Assault Style Weapons Prohibited In CDA


Twin_Moose
+2
#151
Will this cement Justin's bid for a Human rights seat at the UN?
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
Jinentonix
+3
#152
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

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

And "BOOM" goes the dynamite.
 
petros
+5
#153
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Will this cement Justin's bid for a Human rights seat at the UN?

How did the UN and human rights end up in the same sentence? That's funny.
 
Hoid
#154
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Matt Gurney: The Liberals' useless 'assault weapons' ban
[CENTER][SIZE=4][B]The Liberals have 'banned' some guns, ignored a bunch of other comparable ones and called it a day. ]


lol

this is only a precursor to banning handguns.
 
gerryh
+2
#155
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

lol
this is only a precursor to banning handguns.

And what good would that do
 
Hoid
#156
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

And what good would that do

It would make the claim that the Liberals have "called it a day" on gun control untrue.

Isn't that obvious?
 
gerryh
+2
#157
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

It would make the claim that the Liberals have "called it a day" on gun control untrue.
Isn't that obvious?

What good would it do for the safety of Canadians.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#158
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

What good would it do for the safety of Canadians.

It would help to reduce the number of homicides committed by "law-abiding Canadians" who own their guns legally.

If it saves JUST ONE LIFE. . .
 
Hoid
#159
The theory is that is would help to reduce the overall number of guns available with which to commit a crime.

I know this is like quantum physics for you.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#160
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The theory is that is would help to reduce the overall number of guns available with which to commit a crime.
I know this is like quantum physics for you.

Well, it's not like you have a 4000-mile unsecured border with a country where you can buy guns at 7-Eleven or anything.
 
petros
+2
#161
Try crossing between Buttf-ck Montana and Taintrub Saskatchewan. Best wrap yourself in mylar.
 
gerryh
+4
#162
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The theory is that is would help to reduce the overall number of guns available with which to commit a crime.
I know this is like quantum physics for you.

It won't. Even your mighty liberals have admited it won't. All the studies done have said it won't. The guns used by criminals are smuggled across the border from the u.s.

So, try again. Dont bother quoting trudeau as he doesnt know the difference between an ar15 and a remington 783.
 
Hoid
#163
Whether it does or it doesn't is not the point.

The government can no longer tax these things or allow their sale.

The Canadian people have been quite clear on this point.
 
B00Mer
#164
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

F I F Y
What trudeau did was not democratic....


Prove it in court, sue Trudeau and the government saying it was unconditional

Start a gofund me page to pay your team of lawyers
 
B00Mer
+5
#165
 
taxslave
+4
#166
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Will this cement Justin's bid for a Human rights seat at the UN?

I thought genocide or at least mass murder is a prerequisite for that seat.
 
taxslave
+2
#167
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Whether it does or it doesn't is not the point.
The government can no longer tax these things or allow their sale.
The Canadian people have been quite clear on this point.

Do you have to show your stupidity in every single post? You have already won idiot of the year award.
 
Hoid
#168
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

I thought genocide or at least mass murder is a prerequisite for that seat.

Because America has one?
 
pgs
+2
#169
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Well, it's not like you have a 4000-mile unsecured border with a country where you can buy guns at 7-Eleven or anything.

And the ten mile stretch of that border that I drive on a fairly regular basis has virtually no Canadian police or CBSA presence , unlike our American counterparts .
 
Hoid
#170
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

And the ten mile stretch of that border that I drive on a fairly regular basis has virtually no Canadian police or CBSA presence , unlike our American counterparts .

Is this near where you do your surveillance of the Somali street gangs?
 
Girth
#171
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Is this near where you do your surveillance of the Somali street gangs?

I never knew pgs was in law enforcement.
 
Girth
+2
#172
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Whether it does or it doesn't is not the point.
The government can no longer tax these things or allow their sale.
The Canadian people have been quite clear on this point.

Yes, they certainly have:

 
petros
+3
#173


Assault style slingshot.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#174
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

Yes, they certainly have:

He means the IMPORTANT people.
 
taxslave
+4
#175
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

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.

That's why I get to keep my AR15s. This has been the traditional means of hunting by my people for at least a decade. My neighbor says his AR15 self identified as a weed eater so it doesn't even need to be registered.
 
pgs
#176
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Is this near where you do your surveillance of the Somali street gangs?

Are there Somali street gangs ?
 
pgs
#177
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

I never knew pgs was in law enforcement.

Did I suggest I was ?
 
Jinentonix
+2
#178
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

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."

Rifles can be dangerous? The hell you say.
 
Jinentonix
+4
#179
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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

Yeah no kidding. I had NO idea that semi-automatic rifles were a part of their traditional hunting methods. In fact, if I recall my history correctly, it was the White man, who can no longer buy those rifles, who introduced firearms to the First Nations people, who can still by those rifles.


So, to sum up, Team Groper is so fecking stupid they state that hunters don't use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, (even though they do) and then exempt the First Nations from the ban because they use/need semi-automatic rifles for hunting.
 
Jinentonix
+4
#180
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The theory is that is would help to reduce the overall number of guns available with which to commit a crime.

I know this is like quantum physics for you.

Is that similar to the theory that budgets balance themselves, or that economies are grown from the heart, outward?


Does the idiot theory include a model that takes into account the variables known as the Akwesasne reserve and the roughly 4000 miles of undefended border we share with a nation that's the largest producer of recreational firearms on the planet?
 

Similar Threads

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