Assault Style Weapons Prohibited In CDA


taxslave
+2
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

So can you tell us what type of weapon the Nova Scotia shooter used ? Can Angus Reid ? Pretty amazing the RCMP have not released that information yet Canadians and Angus Reid want them banned .

I heard it was a potato gun. Let's put all the potato farmers in jail.
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
taxslave
+2
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Not the point. They should be banned anyhow. NO ONE needs that kind of weapon for personal use........or even........and this is a stretch......personal security.

No one needs a RollsRoyce either. Should we ban them too? How about helicopters? Do you think anyone needs one?
 
Ocean Breeze
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Just one more in a long list of people who come here to vent their anger.

Might be smarter to get some anger management help. It distracts from the topic and creates a nasty environment...
 
taxslave
+1
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Might be smarter to get some anger management help. It distracts from the topic and creates a nasty environment...

That is all hoid does is disrupt threads.
 
Ocean Breeze
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

No one needs a RollsRoyce either. Should we ban them too? How about helicopters? Do you think anyone needs one?

When a Rolls is used to KILL others en mass , then yes...it should be banned too.
 
Ron in Regina
+3
#96
I'll need to check and see if my Toaster (it's pretty high tech) is on Trudeau's new Banned List. I might not have been a Criminal yesterday morning and suddenly have become one tonight unless I surrender my Toaster for $0.15 on the Dollar in a buy-back program.
 
pgs
+2
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

I am interested only as far as they affect people and their attitudes.Don't twist ..manipulate my words.

They were your words .
 
pgs
+2
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

No one needs a RollsRoyce either. Should we ban them too? How about helicopters? Do you think anyone needs one?

Kobe Bryant and family didnít.
 
gerryh
+2 / -1
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Might be smarter to get some anger management help. It distracts from the topic and creates a nasty environment...

Might be smarter to know what you're talking about before posting in a topic. That, however, would mean you and hoid would never be able to post.
 
Hoid
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Might be smarter to know what you're talking about before posting in a topic. That, however, would mean you and hoid would never be able to post.

Its her thread, angry guy
 
gerryh
+2
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Its her thread, angry guy


Yup, it is, and she knows nothing about the topic, same as you. You, I'm used to knowing nothing. You prove it over and over again every day. Her, I had hoped that she had learned something in the last 3 years. I guess I was expecting too much.


Still waiting for a definition of what an assault weapon is.

I even broke it down for you and asked why the mini14 was banned and why the ar15 was banned.
 
Hoid
#102
If the weapon is on the list it is banned, if it isn't on the list it isn't banned.

Not sure what the big issue with definitions is.
 
gerryh
+1
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

If the weapon is on the list it is banned, if it isn't on the list it isn't banned.
Not sure what the big issue with definitions is.

So, in other words you have no idea. You just kiss Trudeau's ass and say thank you master.
 
Jinentonix
+3
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

When a Rolls is used to KILL others en mass , then yes...it should be banned too.

Sooo like the cargo van that was used to run a bunch of people down in Toronto the other year? No more cargo vans, they need to be banned because a cargo van was used to kill people en masse.
 
petros
+3
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

As I understand it....the weapons banned are for military use ..Why should any civilian carry such a weapon??

Assault Style


They are banning a look moreso than function.

A hunting rifle isnt scary until you put a plastic or wire folding stock and a plastic fore handle with rubber palm grips on it. Then its stylized after a real assault rifle but is just a dressed up hunting rifle and not an assault rifle.

You agree with a ban on things you know nothing about.

Is that democratic of you?
 
Jinentonix
+3
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

So, in other words you have no idea. You just kiss Trudeau's ass and say thank you master.

That's pretty much his go-to position. If his god says it must be so, then so it must be so according to the gospel of Hoid. No questions will be entertained, nor will there be any serious attempt to actually discuss the issue.


I mean, so far the ONLY "argument" the leftists have come up with for banning even more semi-automatic rifles is, "Nobody needs to own a semi-automatic rifle". Which is pretty much the stupidest, emptiest argument they could come up with.
 
Jinentonix
+5
#107
Here OB, which of these is the "assault rifle"? Nobody else answer, most of you know already.


 
B00Mer
+2
#108
If anyone read the laws, if you already own one of this guns you're grandfathered in.. You can keep it.

You can't buy a new one.

You can however smuggle it across the line, which most criminals do anyhow, the same as they do in Mexico.

So again this law does nothing to protect the people, just a feel good bandaid to make them feel safe... however they are less safe, because more of your rights have been stripped away.

The only thing I have learned during this COVID-19 pandemic is that people are fukking stupid, and I really don't want to associate with that many anymore..



Hopefully the next virus will do the job right..

But I'm going to become a pepper and buy land far away from people, make the place self sufficient and stocked with food, guns, ammo and of course lots of TP

https://youtu.be/dyCg5z6ri4c
Last edited by B00Mer; May 3rd, 2020 at 07:03 AM..
 
B00Mer
+1
#109
Why is Bill Gates building underground shelters.

https://youtu.be/qw1uB_q9Uw0
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

it is not up to us to make such JUDGMENTS......... People are people. The law looks after the criminal components of this.

Yes it is up to us to make the judgement, and it is up to our elected officials to vote in parliament for us in their constituency.

The laws are in place to circumvent actions like the NS shooter, just need to follow up on them.

The new ban isn't about making society safer, it's about the appearance of being tough on firearms to make flashy headlines around the world to get their vote for Tator tot's bid for the UN seat.
 
DaSleeper
+4
#111
The problem with Liberals is that it's all about the collective, group think, and individual rights be damned!
They are too easily assimilated!
 
Mowich
+1
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

When a Rolls is used to KILL others en mass , then yes...it should be banned too.


A van was used to kill people in TO - still no ban on vans.
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

I'll need to check and see if my Toaster (it's pretty high tech) is on Trudeau's new Banned List. I might not have been a Criminal yesterday morning and suddenly have become one tonight unless I surrender my Toaster for $0.15 on the Dollar in a buy-back program.

I think the Toaster is safe hopefully (it's chrome), but I'm concerned about my Coffee Maker at this point (it does have the Black 'high capacity' pot that makes 14 cups at a time with a comfy hand grip). It might very well be a "Military Grade Assault-Style Fully-Automatic Coffee Maker" and thus have snuck onto the Trudeau 'Order in Council' to bypass Parliament banned list.


 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

So, in other words you have no idea. You just kiss Trudeau's ass and say thank you master.


That's what he does best.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

When a Rolls is used to KILL others en mass , then yes...it should be banned too.

Do you find it interesting that FN are exempt due to sustenance hunting rights, but licensed hunters are not?

Also isn't it interesting that a large percentage of FN youth are in gangs and would fall within the exemption, while law abiding citizens do not?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Thanks.
Truth be told.....I am not really interested in guns and all that they entail. I have seen enough of the damage they do in ER..........and given that I am humanity oriented..... , my views about guns are what they are. Personally.....I want NO part of them.
If the info I had about those assault rifles was wrong......... then I have to re consider my sources.and I stand corrected.

A primer, then.

Automatic fire is when the gun continues to fire, at a rate of about 10 shots per second, as long as you hold down the trigger, i.e., what most people think of as "machine gun."

Semi-automatic fire is one shot each time you pull the trigger. If you pull it as fast as you can, you'll get maybe 4 or 5 shots per second (won't hit much).

The "assault weapons" you see in the press and on TV are generally military designs made without the automatic fire option.

I'd say it's generally agreed that there is no practical civilian use for automatic fire. The argument over "assault weapons" is about capacity. Most assault rifles come standard with detachable magazines that hold 20-30 shots and can be replaced in a couple of seconds, and 50-75 shot "drums" are available for most models.

I have argued that there could be some beneficial effect from banning weapons that can accept a "detachable box magazine," i.e., the famous "clip" that allows "assault rifles (and some non-assault rifles" to be reloaded so quickly. It would also reduce the rate of fire of "automatic pistols" (confusingly enough, "automatic" in pistols means the same thing as "semi-automatic" in rifles). In other words, limiting civilians to weapons that can fire up to 10 shots (the number varies between 5 and 10) and take 5-20 seconds to reload. Slowing the rate of fire gives the potential victim, either of an individual shooting or a mass shooting, a better chance to flee or attack the shooter. Limiting capacity also favors the better shooter, if both are armed, in other words the "law-abiding citizen" who spends time at the range practicing, over the stereotypical gang banger.

As far as I'm concerned, the only "gun control" that would have meaningful effect (and would by no means reduce gun killings to, or anywhere near, zero) would be to ban the high-capacity weapons, leaving "law-abiding citizens" with revolvers and various types of rifles, including all of the semi-automatic "battle rifles" of WWII, hunting rifles (most of which are what we call "bolt action,") and lever-action rifles (the classic cowboy rifles). The latter two categories require an action, usually taking several seconds (though an expert can cut that to one second) after firing to ready the gun to fire again. That and limiting the amount of ammunition one can possess could have some beneficial effect. Whether or not it is worth it is open to debate, however, I am willing to state categorically that there is no legitimate civilian use for a weapon that fires more than ten shots without reloading.

As a friend of mine who loves revolvers says "If you need more than six shots, you need more than a handgun." Or as I sometimes put it "If you've fired six shots and you still have a problem, you need to put the gun down because you're a lousy shot."
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; May 3rd, 2020 at 01:18 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Here OB, which of these is the "assault rifle"? Nobody else answer, most of you know already.

Sneaky. And unfair, leaving the clip out of the classic Ruger.
 
DaSleeper
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

A primer, then.

Automatic fire is when the gun continues to fire, at a rate of about 10 shot per second, as long as you hold down the trigger, i.e., what most people think of as "machine gun."

Semi-automatic fire is one shot each time you pull the trigger. If you pull it as fast as you can, you'll get maybe 4 or 5 shots per second (won't hit much).

The "assault weapons" you see in the press and on TV are generally military designs made without the automatic fire option.

I'd say it's generally agreed that there is no practical civilian use for automatic fire. The argument over "assault weapons" is about capacity. Most assault rifles come standard with detachable magazines that hold 20-30 shots and can be replaced in a couple of seconds, and 50-75 shot "drums" are available for most models.

I have argued that there could be some beneficial effect from banning weapons that can accept a "detachable box magazine," i.e., the famous "clip" that allows "assault rifles (and some non-assault rifles" to be reloaded so quickly. It would also reduce the rate of fire of "automatic pistols" (confusingly enough, "automatic" in pistols means the same thing as "semi-automatic" in rifles). In other words, limiting civilians to weapons that can fire up to 10 shots (the number varies between 5 and 10) and take 5-20 seconds to reload. Slowing the rate of fire gives the potential victim, either of an individual shooting or a mass shooting, a better chance to flee or attack the shooter. Limiting capacity also favors the better shooter, if both are armed, in other words the "law-abiding citizen" who spends time at the range practicing, over the stereotypical gang banger.

As far as I'm concerned, the only "gun control" that would have meaningful effect (and would by no means reduce gun killings to, or anywhere near, zero) would be to ban the high-capacity weapons, leaving "law-abiding citizens" with revolvers and various types of rifles, including all of the semi-automatic "battle rifles" of WWII, hunting rifles (most of which are what we call "bolt action,") and lever-action rifles (the classic cowboy rifles). The latter two categories require an action, usually taking several seconds (though an expert can cut that to one second) after firing to ready the gun to fire again. That and limiting the amount of ammunition one can possess could have some beneficial effect. Whether or not it is worth it is open to debate, however, I am willing to state categorically that there is no legitimate civilian use for a weapon that fires more than ten shots without reloading.

As a friend of mine who loves revolvers says "If you need more than six shots, you need more than a handgun." Or as I sometimes put it "If you've fired six shots and you still have a problem, you need to put the gun down because you're a lousy shot."

Great firearm category description..
As for the part I highlighted It reminds me of the time when I was young, when I asked my dad when he had come home from hunting with a moose in the back of his pick-up " "How many shots did it take??
His answer......"There was only one moose!"
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Great firearm category description..

I gave her as much as I figured a non-gunner could usefully take in at one sitting. I'm anticipating plenty of quibbles.

Quote:

As for the part I highlighted It reminds me of the time when I was young, when I asked my dad when he had come home from hunting with a moose in the back of his pick-up " "How many shots did it take??
His answer......"There was only one moose!"

I miss men like your dad. Seems to be fewer of 'em these days.
 
petros
+2
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

If anyone read the laws, if you already own one of this guns you're grandfathered in.. You can keep it.

No. You gotta turn it in within 2 years.

This bitch is the granddaughter in a string of a single mom crack whores.

There is no grandfather in the picture.
 

Similar Threads

314
It's time to ban assault weapons in the U.S.
by mentalfloss | Jun 24th, 2016