But some are saying now that masks do not work all that well. They do leak approx. 20%to 30% from the sides of ones mouth. They are not guaranteed 100% that they will not leak out of someone's mouth. Nothing makes sense of this whole ordeal that we are all being put thru anyway. All I see from all of this hoax is that we will see much more harm being done to people's lives and to the Canadian economy than what this China virus will ever do to Canada or Canadians. I have been ready and willing to get back to normal for weeks now. But I cannot because there are so many people who still believe that if they go outside their doors they are afraid of catching the China virus. I have neighbors who will not go out at all except for food. 

This lock down has not been good for anyone, especially our children who are not getting out doors all that much anymore and are not being able to get out and play with other kids to learn how to socialize and just be kids. Teenagers who need to spend lots of time and get togethers with their peers are now being denied being allowed to socialize anymore. What our politicians and the media have done to our young people today has pretty much set them up as to how to not socialize at all. 

Gawd only knows what other impacts on society this shut down will happen thanks to all of this lock down nonsense going on. Why do Canadians keep having to listen to 24/7 brainwashing every day about this virus. Why do they keep listening to their now bully politicians and the lying media who could careless about them anyway period. All politicians ever do for we the people is give us more government, more taxes, and take away more freedoms, and apply hefty $1000.00 fines for some parents to dare to go out with ones children in a park so that their kids can get some fresh air and exercise on some empty vacant playground or parking lot. This is tyranny going on right now, and it seems that people are loving it. 

It's time to open up everything and let's all just take our chances. I would rather take my chances and be able to do what I always wanted to do and took for granted, rather then be denied what I use to take for granted and lose any of my freedoms. I would rather have freedom rather than safety. Just look at what safety is doing to us all today? Just saying. 

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, dialamah said:

That's exactly what this forum looks like to me. 

I get what you are saying about guns and this legislation, and to some extent I agree.   Still, it sends a message about how we, as Canadians, feel about guns and gun violence.  Making these types of weapons illegal will make them harder for criminals to obtain, although not impossible given our proximity to the US.  Those are good enough reasons for me. 

I think the tropes about "the start of the end of freedom" and "guns will save us from tyranny" are ridiculous statements designed to appeal to people who lack common sense and couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag.  

We disagree; that's ok.  Most people are not going to be affected by this legislation one way or another, no point in getting all bothered about it.

Thats not what I see, but i'm not you.....and i'm sorry if my tone came across that way, thats was not my point , which was do some research and find out for yourself that this campaign is not worth the effort, or funding it is going to consume....for the very small outcome it will have on the problem...you've as much as said so yourself, there are better ways to accomplish the goals set by the government you just don't want to see it, or afraid the right may be right this one time...

How is it going to make it harder for criminals to obtain....let me ask you this as any prohibition every worked and did it make it harder for criminals to get booze, drugs and now guns...come on, your smarter than that right ? and if you can't see that explain it to me , perhaps I'm the one that is slow...

 Not everyone that wants to keep these fire arms in the hands of law abiding Canadians are the tropes you think they are, both sides of this issues has it's wing nuts....

And it's not OK to disagree on this subject, one of the main reasons most Canadians have these opinions is they are lacking in education on our current fire arms practices, and policies...and the government is taking advantage of that, my concern is where does it stop, sure today it is 1500 firearms, tommorrow there may be more, lets remember this was done over night and did not require debate in parliament....

Your explanation for getting rid of someone's hobby, sport ,  or recreation is feelings...which are not based on any facts, or for that matter reason...you've made up your mind this has nothing to do with you, so screw it...

So let me ask you what your opinion is going to be when another party overturns this new laws ? are you going to have the same laxy dazy attitude or are you going to be concern, or upset ? And what your opinion of spending those Bils buying back these fire arms?  And what concerns me more about this topic is it could be any material thing that they have banned, without debate, or much research....and why does it have to be covered in lies to sell to the public?

[WestCanMan]

33 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Do these new restrictions apply to semi-automatic shotguns? I tried control F for a few in the Gazette and I couldn't get one find.

One could probably do a lot of damage with one of those.

Semi-auto SGs are actually necessary for the the of skeet shooting that some people do. A break action shotgun, ie dbl barrel, isn't fast enough to hit 3 targets. A pump is fast enough, but when you pump it you lose your aim briefly unless you're an actor in an American movie. Semi-auto or you can't compete.

But yeah, a semi-auto SG loaded with 00 buckshot would easily be just as effective as a fully-automatic rifle for a psycho in a large crowd. Then again, so is a truck, and in a truck you have a better chance of escaping. You'd just have to switch vehicles. 

Psychos can't really be stopped imo, unless you get the scoop beforehand.

[taxme]

On 4/30/2020 at 10:09 AM, ProudConservative said:

If Canadians had voted for PPC, none of this would be happening. We would have common sense measures that protect both seniors and the workers in our economy. Doug Ford has become one of the worst socialists of all. Maybe i'm a slow thinker, but i'm considering not voting for him. Everyone is letting their fear of the virus cloud their judgement on the fragility of our economy. I supported a 3 week lockdown, but this is going on 2 months now, and we're leaning towards a great depression.

Indeed, more common sense and logic and intelligence would have been seen and shown by the PPC rather than what we are getting today which is nothing more than just more leftist liberal silly ass stunned emotionalism and silly ass foolish leftist liberal talk and action. With the PPC in power we would have seen a lot more common sense and logic prevail and being applied, and would have not allowed all of this bull shit going on to have ever happened like what we are seeing today if the PPC were the governing power. I see that the same guy that gave you a laugh is still around and still trying to keep making an ass of himself. if this country had to depend on leftist liberals like him to get anything done right, Canada might as well fold up and disappear forever. Sadly today there are more dummies like him around in Canada, and I am still amazed as to how this country keeps going and going and going. This is why I cannot even get an haircut because of those loony tunes people. Just my opinion of course. 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, dialamah said:

That's exactly what this forum looks like to me. 

I get what you are saying about guns and this legislation, and to some extent I agree.   Still, it sends a message about how we, as Canadians, feel about guns and gun violence.  Making these types of weapons illegal will make them harder for criminals to obtain, although not impossible given our proximity to the US.  Those are good enough reasons for me. 

I think the tropes about "the start of the end of freedom" and "guns will save us from tyranny" are ridiculous statements designed to appeal to people who lack common sense and couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag.  

We disagree; that's ok.  Most people are not going to be affected by this legislation one way or another, no point in getting all bothered about it.

Just like the abortion debate has lost all sense of reason at both of the far ends of the spectrum, the gun debate lacks a lot of sense at both ends too.

- Leftists are correct - a 30 round mag is not necessary, especially in Canada where armed militias aren't a part of the constitution. They haven't been for a long time though (if they ever were) and this round of legislation had nothing to do with that.

- Leftists are correct that assault weapons should be illegal, and they already were, long before last Friday.

 

Leftists never thought about the fact that when criminals know that people may or may not have guns in their homes, it makes them less likely to commit home invasions. If there were no guns in Canada then home invasion would be a huge problem. Basically any dude over 250 lbs with reasonable low body fat could go home to home with impunity, armed with just a bat. There are a lot of homes with just seniors, or just a woman and her kids, or a small guy from accounting who can't bench 100 lbs.... The fact that there are 10M homes in Canada with guns in them is a HUUUUUGE deterrent to home invasions.... far more than police. People never shoot home invaders here either. It's never necessary. No one ever wants to get into a gunfight so that they can steal or protect a tv. 

 

- Gun owners are right: the NS shooter had absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws. 

- Gun owners are right: legally-owned guns are an extremely low risk to Canadians, probably 20th on the chart of murder weapons.

- Gun owners are right: there are lots of ways to kill a bunch of people, and truck attacks and bomb attacks have had far higher body counts than guns. 

 

Trudeau doesn't have a clue wtf is going on. He's just pandering to the group of people who were brainwashed by American propagandists (who probably have a far more reasonable case than our anti-gun crowd does). 

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats not what I see, but i'm not you.....and i'm sorry if my tone came across that way, thats was not my point , which was do some research and find out for yourself that this campaign is not worth the effort, or funding it is going to consume....for the very small outcome it will have on the problem...you've as much as said so yourself, there are better ways to accomplish the goals set by the government you just don't want to see it, or afraid the right may be right this one time...

How is it going to make it harder for criminals to obtain....let me ask you this as any prohibition every worked and did it make it harder for criminals to get booze, drugs and now guns...come on, your smarter than that right ? and if you can't see that explain it to me , perhaps I'm the one that is slow...

 Not everyone that wants to keep these fire arms in the hands of law abiding Canadians are the tropes you think they are, both sides of this issues has it's wing nuts....

And it's not OK to disagree on this subject, one of the main reasons most Canadians have these opinions is they are lacking in education on our current fire arms practices, and policies...and the government is taking advantage of that, my concern is where does it stop, sure today it is 1500 firearms, tommorrow there may be more, lets remember this was done over night and did not require debate in parliament....

Your explanation for getting rid of someone's hobby, sport ,  or recreation is feelings...which are not based on any facts, or for that matter reason...you've made up your mind this has nothing to do with you, so screw it...

So let me ask you what your opinion is going to be when another party overturns this new laws ? are you going to have the same laxy dazy attitude or are you going to be concern, or upset ? And what your opinion of spending those Bils buying back these fire arms?  And what concerns me more about this topic is it could be any material thing that they have banned, without debate, or much research....and why does it have to be covered in lies to sell to the public?

The reason why the government is able to take advantage of so many no mind Canadians out there is because they never bother to take the time to do their own research or try and get the other side of the story about anything. Most have become great Canadian trained seals who will mostly go with what their dear leaders and the lying media say or tell them to say or do. Most Canadians do not even know how to think anymore. They just keep letting their dear leaders and the lying media do their thinking for them. It's hard to show and have respect for people who have nothing upstairs if you get my drift. Leftist liberal emotionalism and foolish talk does and will not cut it for me. The only political party that is showing more common sense and logic and intelligence is the PPC party and Maxine Bernier. Bernier is the man that Canada needs right now more than ever. But many here will mock and attack Bernier which only shows to me that those who do that are people who have a very low IQ count that are constantly going around and around in circles in their heads. How can anyone deny that Bernier is making great sense when he speaks. One has to be a liberal, socialist or communist to not see that. Sadly, I think that Canada has way too many of those fools. 

Why have not we the people been consulted and asked as to how gun laws should be implemented, and whether they want to see more of their tax dollars go down the drain over more gun laws that will do nothing to stop gun violence. Billions of tax dollars have been blown and billions more is about to be blown. The lack of any common sense and logic and intelligence is sorely missed in this country. Maxine Bernier has great ideas as to how to go about applying and implementing unwanted and unneeded gun laws. Gun laws stink. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Faster than your two barrel shooting gun, where you shoot 2 times and then reload.  People went hunting for lions and man-eating tigers with these guns in the not so distant past.

Present day morons need an AK-47 style weapon to hunt for deer!

So in other words, an old fashioned revolver qualifies as a 'fast shooting' gun?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

No, all you have at your disposal is your toaster, no knives or guns!

You know the point which is being made?  A fast shooting gun can kill more people in a shorter period of time and there is absolutely no reason why a peaceful citizen should be in possession of such a weapon in peaceful times.

Maybe because not everyone is peaceful and the police can be a long way away?

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Look at rams, bears, elk etc, they do not fight to kill one another!

Well, I don't know about rams and elk, but bears definitely do. So do wolves. And like them, we're predators.

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Just like the abortion debate has lost all sense of reason at both of the far ends of the spectrum, the gun debate lacks a lot of sense at both ends too.

- Leftists are correct - a 30 round mag is not necessary, especially in Canada where armed militias aren't a part of the constitution. They haven't been for a long time though (if they ever were) and this round of legislation had nothing to do with that.

- Leftists are correct that assault weapons should be illegal, and they already were, long before last Friday.

 

Leftists never thought about the fact that when criminals know that people may or may not have guns in their homes, it makes them less likely to commit home invasions. If there were no guns in Canada then home invasion would be a huge problem. Basically any dude over 250 lbs with reasonable low body fat could go home to home with impunity, armed with just a bat. There are a lot of homes with just seniors, or just a woman and her kids, or a small guy from accounting who can't bench 100 lbs.... The fact that there are 10M homes in Canada with guns in them is a HUUUUUGE deterrent to home invasions.... far more than police. People never shoot home invaders here either. It's never necessary. No one ever wants to get into a gunfight so that they can steal or protect a tv. 

 

- Gun owners are right: the NS shooter had absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws. 

- Gun owners are right: legally-owned guns are an extremely low risk to Canadians, probably 20th on the chart of murder weapons.

- Gun owners are right: there are lots of ways to kill a bunch of people, and truck attacks and bomb attacks have had far higher body counts than guns. 

 

Trudeau doesn't have a clue wtf is going on. He's just pandering to the group of people who were brainwashed by American propagandists (who probably have a far more reasonable case than our anti-gun crowd does). 

The problem here in Canada is that it seems that if someone does anything to defend themselves from some criminal trying to hurt or shoot them in their own home they could then also become and be treated like a criminal for daring to defend his home and his family. The person would be no doubt hounded by the police and the government into asking him as to whether he could have shot the criminal in the leg rather than to have killed him. It can go either way for the victim in Canada. It all depends on how zealous the police or the government want to pursue the shooting. They can make life hell if they want to blame the victim rather hen the criminal. I have seen that happen many times where the victim as gone thru hell trying to defend himself over something that should not have been done at all to the victim. 

Trudeau is clueless about everything he says or does. The buffoon is one big joke being played on Canada and Canadians. But it would seem that most Canadians like the joke that is being played on them, and thus as of today, Trudeau has gone up in popularity thanks to him coming out with more useless gun laws that will never stop anyone from wanting to shoot someone else. A criminal will say that if I cannot shoot the batard then I will go buy a baseball bat and go kill him/her with that baseball bat. One way or another that person is going to die. 

All we will get for our loss of our tax dollars is more loss of our tax dollars with more new gun laws being implemented. Pfff, says Trudeau. What's another billion tax dollars being blown here and another billion tax dollars being blown there. If it makes me look like a great hero of a leader than the blowing of more tax dollars will work just fine for me. And most Canadians will go along as usual and nod their stupid heads in agreement with the buffoon. Aw well, carry on Canada and with your silly ass and stupid ways of doing things. No one can ever say that Canada has always had smart and intelligent leaders. But Canada has had plenty of devious, crafty, sly, sneaky, corrupt, crooked and lying politicians for ages now. Just saying. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Faster than your two barrel shooting gun, where you shoot 2 times and then reload.  People went hunting for lions and man-eating tigers with these guns in the not so distant past.

Present day morons need an AK-47 style weapon to hunt for deer!

You mean when people traveled on steam trains and steam cars, when earning a dollar a day could buy a full meal for your family, and still have change for rent...those days are long gone, technology advances have been made on every front since then, including firearms....

Restricted fire arms are prohibited to be used for hunting period....according to the law they can only be used on a RCMP approved range, no where else, the fire arms can be talking to the range with no stopping for "absolutely anything" no coffee, not to pick up the wife and kids or a jug of milk on the way home, or even a traffic accident...same with the way home, any violation could result in a 2 year prison term, handed out by a judge with no jury required, on top of a huge fine, and the confiscation of your wpns….and perhaps your vehicle...So your right only morons would hunt with an AK-47, or any other restricted wpn....But any Moron would already know that,  because they have attended a 2 day hunter safety course and a 1 day restricted fire arms  course, with a practical and written test before being considered to be issued a FAC....and a lengthy back ground check, then and only then will they be given permission to purchase a fire arm....

[taxme]

17 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

I'm not in favor of banning military style assault weapons. I'm in favor very strong background checks. The government should have the right to take firearms away from anyone who has mental health issues, just as long as the majority of Canadians still have access to firearms, so there can be a deterrent against tyranny.

Proper background checks, should be able to reduce gun violence by 90%

If a husband beats up his wife, he loses his firearm

If a guy threatens to kill people online, he loses his firearm

If a guy commits assault, he loses his firearm

Responsible citizens, who use common sense and logic.... shouldn't have their guns taken away.

Maybe that if there were a law created that if anyone uses any kind of gun to commit a criminal act they should either get automatically get life in prison or get the death sentence. It might not stop some people from wanting to kill someone with a gun, but I can be pretty sure that they will probably think twice before pulling the trigger. Hey, we never know, eh? 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

You know the point which is being made?  A fast shooting gun can kill more people in a shorter period of time and there is absolutely no reason why a peaceful citizen should be in possession of such a weapon in peaceful times.

I actually think having toasters as weapons in the next war is not such a bad thing.  You do not need to kill anyone, all you need to do is win the war.

Look at rams, bears, elk etc, they do not fight to kill one another!

Man not only did you studied the Liberal myth hand book you actually committed it to memory impressive...There is one problem though , semi auto hunting rifles, are more prevalent than bolt action or lever action....which are only slower by 10 seconds over 5 rounds....and get this .......ALL long barreled fire arms are restricted to holding 5 bullets at one time, anything else is illegal, subject to up to 2 years in jail , heavy fine, confiscation of your fire arms, perhaps your car....and restricted to own fire arms for a long period of time...

As for animals not killing each other, than going to the zoo, have you ever been in the wild, I mean with wild animals....or perhaps watched the wild life channel on TV.... does all your meat come from Walmart..

[taxme]

On 5/1/2020 at 4:02 PM, AngusThermopyle said:

Michelle say's it well.

 

 

On 5/1/2020 at 4:02 PM, AngusThermopyle said:

Michelle say's it well.

 

Although I can agree with most of what she says, being a gun owner myself, but I have to wonder if she has ever taken any action herself over the many other contentious and serious issues that have and still are impacting the lives of Canadians today. Is she just one of those one issue wonders who are only concerned about what goes on and affects their daily life? You see that is what goes on with and in most Canadians life. If it affects them in any way, then they need and want your immediate back up support and help. If it does not concern them well it's good luck to you buddy and your issue but I am not concerned about your issues.

I am against this massive foreign aid budget and the tax dollars that are being given away to other foreign countries by the hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year. Does she or does she not care about that issue that concerns me? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe she is or maybe she is not just a one issue wonder, I do not know. But that is what I have found out over the years that most people are just one issue wonders who only want support and help from others with their issues when suddenly their issue comes up that affects their life. Otherwise, they just stick to minding their own business and will not bother to get involved with your issue, and will not want to help in anyway with someone else's issue.

Good luck with her and her issue, but I do not care what happens to people who own guns that I do not own. I only own a 22 rifle. When it comes time that they want to take away my rifle, I can expect your help, right?  

Edited May 3, 2020 by taxme

[taxme]

32 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Man not only did you studied the Liberal myth hand book you actually committed it to memory impressive...There is one problem though , semi auto hunting rifles, are more prevalent than bolt action or lever action....which are only slower by 10 seconds over 5 rounds....and get this .......ALL long barreled fire arms are restricted to holding 5 bullets at one time, anything else is illegal, subject to up to 2 years in jail , heavy fine, confiscation of your fire arms, perhaps your car....and restricted to own fire arms for a long period of time...

As for animals not killing each other, than going to the zoo, have you ever been in the wild, I mean with wild animals....or perhaps watched the wild life channel on TV.... does all your meat come from Walmart..

What's his face who thinks that animals do not kill each other of the same species does not watch the many nature shows that are shown on TV.  Animals do kill each other of the same species all the time, and it is either over a female, or for leadership, or for turf. Sadly, some animals are no better than some human beings who will kill someone of their own human species. 

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

And it's not OK to disagree on this subject

Why not?  Isn't it a problem in this country and even more so in the States that people aren't "allowed" to disagree?  Isn't that a major sticking point for many on the right,  who claim that the left demands everyone agree with them?  Isn't it better to have a civil discussion, present our thoughts, agree to disagree and move on?

[scribblet]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

This issue is a lot like the abortion issue. It incites highly emotional responses based on preconceived values.

1. Trudeau did not explain how they came to the determination that the guns they put on their list (1,500) are ONLY purchased to kill people let alone are more deadly than the ones not on the list;2. Trudeau has not explained how the banning of the 1,500 long guns he chose, prevent people from taking other long guns and re-calibrating them to be as dangerous if not more dangerous than the ones he banned;3. Trudeau has not explained how banning any long gun prevents illegal ones from being purchased and used in crimes.....

 

Liberals know their gun ban won’t work -- from their own study of the issue last year which concluded: “The vast majority of owners of handguns and of other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements, and most gun crimes are not committed with legally-owned firearms. 

Not to mention, the Chilean mortar m57 was never imported to Canada but made the liberals prohibited  list, just more deception

Matt Gurney, writing in the National Post, said the Liberal legislation “banned” some guns, ignored others and called it a day, without making Canadians any safer. Exactly.

 

 

[Argus]

Just now, scribblet said:

Liberals know their gun ban won’t work -- from their own study of the issue last year which concluded: “The vast majority of owners of handguns and of other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements, and most gun crimes are not committed with legally-owned firearms. 

Not to mention, the Chilean mortar m57 was never imported to Canada but made the liberals prohibited  list, just more deception

Matt Gurney, writing in the National Post, said the Liberal legislation “banned” some guns, ignored others and called it a day, without making Canadians any safer. Exactly.

They also accidentally banned a couple of web sites and a locksmith shop. LOL.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

problem...you've as much as said so yourself, there are better ways to accomplish the goals set by the government you just don't want to see it, or afraid the right may be right this one time...

Actually, what I believe would work best to solve the problem has been shouted down on this forum more than once because it involves spending money on people who "don't deserve it", and to focus on rehabilitation of criminals instead of punishment.  Addressing the actual problems is too complicated, so we are driven to simple solutions like " ban guns", "throw them in jail longer" - often very popular, but the most effective.

Still, if the right can be happy with simplistic "tough on crime" solutions,  I guess I can be happy with a simplistic gun ban solution.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Actually, what I believe would work best to solve the problem has been shouted down on this forum more than once because it involves spending money on people who "don't deserve it", and to focus on rehabilitation of criminals instead of punishment.  Addressing the actual problems is too complicated, so we are driven to simple solutions like " ban guns", "throw them in jail longer" - often very popular, but the most effective.

Still, if the right can be happy with simplistic "tough on crime" solutions,  I guess I can be happy with a simplistic gun ban solution.

A person who is found to be illegal possession of a gun will not be able to use it when they are in jail.  The longer they are in there, the longer they won't be able to use it.