Jump to content

Trudeau wants to ban handguns and toys?


Recommended Posts

due to the draconian nature of Canadian gun control, it's not even worth bothering with a Restricted Class PAL

best you can do is just buy a Non-Restricted slide action 12 gauge shotgun

then master the art of tactical shotgun

cognitive warfighter, you are the weapon system, the firearm is simply an extension of your resolve

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Law abiding citizens shoot themselves, shoot their spouses, and shoot people like burglers, trespassers, and less than excellent drivers. There are many Canadian voters who wish to see handguns banned. While I am not one of them, we must keep in mind that the government is responding to a sizable segment of the population. 

If the law changes to ban handguns, anybody who continues to possess them cannot call themselves a law abiding citizen.

I do not see how a complete ban would increase the amount of crimes committed by handguns. Many handguns in the possession of criminals are stolen from law abiding citizens. 

In a democracy, we expect the government to try to carry out changes and enact laws for the public good and public opinion. When we disagree, we get out and work to nominate and elect the candidates we agree with. 

As much as I enjoy shooting, it won't interfere with my general enjoyment of life if I am required to give it up. Skiing, on the other hand, is the true purpose of life, but nobody can take that away from us.

Yes, law-abiding citizens have done everything you have posted, and more there may be a few cases of each, for every calendar year, but enough to justify a complete banning.  Suicides account for the bulk of deaths by legal firearms owners. and yet a Canadian can get a medically assisted death because she can not afford an apartment that is free of chemical scents. But hey if you kill yourself with a firearm that's evil...

Canadian voters want to see handguns gone because gang violence is up, when was the last time a gang member applied for a PAL, or obtained a legal handgun, why would they... So the government wants to look like it is doing something, anything that is cheap... pumping more money into law enforcement is expensive, taking away legal gun owners' firearms is cheap, way cheaper...Canadian firearm owners go through a criminal background check "every day", and medical records are checked for any mental health issues, every day...The government does what is best for the Government, not the people...

Many Canadians do not know jack shit about Canada's laws and policies around firearms, The Government has been using half-truths or outright lies or American examples to deceive the public on legally owned firearms. 

And your right keeping said handguns is going to make them not so much law-abiding... But the objective here was to slow or stop handgun crimes, these policies are not going to do that, this is the government making it look like it is doing something for the least cost...And most Canadians don't care they live in a city where gun ownership is not a big deal or affects them at all. 

A small percentage of handguns or firearms are stolen 10 to 20 %, and most are brought into the country illegally for the purpose of doing crime...80 to 90 % of criminal handguns are brought in this way. 

The stats do not add up, nor does the government narrative, a narrative that is being used to sell this grand safety move done by a government that really cares about our safety... which is why they are downgrading all gun crimes sentences..

Not sure why you think the government could not take away any form of sport or tool, for any reason, i mean they lied to us on control measures and the stats behind them, so why not skiing, camping, or biking, all it would take is a narrative like gun control...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Everything was "legal" at one time or another.

Opium and heroin was legal until 1929 then is wasn't.

Cocaine was legal and even used in drinks until it was not.

Alcohol was legal then illegal in 1918 until 1920 then legal again

You could use your phone in your car until it was made illegal.

Drinking and driving was legal until 1921 but it was impossible to convict until acceptance of Breathalyzer in 1969

And many other legal activities made illegal by various levels of authority or government.

My point is that what is legal today can easily be illegal tomorrow.

Most of the those laws were meant to save lives, lots of lives,  how is taking a law-abiding gun owner's guns away going to save lives or make a serious reduction in illegal gun crimes. Or do I just bury them in the backyard until they become legal once again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Most of the those laws were meant to save lives, lots of lives,  how is taking a law-abiding gun owner's guns away going to save lives or make a serious reduction in illegal gun crimes. Or do I just bury them in the backyard until they become legal once again?

I agree but in the eyes of the general public, gun control will too and they are happy the government is doing that.

Firstly, no one is taking any guns away.  That is over dramatic and false.

Secondly, if the guns were in fact taken, how would that hurt anyone except the pocketbook of the owner?

Thirdly, freezing the sales of handguns was never intended  to prevent illegal gun crimes. We all know illegal guns come from somewhere. The question is where. (lots of assumptions but who knows)

As I said "Having said all that, I do think the actions of the government is a way over reaction due to American incidents and we here in Canada do not have this problem severe enough for this type law but, the general Canadian public is very pleased with this action."

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose is to retain and earn votes. That is the measure of the democracy. If the government pleases more voters, they get re-elected. 

It is not the number of firearms that is the problem. It is the culture surrounding them. Gun ownership requires a high level of maturity. There is a minority of Americans and Canadians who see firearms as a plaything. They fantasize about being revolutionaries fighting big government, deep state and marxists. In Switzerland everyone had a gun when I visited there in 1990. They have a low murder rate. It is a different culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Firstly, it is a freezing of hand gun sales.  Not banning ownership.

Why is that stupid and counterproductive? Other than for fun, what use are handguns for the public?

Implements/weapons used in crimes by criminals, be they guns, knives, swords, bats, or whatever, were a problem back then, are now and will be  the future. Eradicating crime is impossible. Getting rid of gangs is also impossible (regardless of some here insisting it can be done).

Enforcing crimes is what is needed but when social activists keep insisting some crimes are a social and/or health issue and not a crime, well then we have a society problem and our system of justice buckles to social pressures. Also, when trying to enforce crimes, without public assistance and testimony, the charges and judgment goes away.

Not sure what "cycle" you are referencing.

"Canadians fiending on that negative feedback loop like a junkie", do not know what that means.

 

If you already own a handgun then what you have is what you get, if you don't already possess one you're fucked, you are banned from owning one forever.

Handguns are restrictive weapons, meaning once you attend all the training required to get a firearm, you must then take another course and pass another round of vetting...Restricted means the handgun can be taken to and from the range only, and only if approved by RCMP every trip to the range and home...by filling out paperwork... no paperwork and your guns will be seized never to be seen again...So one really has to love going to the range to put up with the bullshit .. you used to be able to take a handgun into the forest for protection from wildlife, I don't think you're allowed anymore, and if they do, I think you'll need a blessing from the pope, and a paw print from lassie, trust me an encounter with a bear makes you a believer... but hey the law says you can have bear spray...know what grizzly shit smells like ya bear spray, 

I take it you don't own a handgun, which is OK, your choice, however, why should your choice restrict me from owning one. Stats have already overwhelmingly proven that legal gun owners are not the problem that the majority of handguns used in crimes are illegally obtained... Common sense would suggest starting there, nope it makes more sense to start with law-abiding citizens...

Eradicating crime and gangs is impossible because we make it impossible, to a lack of funding and manpower.. we as Canadians would much rather have other social programs like child care, and free dental care.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The purpose is to retain and earn votes. That is the measure of the democracy. If the government pleases more voters, they get re-elected. 

It is not the number of firearms that is the problem. It is the culture surrounding them. Gun ownership requires a high level of maturity. There is a minority of Americans and Canadians who see firearms as a plaything. They fantasize about being revolutionaries fighting big government, deep state and marxists. In Switzerland everyone had a gun when I visited there in 1990. They have a low murder rate. It is a different culture.

Afro-Canadian gun culture rules the 6ix

its a fusion of West Indian & East African

the rest of you provincial fops are just subjects of your rulers in the ivory towers of Toronto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I agree but in the eyes of the general public, gun control will too and they are happy the government is doing that.

Firstly, no one is taking any guns away.  That is over dramatic and false.

Secondly, if the guns were in fact taken, how would that hurt anyone except the pocketbook of the owner?

Thirdly, freezing the sales of handguns was never intended  to prevent illegal gun crimes. We all know illegal guns come from somewhere. The question is where. (lots of assumptions but who knows)

As I said "Having said all that, I do think the actions of the government is a way over reaction due to American incidents and we here in Canada do not have this problem severe enough for this type law but, the general Canadian public is very pleased with this action."

 

The Liberal government is working on seizing long guns at the moment, right now you can turn those banned long guns in for free, as no money or reimbursement has been approved. and just a year and a bit ago they said the same thing, you can keep them but never use them, we will discuss reimbursement later...these new bills are going to change that, the clock is ticking on when...that is not dramatic it is fact.

well owners, the industry behind all of that, which employs thousands. That's OK if your SNC Lavin, shit you can break laws to save those jobs...or spend billions on an aircraft company to save jobs, gun industry it is just dirty. And it does not have to be just guns, it is private ownership that is the other half of the question. it could be anything camping equipment, your fossil fuel cars, butter knives...

What was it intended to do, the government has been promoting keeping our communities safer. keeping Canadians safer, keeping guns off the streets, how does this ban accomplish any of this. and if it does not keep us safer, why is there a ban. 

The Canadian public does not know anything about the topic, or what current laws require every gun owner to do. they have been programmed by the government narrative that all guns are evil, we do not need them...The most popular question most city folks ask is why do you need a sporting rifle or handgun for anyway...I don't know why kids need 800 hp engines in their cars, why do they need to do 120 in 6 seconds. Why do we need to spend billions on off-road vehicles, only to tear mother earth to shit...It is something we like to do, hunt/fish, outdoor activities,  sport shooting, just going to a range for an afternoon and having some fun...I know what was i thinking having fun...with a firearm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

If you already own a handgun then what you have is what you get, if you don't already possess one you're fucked, you are banned from owning one forever.

Handguns are restrictive weapons, meaning once you attend all the training required to get a firearm, you must then take another course and pass another round of vetting...Restricted means the handgun can be taken to and from the range only, and only if approved by RCMP every trip to the range and home...by filling out paperwork... no paperwork and your guns will be seized never to be seen again...So one really has to love going to the range to put up with the bullshit .. you used to be able to take a handgun into the forest for protection from wildlife, I don't think you're allowed anymore, and if they do, I think you'll need a blessing from the pope, and a paw print from lassie, trust me an encounter with a bear makes you a believer... but hey the law says you can have bear spray...know what grizzly shit smells like ya bear spray, 

I take it you don't own a handgun, which is OK, your choice, however, why should your choice restrict me from owning one. Stats have already overwhelmingly proven that legal gun owners are not the problem that the majority of handguns used in crimes are illegally obtained... Common sense would suggest starting there, nope it makes more sense to start with law-abiding citizens...

Eradicating crime and gangs is impossible because we make it impossible, to a lack of funding and manpower.. we as Canadians would much rather have other social programs like child care, and free dental care.

 

Don't be pissed at me.  I only said that the proposal is to freeze handgun sales.

I am not sure the government is "seizing" long guns. No one is coming to your house and taking your registered guns away.  I believe that it is a voluntary thing to turn in your guns.  I also believe it has always been there but is just being advertised again.

I am not pro nor anti gun.

And no, I do not own any weapons. I am a city boy and do not hunt. I am quite familiar with them and have used them in my Military career. 

Crime is crime and with the resources available, they do what they can. Friends and relatives in the law enforcement game always say that whatever they do, the judicial and legal system undoes. Criminals have rights you know LOL

And yes, the Canadian population is very much in favour of and demanding social programs.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all that matters in Canada is the Liberal Party of Canada

the Natural Governing Party

there is no other Canada left

all will love the Post National State and despair

on the bright side, America will continue to prop Canada up as a colony for the foreseeable future

via ruling the provincials by ruling the king makers in Toronto

gangsters paradise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The purpose is to retain and earn votes. That is the measure of the democracy. If the government pleases more voters, they get re-elected. 

It is not the number of firearms that is the problem. It is the culture surrounding them. Gun ownership requires a high level of maturity. There is a minority of Americans and Canadians who see firearms as a plaything. They fantasize about being revolutionaries fighting big government, deep state and marxists. In Switzerland everyone had a gun when I visited there in 1990. They have a low murder rate. It is a different culture.

Think about this for a moment, if the government narrative is nothing more than lies and exaggerations, to mislead the public opinion that's not democracy that is straight-up dishonesty.

One could say that about anything in our society, there are always going to be wingnuts and ass*oles. Canada does have a very low firearm murder rate when compared to the US, that is half the problem we always need to compare or use US stats to prove our political points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Don't be pissed at me.  I only said that the proposal is to freeze handgun sales.

I am not sure the government is "seizing" long guns. No one is coming to your house and taking your registered guns away.  I believe that it is a voluntary thing to turn in your guns.  I also believe it has always been there but is just being advertised again.

I am not pro nor anti gun.

And no, I do not own any weapons. I am a city boy and do not hunt. I am quite familiar with them and have used them in my Military career. 

Crime is crime and with the resources available, they do what they can. Friends and relatives in the law enforcement game always say that whatever they do, the judicial and legal system undoes. Criminals have rights you know LOL

And yes, the Canadian population is very much in favour of and demanding social programs.

Sorry, i did not mean to come through as pissed, but even the governments federal and provincial including the media are framing it as a gun ban, which once passed no one is going to be able to purchase or sell a handgun, anyone that does not have a handgun the time of the legislation passes,  is banned from owning one. 

What do you call it when there is a mandatory buy-back program which is going to give you a fair market price for the weapon, but not the accessories, but they have already said "what does fair market price actually mean".

Currently, they have a Voluntary turn-in policy, but they have announced further changes to the long arms ban, which include selling them to the government or turning it in for free, keeping them is no longer possible, as of once the new changes have passed. The situation is fluid as they attempt to placate more special interest groups and uneducated Canadians.

That is one of the main points of the Canadian gun lobby, putting the extra funding into law enforcement that would allow them to tackle illegal firearms. you know the same people that the Liberal government has painted as extremist groups... because every extremist group wants more law enforcement funding...more liberal lies. 

And the majority of the left wants more social programs, and the right mostly agrees there is a need for some programs, but the people do not need to be dependent on the government.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Sorry, i did not mean to come through as pissed, but even the governments federal and provincial including the media are framing it as a gun ban, which once passed no one is going to be able to purchase or sell a handgun, anyone that does not have a handgun the time of the legislation passes,  is banned from owning one. 

What do you call it when there is a mandatory buy-back program which is going to give you a fair market price for the weapon, but not the accessories, but they have already said "what does fair market price actually mean".

Currently, they have a Voluntary turn-in policy, but they have announced further changes to the long arms ban, which include selling them to the government or turning it in for free, keeping them is no longer possible, as of once the new changes have passed. The situation is fluid as they attempt to placate more special interest groups and uneducated Canadians.

That is one of the main points of the Canadian gun lobby, putting the extra funding into law enforcement that would allow them to tackle illegal firearms. you know the same people that the Liberal government has painted as extremist groups... because every extremist group wants more law enforcement funding...more liberal lies. 

And the majority of the left wants more social programs, and the right mostly agrees there is a need for some programs, but the people do not need to be dependent on the government.

 

 

Lets just keep it real.

A freeze on  handguns, not an outright ban.

The buy back is for assault style weapons, not all rifles or long guns and certainly not from registered owners although , under the old law, you can turn in any weapons you wish.

"gun control legislation the federal government tabled Monday includes a national freeze on the purchase, sale, importation and transfer of handguns in Canada.

The government also is pledging to start buying back thousands of banned assault-style weapons before the end of the year.

While the proposal falls short of a full ban on handguns, it would effectively limit their number in Canada.

"In other words, we're capping the market for handguns,"

I understand the emotions involved but, emotions sometimes leads to misinterpretations.

Also, I am not pro or anti guns but am pro factual information.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Lets just keep it real.

A freeze on  handguns, not an outright ban.

The buy back is for assault style weapons, not all rifles or long guns and certainly not from registered owners although , under the old law, you can turn in any weapons you wish.

"gun control legislation the federal government tabled Monday includes a national freeze on the purchase, sale, importation and transfer of handguns in Canada.

The government also is pledging to start buying back thousands of banned assault-style weapons before the end of the year.

While the proposal falls short of a full ban on handguns, it would effectively limit their number in Canada.

"In other words, we're capping the market for handguns,"

I understand the emotions involved but, emotions sometimes leads to misinterpretations.

Also, I am not pro or anti guns but am pro factual information.

You can call it whatever you like, The federal, provincial, governments, and media are calling it a ban. Once this passes the senate can you or anyone else purchase, or sell a new or used handgun? And like any gun control measures, there is one thing they all have in common they remain fluid and change constantly, not by easing up on restrictions but like long guns while progress until the government has full control and there is none. 

The Federal government is not sure how many of these weapons are out there to start with, there is a rough estimate done by gun activists and it is in the millions. The buy-back program will only pay for the firearm, not accessories that are useless without the firearm itself.  They are also not going to pay full price as most of these weapons are valued at way more than the government is willing to pay. So it is a wait-and-see to find out the details.

In other words, you are banning handguns from any future gun owners. and at the same time will collect these banned handguns once the original owners pass on for free. as they can not be willed to anyone else.   

Emotions come into play when the government misuses or lies to produce facts that mislead the public. and because most Canadians are not firearms owners it does not affect them, they don't care... so they are not interested in challenging anything about the topic. But they are more than willing to make a judgment and agree that these weapons are scary. 

Want this to be a level playing field then make the government play on the same tabletop, with the same rules. and stop using lies and false news to persuade the rest of Canada. Minister bill Blair is the king of deception when it comes to lies about firearms. And the new safety minister is a joke and has been called out by the media numerous times for producing false info on his entire portfolio, firearms, convoy, basically every time he speaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

You can call it whatever you like, The federal, provincial, governments, and media are calling it a ban. Once this passes the senate can you or anyone else purchase, or sell a new or used handgun? And like any gun control measures, there is one thing they all have in common they remain fluid and change constantly, not by easing up on restrictions but like long guns while progress until the government has full control and there is none. 

The Federal government is not sure how many of these weapons are out there to start with, there is a rough estimate done by gun activists and it is in the millions. The buy-back program will only pay for the firearm, not accessories that are useless without the firearm itself.  They are also not going to pay full price as most of these weapons are valued at way more than the government is willing to pay. So it is a wait-and-see to find out the details.

In other words, you are banning handguns from any future gun owners. and at the same time will collect these banned handguns once the original owners pass on for free. as they can not be willed to anyone else.   

Emotions come into play when the government misuses or lies to produce facts that mislead the public. and because most Canadians are not firearms owners it does not affect them, they don't care... so they are not interested in challenging anything about the topic. But they are more than willing to make a judgment and agree that these weapons are scary. 

Want this to be a level playing field then make the government play on the same tabletop, with the same rules. and stop using lies and false news to persuade the rest of Canada. Minister bill Blair is the king of deception when it comes to lies about firearms. And the new safety minister is a joke and has been called out by the media numerous times for producing false info on his entire portfolio, firearms, convoy, basically every time he speaks.

I am not calling it anything. The official statement is calling it a freeze.

The media, which so many including you despise, but wen it suit narratives, you use them:)

Emotions come into play when something is done that rankles the beliefs and desires a person wants. Owning guns is such a thing for some, a minority by the way. The government is responding to public outrage and the general public seem pleased with what they are doing.

As for owning or being able to purchase hand gun, well, if you own them now, you are fine but if you want to buy one, you may have to wait for a while, (till this event runs it's course). Just to be devils advocate, there is really no reason to own one and if you say for personal protection, that is really a stretch. For sport is also not really valid.

I am completely unsure what you mean with "Want this to be a level playing field"? What playing field is the government supposed to be playing in? In the field of public opinion??

 

I will say again, I am not pro or anti gun.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am not calling it anything. The official statement is calling it a freeze.

The media, which so many including you despise, but wen it suit narratives, you use them:)

Emotions come into play when something is done that rankles the beliefs and desires a person wants. Owning guns is such a thing for some, a minority by the way. The government is responding to public outrage and the general public seem pleased with what they are doing.

As for owning or being able to purchase hand gun, well, if you own them now, you are fine but if you want to buy one, you may have to wait for a while, (till this event runs it's course). Just to be devils advocate, there is really no reason to own one and if you say for personal protection, that is really a stretch. For sport is also not really valid.

I am completely unsure what you mean with "Want this to be a level playing field"? What playing field is the government supposed to be playing in? In the field of public opinion??

I will say again, I am not pro or anti gun.

says they're not anti-gun

yet is in favor of restricting people's rights if a majority agrees with it

says they're not anti-gun

yet wants them restricted if the person can't come up with a reason that they need one that satisfies them

lulz, those are clearly anti-gun positions, pretending to be on the fence isn't fooling anyone

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

says they're not anti-gun

yet is in favor of restricting people's rights if a majority agrees with it

says they're not anti-gun

yet wants them restricted if the person can't come up with a reason that they need one that satisfies them

lulz, those are clearly anti-gun positions, pretending to be on the fence isn't fooling anyone

Am I anti-car if I believe there should be restrictions on their use?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Am I anti-car if I believe there should be restrictions on their use?

we both know you are anti-car

under your eco-fascist ideological rubric

yet this doesn't impede your love of F1

depends on who is driving and if you approve of the reason for driving I guess

then the environment suddenly takes a backseat

 

you are also anti-gun

for different reasons

no need to equate apples to oranges though

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

says they're not anti-gun

yet is in favor of restricting people's rights if a majority agrees with it

says they're not anti-gun

yet wants them restricted if the person can't come up with a reason that they need one that satisfies them

lulz, those are clearly anti-gun positions, pretending to be on the fence isn't fooling anyone

Huh?

I am having a discussion. Making points and counter points and being devils advocate on the situation you can not see past your own biases.

Sad you are such a narrow minded person and cannot see alternatives or others opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Huh?

I am having a discussion. Making points and counter points and being devils advocate on the situation you can not see past your own biases.

Sad you are such a narrow minded person and cannot see alternatives or others opinions.

we are aware of the devils advocate positions

and they are garbage arguments

if you spend far more time and effort on offering devil's advocate positions instead of your own

then you are likely to have your opinion confused with the opinions you are advocating on behalf of

the failure of communication is on your end

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

we are aware of the devils advocate positions

and they are garbage arguments

if you spend far more time and effort on offering devil's advocate positions instead of your own

then you are likely to have your opinion confused with the opinions you are advocating on behalf of

the failure of communication is on your end

Yeah OK. LOL

Like you Eh? Narrow minded and singular view.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 4:49 PM, ExFlyer said:

I am not calling it anything. The official statement is calling it a freeze.

The media, which so many including you despise, but wen it suit narratives, you use them:)

Emotions come into play when something is done that rankles the beliefs and desires a person wants. Owning guns is such a thing for some, a minority by the way. The government is responding to public outrage and the general public seem pleased with what they are doing.

As for owning or being able to purchase hand gun, well, if you own them now, you are fine but if you want to buy one, you may have to wait for a while, (till this event runs it's course). Just to be devils advocate, there is really no reason to own one and if you say for personal protection, that is really a stretch. For sport is also not really valid.

I am completely unsure what you mean with "Want this to be a level playing field"? What playing field is the government supposed to be playing in? In the field of public opinion??

 

I will say again, I am not pro or anti gun.

 

I guess not everyone is calling it a freeze, even on CPAC the members from all sides are using the word ban, maybe they did not get the memo...

Trudeau’s handgun ban fails spectacularly and leads to skyrocketing sales - The Counter Signal

Tougher gun laws needed, not handgun bans, Ford says | Toronto Sun

Gun Control Fail: Trudeau’s Pistol Ban Sees Stores Sell Out of Handguns (breitbart.com)

Canada Introduces Law to Ban Handgun Sales | CBN News

Quote

The media, which so many including you despise, but wen it suit narratives, you use them:)

Maybe you can provide a couple of examples of me despising the media, I may have accused a few outlets of being biased during the convoy, but for the most part, I have given tones of credit on topics such as covering the military condition and shortfalls. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. 

Ok it must be right for a couple of reasons, it only involves a minority of Canadians, what kind of excuse is that it does not make it right or wrong " but who cares if it only involves the minority...

The government has crafted the message based on lies and deceit, to make it sound like they are interested in solving gun violence...Explain to me how any of these measures are going to accomplish that. The general public doesn't have a clue about current gun control measures that already exist, nor do they care, to be honest, it does not affect them in the least bit.... How does a legal gun owner threaten another Canadian.  they are like the government going through the motions. 

You mean until another party decides to reverse the legislation. 

Yes, let's play devil, advocate, you can find a reason or reasons for someone not to own anything but for some reason "WE" feel the need to judge, Why do you need a car with 1000 HP, why do we need to parachute, or bungee jump, why do you need a drone,  it is all about choice. Why do you care why I want to own something? The majority of legal gun owners do so safely and without incidence, there are a few that are wingnuts, but that's in every crowd including in the anti-gun crowd. 

As for personal protection, what difference does it make why I want to own a firearm, why is the protection of me and my family not good enough for you. As for sport, once again you grasping, you make a judgment on all firearms owners without knowing any of them and you are not even willing to understand why they would want to own a firearm. when really it is none of your business why as long as they follow the law.  

The government is using false or twisted information to lead Canadians to the conclusions they want, in this case, they are using Canadians' willingness to not do any research on the topic because they are too lazy or just don't give a shit. The liberal government has lied constantly and used the same tactics on gun owners and gun lobbies as they did on the convoy. Go through the list of current banned long arms you'll find pump-action shotguns, airsoft rifles, and bolt-action rifles, based on looks, or names that sounded scary. the function had nothing to do with it...and then take a look at what is still legal, you'll find lots of semi-autos that look similar to AR-15, or "military assault rifles" 

You have already made a stance and a hard choice you've made that clear a few times now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I guess not everyone is calling it a freeze, even on CPAC the members from all sides are using the word ban, maybe they did not get the memo...

Trudeau’s handgun ban fails spectacularly and leads to skyrocketing sales - The Counter Signal

Tougher gun laws needed, not handgun bans, Ford says | Toronto Sun

Gun Control Fail: Trudeau’s Pistol Ban Sees Stores Sell Out of Handguns (breitbart.com)

Canada Introduces Law to Ban Handgun Sales | CBN News

Maybe you can provide a couple of examples of me despising the media, I may have accused a few outlets of being biased during the convoy, but for the most part, I have given tones of credit on topics such as covering the military condition and shortfalls. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. 

Ok it must be right for a couple of reasons, it only involves a minority of Canadians, what kind of excuse is that it does not make it right or wrong " but who cares if it only involves the minority...

The government has crafted the message based on lies and deceit, to make it sound like they are interested in solving gun violence...Explain to me how any of these measures are going to accomplish that. The general public doesn't have a clue about current gun control measures that already exist, nor do they care, to be honest, it does not affect them in the least bit.... How does a legal gun owner threaten another Canadian.  they are like the government going through the motions. 

You mean until another party decides to reverse the legislation. 

Yes, let's play devil, advocate, you can find a reason or reasons for someone not to own anything but for some reason "WE" feel the need to judge, Why do you need a car with 1000 HP, why do we need to parachute, or bungee jump, why do you need a drone,  it is all about choice. Why do you care why I want to own something? The majority of legal gun owners do so safely and without incidence, there are a few that are wingnuts, but that's in every crowd including in the anti-gun crowd. 

As for personal protection, what difference does it make why I want to own a firearm, why is the protection of me and my family not good enough for you. As for sport, once again you grasping, you make a judgment on all firearms owners without knowing any of them and you are not even willing to understand why they would want to own a firearm. when really it is none of your business why as long as they follow the law.  

The government is using false or twisted information to lead Canadians to the conclusions they want, in this case, they are using Canadians' willingness to not do any research on the topic because they are too lazy or just don't give a shit. The liberal government has lied constantly and used the same tactics on gun owners and gun lobbies as they did on the convoy. Go through the list of current banned long arms you'll find pump-action shotguns, airsoft rifles, and bolt-action rifles, based on looks, or names that sounded scary. the function had nothing to do with it...and then take a look at what is still legal, you'll find lots of semi-autos that look similar to AR-15, or "military assault rifles" 

You have already made a stance and a hard choice you've made that clear a few times now. 
 

I apologies for including you in the generic "you" term. This forum is so negative against the main stream media I just group the posters here in one lump.

I actually believe that legal gun owners are not a problem whatsoever.

I don't think the government is using deceit or lies or false and twisted information, they are just bowing to public pressure.

I do not judge gun owners, I questioned why handguns, not judging, just questioned.

My stance is just that the government is doing what the public wants, and the majority of the public. This is a democracy and as a rule, majority wins.

This list?  I did not see shotguns, pellet guns or air soft or bolt action.

"there are approximately 90 000 restricted firearms that would be affected; " but that is manufactures list as opposed to types or styles.

https://silvercore.ca/2022/04/01/the-complete-ban-list-of-newly-prohibited-firearms-in-canada-as-of-may-1-2020/

 

 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...