Liberals hope to ban firearms used in Polytechnique, Dawson
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Freakinoldguy @ Sun May 03, 2020 1:08 pm
herbie herbie:
Take the poll anywhere you want, anytime.
Take it in ANY city north of the border, the numbers will be even worse for your case.
Take it in the most rural area. Most still won't give a shit about it.
As I told a nephew us rural types have hunting rifles that LOOK like hunting rifles and WORK as hunting rifles. Just like our 4x4s are dirty and full of dents, not decked with truck nuts and 22" chrome wheels. Their fucking tools, not status symbols.
If they're designed off the drawing board to kill people like assault rifles and handguns, you got very little support behind you.
Take it in ANY city north of the border, the numbers will be even worse for your case.
Take it in the most rural area. Most still won't give a shit about it.
As I told a nephew us rural types have hunting rifles that LOOK like hunting rifles and WORK as hunting rifles. Just like our 4x4s are dirty and full of dents, not decked with truck nuts and 22" chrome wheels. Their fucking tools, not status symbols.
If they're designed off the drawing board to kill people like assault rifles and handguns, you got very little support behind you.
Of course people don't think Canadian civilians should have "assault" rifles. But the poll wasn't asked about all semi automatic rifles or shotguns, just assault rifles.
screenshotAtUploadCC_1588534697193.png [ 63.61 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
http://angusreid.org/assault-weapons-ban/
So the question becomes what constitutes an assault rifle and the Liberal gov't description is totally different than the military or the gun manufacturers?
$1:
Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle
So if you went and redid the poll and excluded the term "assault rifle" and included the term every firearm not held by the police or military, my guess is that the result would be alot different. I'd also be very interested to see where they took the majority of this poll because places like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would skew the results dramatically.
Here are a few more results from the Angus Reid poll.
screenshotAtUploadCC_1588534697193 1.png [ 34 KiB | Viewed 1248 times ]
http://angusreid.org/assault-weapons-ban/
Not exactly the 4 out of 5 that some people are claiming and the reason for that is that the poll used the term "assault rifle" incorrectly using fear and a ignorance to get a predetermined result.
So, if that doesn't piss you off maybe how this firearm arm confiscation was conducted should. Because, how it was done is a classic work of art by an agenda driven gov't. First blur the line between an actual assault rifle and all rifles so, you can include any shoulder controlled, magazine fed, semi automatic, rifle in your gun grab.
An act which is just about as unethical as using a world wide disaster to find a loophole in parliamentary law and push through your anti gun agenda by ensuring the legally elected officials of your country have no chance to debate or even attempt to stop it.
BeaverFever @ Sun May 03, 2020 1:23 pm
Thanos Thanos:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
All I hear is a lot of wah wah nonsense and straw man arguments. Farmers and gun enthusiasts still have a wide variety of firearms available to them for their needs/hobbies.
Ending racial profiling street checks has nothing to do with this.
The weapons available to police officers has nothing to do with this.
Bother are Red Herring bullishit.
Ending racial profiling street checks has nothing to do with this.
The weapons available to police officers has nothing to do with this.
Bother are Red Herring bullishit.
No, they're all completely relevant to the anti-firearm liberals and leftists in this country consistently blaming someone else for the rises in violent crime that their own policies have created. Attacking your own police forces for the sake of "social justice" results in a rise in crime. Attacking collectors or rural people or hunters who use firearms does nothing at all to reduce crimes.
If the response to the Nova Scotia massacre had been the total ban on private citizens being able to acquire police uniforms or have replicas of police vehicles then you'd probably have total support. Instead your side once again go after one of your easiest targets to bash, and once again make the innocent into criminals simply for possessing a piece of equipment that liberals personally don't like. They're under no justification either to provide any sort of reason to you why they own it. It's none of your business for as long as they don't harm anyone else with it. That's what anti-gun liberals hate the most, that some simply won't tolerate the micromanagement of their own personal lives under the guise of "safety for all". Your city won't be made the slightest bit safer by these bans, you know it, but it doesn't matter because once again you've won another ideological victory and to hell with the actual real-world evidence that will show you nothing will change at all through your harassment of those who were of no harm at all to you or to anyone else.
Its a bullshit claim that liberal policies are responsible for a rise in crime. That’s just a made-up claim with no basis.
Also this new gun control measure was part if their election campaign and the bill had already been on the 2020 parliamentary agenda before the Nova Scotia shooting.
And I said before collectors and farmers still have thousands of guns to legally choose from, they’ll be just fine. I don’t know if this will really make anything safer but I don’t see the harm. Some collectors’ hobby being slightly affected is not really a concern anyone needs to worry about.
herbie @ Sun May 03, 2020 2:24 pm
$1:
Of course people don't think Canadian civilians should have "assault" rifles. But the poll wasn't asked about all semi automatic rifles or shotguns, just assault rifles.
And the ban isn't about those either. What's your point?
N_Fiddledog @ Sun May 03, 2020 2:46 pm
Premiers tee off on Trudeau's gun ban
$1:
Several of Canada’s premiers aren’t reacting well to the federal government’s gun ban announcement, saying it doesn’t do anything to combat gun crime and the vast money being promised by the Trudeau government could have been better spent elsewhere.
“I’ve made it my mission to target the thugs and the low-lifes that are out there terrorizing innocent people,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on Saturday. “As law enforcement experts have highlighted time and time again, the only way to truly tackle gun violence is to crack down on the illegal guns being smuggled in daily at our borders.”
Ford was clearly frustrated with the Trudeau government’s plan to spend $600 million or more to purchase guns that were made illegal by a cabinet decree on Friday and will be purchased by the government over the next two years. He said it made no sense, a sentiment shared by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.
“Ottawa is singling out law-abiding Canadians who purchased their property legally, have owned these items safely for years, and who have committed no crimes,” Kenney said in a statement.
“We know that the overwhelming majority of firearms used criminally in Canada are smuggled in illegally from the United States. Instead of addressing this, Ottawa will instead spend vast sums of money to criminalize law-abiding Canadians. That money would be far better used to pursue the smugglers and drug gangs that plague our society,” added Kenney.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe joined the chorus of disappointment.
“I am extremely disappointed by (Friday’s) announcement by the federal government of a firearms ban that only serves to penalize law-abiding gun owners,” Moe said.
The Trudeau government previously announced $327 million over five years to combat guns and gangs with some of that money going to provincial or municipal programs while other funding goes towards national programs.
The decision to spend $600 million to pay legal and licenced gun owners to hand over their rifles — rifles never used in crimes — means that the Trudeau government has decided to spend almost double on disarming law-abiding gun owners as they will combatting the real problem of guns and gangs.
As for the border, the feds are only promising $86 million over five years, or $17 million a year, to fight back at what every police chief in Canada will tell you is the No. 1 source of crime guns.
The other problem with Trudeau’s actions is that he has banned hundreds of rifles never used in a crime in Canada but has left handguns alone. The guns favoured by criminals are smuggled American handguns, preferably stripped of serial numbers.
It’s easier to hide a small pistol than an AR-15.
None of this matters to the prime minister, he made it clear with his language and actions that he wants to be seen doing something – whether it helps or not.
At his announcement Trudeau referred to the rifles being banned time and again as “military grade assault weapons.” It’s an invented term that has no legal definition.
“I’ve made it my mission to target the thugs and the low-lifes that are out there terrorizing innocent people,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on Saturday. “As law enforcement experts have highlighted time and time again, the only way to truly tackle gun violence is to crack down on the illegal guns being smuggled in daily at our borders.”
Ford was clearly frustrated with the Trudeau government’s plan to spend $600 million or more to purchase guns that were made illegal by a cabinet decree on Friday and will be purchased by the government over the next two years. He said it made no sense, a sentiment shared by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.
“Ottawa is singling out law-abiding Canadians who purchased their property legally, have owned these items safely for years, and who have committed no crimes,” Kenney said in a statement.
“We know that the overwhelming majority of firearms used criminally in Canada are smuggled in illegally from the United States. Instead of addressing this, Ottawa will instead spend vast sums of money to criminalize law-abiding Canadians. That money would be far better used to pursue the smugglers and drug gangs that plague our society,” added Kenney.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe joined the chorus of disappointment.
“I am extremely disappointed by (Friday’s) announcement by the federal government of a firearms ban that only serves to penalize law-abiding gun owners,” Moe said.
The Trudeau government previously announced $327 million over five years to combat guns and gangs with some of that money going to provincial or municipal programs while other funding goes towards national programs.
The decision to spend $600 million to pay legal and licenced gun owners to hand over their rifles — rifles never used in crimes — means that the Trudeau government has decided to spend almost double on disarming law-abiding gun owners as they will combatting the real problem of guns and gangs.
As for the border, the feds are only promising $86 million over five years, or $17 million a year, to fight back at what every police chief in Canada will tell you is the No. 1 source of crime guns.
The other problem with Trudeau’s actions is that he has banned hundreds of rifles never used in a crime in Canada but has left handguns alone. The guns favoured by criminals are smuggled American handguns, preferably stripped of serial numbers.
It’s easier to hide a small pistol than an AR-15.
None of this matters to the prime minister, he made it clear with his language and actions that he wants to be seen doing something – whether it helps or not.
At his announcement Trudeau referred to the rifles being banned time and again as “military grade assault weapons.” It’s an invented term that has no legal definition.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... us-gun-ban
N_Fiddledog @ Sun May 03, 2020 2:50 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Of course people don't think Canadian civilians should have "assault" rifles. But the poll wasn't asked about all semi automatic rifles or shotguns, just assault rifles.
And I wonder if the sort of Canadians who fall over each to vote on polls even have a clue what they mean by "assault rifles."
PluggyRug @ Sun May 03, 2020 3:30 pm
PluggyRug @ Sun May 03, 2020 3:32 pm
Thanos @ Sun May 03, 2020 3:35 pm
Trudeau's probably set the stage for the largest collective breaking of the law in Canadian history because I can't see any of the firearm owners participating in the slightest with the buy-back or hand-over. It'll set the record for the most participants engaging in an act of civil disobedience that this country's ever seen.
MeganC @ Sun May 03, 2020 4:22 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Meanwhile your police agencies will not at all pause as they arm themselves with actual military weapons and transform into an authoritarian paramilitary.
Coincidentally, disarming Canadians will make the job of the paramilitaries easier when they get their orders to do whatever the hell it is you people would never allow if you were armed.
Coincidentally, disarming Canadians will make the job of the paramilitaries easier when they get their orders to do whatever the hell it is you people would never allow if you were armed.
armed civilians don’t prevent government from doing anything in Canada or the US. Or any other country for that matter.That's not true.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch& ... client=img
MeganC @ Sun May 03, 2020 4:26 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Politicians lie?
herbie @ Sun May 03, 2020 5:01 pm
This isn't a US site Megan.
If you walked down the street with a handgun or an assault style gun or someone even saw one through the windows of your car citizens would only be upset if the SWAT team left enough of you to stand trial.
You don't have a right to own a gun here, it's regulated.
The best the people complaining here is that they'll reconsider and take some models off the banned list. Maybe ban modifications of some instead of outright ban on all.
llama66 @ Sun May 03, 2020 6:34 pm
What's an Assault Weapon?
llama66 @ Sun May 03, 2020 6:36 pm
$1:
citizens would only be upset if the SWAT team left enough of you to stand trial.
ERT teams (as they are called in Canada) generally don't shoot the shit out of the accused because they are carrying a firearm. You'd be disarmed and arrested. Stow the hyperbole.
fifeboy @ Sun May 03, 2020 6:49 pm
herbie herbie:
Take the poll anywhere you want, anytime.
Take it in ANY city north of the border, the numbers will be even worse for your case.
Take it in the most rural area. Most still won't give a shit about it.
As I told a nephew us rural types have hunting rifles that LOOK like hunting rifles and WORK as hunting rifles. Just like our 4x4s are dirty and full of dents, not decked with truck nuts and 22" chrome wheels. Their fucking tools, not status symbols.
If they're designed off the drawing board to kill people like assault rifles and handguns, you got very little support behind you.
Take it in ANY city north of the border, the numbers will be even worse for your case.
Take it in the most rural area. Most still won't give a shit about it.
As I told a nephew us rural types have hunting rifles that LOOK like hunting rifles and WORK as hunting rifles. Just like our 4x4s are dirty and full of dents, not decked with truck nuts and 22" chrome wheels. Their fucking tools, not status symbols.
If they're designed off the drawing board to kill people like assault rifles and handguns, you got very little support behind you.
fifeboy @ Sun May 03, 2020 6:57 pm
llama66 llama66:
What's an Assault Weapon?
Good God man, don’t make them show you “THE POSTER!”
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next