Assault Style Weapons Prohibited In CDA


Hoid
#121
Here is the list: https://www.scribd.com/document/4593...uns#from_embed

No need to speculate or wonder.

If the gun is on the list it's banned.

If it isn't on the list, it isn't banned. Yet.
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
gerryh
+4
#122
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Here is the list: https://www.scribd.com/document/4593...uns#from_embed
No need to speculate or wonder.
If the gun is on the list it's banned.
If it isn't on the list, it isn't banned. Yet.

Still not answering the question.

Here's another one. Why is a website banned and a locksmith?
 
Hoid
#123
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Still not answering the question.

Here's another one. Why is a website banned and a locksmith?

Have answered many times:

1) if the gun is on the list it has met whatever criteria they want to use and is banned

2) if the gun is not on the list it has not met whatever criteria they want to use and is not banned.

I don't know what the exact criteria is and I don't care; I am like the vast majority of Canadoians and support the removal of these dangerous and ridiculous things from our society.
 
gerryh
+3
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Have answered many times:
1) if the gun is on the list it has met whatever criteria they want to use and is banned
2) if the gun is not on the list it has not met whatever criteria they want to use and is not banned.
I don't know what the exact criteria is and I don't care; I am like the vast majority of Canadoians and support the removal of these dangerous and ridiculous things from our society.

Roflmfao, so you admit your ignorance, you admit that you dont care, and yet you have an opinion of something being ridiculous and dangerous.

What it comes down to is that you are a brainless twat that can't think for himself and allows politicians to think for him and allows them to tell him what to do and not do. Sounds to me like you would be happier in china or russia.
 
Hoid
#125
You are an angry person who comes here to vent because the real world shuns you and your ridiculous beliefs.
 
gerryh
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You are an angry person who comes here to vent because the real world shuns you and your ridiculous beliefs.

Still can't answer the questions I see. Are your masters not supplying you with the answers?
 
Hoid
#127
The vast majority of Canadians support the assault-style weapons ban.

Only a miniscule percentage of Canadians own one of these ridiculous weapons.

To me and to most Canadians this ban is too little too late.

How Canadian government after Canadian government could accept tax revenue from the sale of ridiculous things is beyond comprehension.
 
pgs
+2
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Still not answering the question.

Here's another one. Why is a website banned and a locksmith?

Because it is on the list . Are you daft , the list man .
 
petros
+5
#129
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Still not answering the question.
Here's another one. Why is a website banned and a locksmith?

Blatant fascist overreaching?
 
petros
+3
#130
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The vast majority of Canadians support the assault-style weapons ban.
Only a miniscule percentage of Canadians own one of these ridiculous weapons.
To me and to most Canadians this ban is too little too late.
How Canadian government after Canadian government could accept tax revenue from the sale of ridiculous things is beyond comprehension.

So why are they banning wooden stock hunting rifles?
 
pgs
+3
#131
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So why are they banning wooden stock hunting rifles?

They are on the list . Come on the list . Luckily I have identified as a Canadian on the last three censuses so qualify as almost First Nation and identify as such .
 
Jinentonix
+6
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Have answered many times:

1) if the gun is on the list it has met whatever criteria they want to use and is banned

2) if the gun is not on the list it has not met whatever criteria they want to use and is not banned.

I don't know what the exact criteria is and I don't care; I am like the vast majority of Canadoians and support the removal of these dangerous and ridiculous things from our society.

That's rich coming from a twit who was yammering on about how Teslas can do 0-60 in under 3 seconds.


Less than 65 deaths dude. That's Canada's WORST year for homicide by semi-automatic rifle. You want to spend $600 million on fewer than 65 deaths a year? Well, let's make that less than 37 since half the homicides in Canada are gang-related so we can assume that around half the homicides by semi-automatic rifle are also gang related. And no gun laws will reduce that rate.



By comparison, more pedestrians are run down in Toronto every year than the number of people who are shot by someone with a semi-automatic rifle in a non-gang-related homicide. So to sum up, my Ruger Mini-14 is a dangerous and ridiculous thing but a 0-60 Tesla in a country where pedestrian deaths FAR exceed the deaths by semi-automatic rifle is just the cat's ass because it's 'lectric.


Do you really care about the deaths or just the method that caused them?
 
pgs
+1
#133
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

That's rich coming from a twit who was yammering on about how Teslas can do 0-60 in under 3 seconds.


Less than 65 deaths dude. That's Canada's WORST year for homicide by semi-automatic rifle. You want to spend $600 million on fewer than 65 deaths a year? Well, let's make that less than 37 since half the homicides in Canada are gang-related so we can assume that around half the homicides by semi-automatic rifle are also gang related. And no gun laws will reduce that rate.



By comparison, more pedestrians are run down in Toronto every year than the number of people who are shot by someone with a semi-automatic rifle in a non-gang-related homicide. So to sum up, my Ruger Mini-14 is a dangerous and ridiculous thing but a 0-60 Tesla in a country where pedestrian deaths FAR exceed the deaths by semi-automatic rifle is just the cat's ass because it's 'lectric.


Do you really care about the deaths or just the method that caused them?

The later , obviously Tesla is not on the list , get with the program you imbecile.
 
Jinentonix
+4
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

The later , obviously Tesla is not on the list , get with the program you imbecile.

Good thing the .50 BMG isn't on the list.



Which is why the ban is f*cking stupid. If you're going to ban semi-automatic rifles, then ban ALL of them. Omg, we need to ban the Ruger Mini-14 because some quasi-muslim shot up a nursing college over 30 years ago but a semi-auto rifle that can blow holes in people the size of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel from 2 miles way? Meh, no biggie. Nobody's done it yet.
 
Jinentonix
+1
#135
Quote:

leaving "law-abiding citizens" with revolvers and various types of rifles, including all of the semi-automatic "battle rifles" of WWII

Yeah, something like the M1 Garand which only has an 8 rnd capacity plus the added risk of losing a piece of your thumb on reload. Fantastic rifle though. Powerful and accurate out to a pretty damn good distance too.
 
pgs
+1
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Good thing the .50 BMG isn't on the list.



Which is why the ban is f*cking stupid. If you're going to ban semi-automatic rifles, then ban ALL of them. Omg, we need to ban the Ruger Mini-14 because some quasi-muslim shot up a nursing college over 30 years ago but a semi-auto rifle that can blow holes in people the size of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel from 2 miles way? Meh, no biggie. Nobody's done it yet.

Those guns are far to loud .
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Yeah, something like the M1 Garand which only has an 8 rnd capacity plus the added risk of losing a piece of your thumb on reload. Fantastic rifle though. Powerful and accurate out to a pretty damn good distance too.

Or the SKS, or any of a large number of other semi-autos with fixed magazines.

You seem to be arguing that a rifle can be dangerous, to which I can only respond "Yeah, that's kinda the point."
 
taxslave
+2
#138
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.

Well there goes airplanes.
 
taxslave
+3
#139
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 why is a locksmith banned? Seems like discrimination banning just one locksmith.
 
taxslave
+5
#140
Even better question is why are Indians exempt from the ban?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

So why is a locksmith banned? Seems like discrimination banning just one locksmith.

Locks don't kill people. Locksmiths kill people.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#142
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Even better question is why are Indians exempt from the ban?

Didn't you know? We're all deeply spiritual beings, one with Mother Earth and Father Sky. Hey-yah hey-yah hey-nah nah-nah-nah.
 
B00Mer
+2
#143
When Canada gets a real government in Ottawa, all this will be walked back..

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...canada-444750/
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#144
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

When Canada gets a real government in Ottawa, all this will be walked back..
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...canada-444750/

Wouldn't bet the rent on that, Boom. New governments tend to focus mostly on their shiny new agenda, not on undoing what the last one did.

Ain't saying it can't happen, just don't bet cash on it.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

When Canada gets a real "democratic" government in Ottawa, all this will be walked back..

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...canada-444750/


F I F Y
What trudeau did was not democratic....
Last edited by DaSleeper; May 4th, 2020 at 09:43 AM..
 
DaSleeper
+2
#146
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Wouldn't bet the rent on that, Boom. New governments tend to focus mostly on their shiny new agenda, not on undoing what the last one did.

Ain't saying it can't happen, just don't bet cash on it.

Didn't Harper get rid of the long gun registry?


https://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/16/fire...-gun-registry/
 
Dixie Cup
+4
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

When Canada gets a real government in Ottawa, all this will be walked back..

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...canada-444750/



I would like to know how many "civilians" have these guns? What type of weapon was used in N.S.? So apparently for the government, the "few" people who have these guns (and have never used them illegally) will have to give them up. All for "show" - but the government is "doing" something. But the killings will continue until prosecutors actually start prosecuting these guys and the government brings back the extra penalties for using a gun to begin with.


I may stand to be corrected but I recall a previous government (Conservatives ??) attaching extra penalties for the use of a gun illegally and the Liberals "walked" it back because they deemed it "unfair" or some such nonsense. We need to bring that law back and ensure that it is rigorously applied so that there is no doubt - if caught using a gun for anything illegal, that would guarantee an extra 10 years or so plus whatever penalty is applied for whatever else the individual did that was illegal activity. It should NOT be something that can be bargained away - in fact it should be illegal for any defense to "bargain" away the extra penalty. But maybe I'm a meanie LOL
 
Mowich
+3
#148
Matt Gurney: The Liberals' useless 'assault weapons' ban

The Liberals have 'banned' some guns, ignored a bunch of other comparable ones and called it a day. This is going to outrage the gun owners and the shooting industry, infuriate the anti-gun activists and do little else

The crackdown on legal firearms ownership, which was announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on May 1, is another shining moment in the long history of dysfunctional Canadian gun control proposals. It will accomplish nothing in particular, but will come at considerable public expense. It will not improve public safety, nor will it will please either side of this contentious debate.

What it will do is give both Liberals and Conservatives an opportunity to fundraise off the issue — one could be forgiven for wondering if that’s literally the only point to any of this. So, again: a textbook example of Canadian gun control politics.

The government announced that it is “banning“ 1,500 different kinds of “assault weapons.” That sounds impressive. It’s not — not a ban, and not impressive. It’s really 11 types of rifles, each with many, many different versions produced by different manufacturers — that’s where the 1,500 figure comes from. None of the weapons are a true military-type rifle, capable of fully automatic fire or equipped with high-capacity magazines, which have been banned in Canada for decades. The list is really a grab bag of fairly mundane semi-automatic rifles. It’s hardly an exhaustive list — many other comparable rifles were unaffected by the announcement. The only real thing that binds these rifles together is a link to prominent mass shootings (and even that isn’t the case for all of them).

It certainly won’t improve public safety, which is the theoretical justification for all of this. Gun owners will be given two years to choose what to do with their rifles (selling them back to the government, at public expense, is an option, and if everyone chose to do that, it could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions). But the Liberals also say they’ll let existing owners keep their firearms — a so-called “grandfathering” of the thousands of Canadians who already own these rifles. This is similar to the previous big 1990s-era revamp of Canadian gun laws under then-prime minister Jean Chrétien — thousands of “banned” guns were left in the hands of their owners, where many of them remain today, even as sales were stopped.

How can one claim a gun must be banned in the interests of public safety while also granting that the current owners of those very guns are not a threat to public safety, so they can keep them without risk to society? It’s inherently contradictory.

And it’s not the only failure in the Liberals’ logic here. In one bizarre moment at the Friday press conference, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair breezily declared that the “banned” rifles are not used for hunting, shortly before Justice Minister David Lametti announced that there would be exemptions from the ban for some Indigenous communities, where the rifles are needed for … hunting. So that was odd. But these individual glitches in the Liberal brain trust obscure the broader problem with all their bluster: this is now the third time in a row that, despite their huffing and puffing, the Liberals have admitted that lawful Canadian gun owners are not a threat to public safety, and that our current gun control laws are working.

That’s not what they say, of course. But it’s what they do. First, there was Bill C-71, a piece of legislation from Trudeau’s first term. The Liberals, to their credit, did their homework on that one. They spent years crafting it, sought expert advice, went through all the usual committees and eventually rolled out a piece of legislation that … changed very little. Yes, there were some changes to the existing laws contained in Bill C-71 — some good, some bad. But it was a surprisingly modest effort, and the Liberals then dragged their feet on implementing it. Despite the soaring rhetoric about public safety, it was an admission that the status quo was working — why else would they study the issue in great detail, announce only minor changes and then basically forget about it?

The next admission came directly from the lips of Bill Blair. After months of studying the possibility of a handgun ban, the Liberals decided one wasn’t necessary. Blair told the Globe and Mail last June that a handgun ban “would be potentially a very expensive proposition … it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border.” The Liberals may give more powers to cities to restrict the storage of firearms within city limits, but a national ban? It wouldn’t help, as even the Liberals now admit.

And now this — a “ban” that targets some rifles but not other comparable ones, and doesn’t really even ban those.

This will let the Liberals declare that they’ve done something, and it’ll no doubt feature prominently in their next fundraising email blast.

But read between the lines of all these bills and proposals and you’ll see the truth: the Liberals know that lawful Canadian gun owners aren’t a problem, but they’ll use them as a convenient money-filled pinata every time the party’s coffers run low, with the public picking up the tab.

It makes for great political theatre. But let’s be clear what it is: this isn’t policy; it’s politics — at your expense.

nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-the-liberals-useless-assault-weapons-ban
 
petros
+3
#149
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Even better question is why are Indians exempt from the ban?

Because its racist.
 
petros
+2
#150
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Matt Gurney: The Liberals' useless 'assault weapons' ban

We are in the midst of a social experiment. We've seen this before but will the reaction be the same as last time?
 

Similar Threads

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