Canadian Politics

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah. I’m sure more info will come.  Probably semi automatic too. Hand guns etc.  No guns allowed.  

About freaking time. It cannot come soon enough.

EDIT: I should have exempted those who need long guns for their livelihood- framers, ranchers, trappers and so forth.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Tracker

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Offer toilet paper in return. Fair value.

It kinda helps that weapons such as the AR15 are sold as "military grade assault rifle" in the description

You just have to look south to see what happens when you have an open policy on guns.

For full disclosure. I'm also anti-gun.

Its not just the guns, as the Swiss prove. Its guns plus seething hatred and fear of each other added to a history of glorification of violence and war. In the past 150 years, the US has been involved in more foreign wars than any other nation, and all these wars were extolled as glorious victories.

[The Unknown Poster]

Lol

[blue_gold_84]

2 hours ago, Tiny759 said:

The “AR-15” is just a style of the gun. Canada does not have an open policy on gun. The laws that are in place are actually pretty good. With having different classes for guns, non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. What needs to change is the enforcement of laws. Control at boarders needs to happen to not allow illegal guns to enter. 

Such trivial commentary. First off, it's borders. Second, there are numerous controls at ports of entry meant to stop the flow of illicit goods such as weapons and controlled substances into the country, be it at airports, land border crossings, or commercial points such as rail facilities and highway warehouses. It seems to you fail to realize how skilled and resourceful smugglers and organized criminals are when it comes to finding ways to get those illicit goods into Canada. Law enforcement tends to play from somewhat of a disadvantage, as criminal organizations don't have to play by any set of rules, be it legal or ethical, when it comes their activities.

[pigseye]

27 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Such trivial commentary. First off, it's borders. Second, there are numerous controls at ports of entry meant to stop the flow of illicit goods such as weapons and controlled substances into the country, be it at airports, land border crossings, or commercial points such as rail facilities and highway warehouses. It seems to you fail to realize how skilled and resourceful smugglers and organized criminals are when it comes to finding ways to get those illicit goods into Canada. Law enforcement tends to play from somewhat of a disadvantage, as criminal organizations don't have to play by any set of rules, be it legal or ethical, when it comes their activities.

The recent problem isn't even smuggled weapons, it's greedy people. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/national-gun-trafficking-straw-buying-smuggling-firearms-1.5126228

 

[Tiny759]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Obviously thats not the case and its the same silly argument that erupts in the US.  If they take my tank, my shoulder mounted missile launcher, my grenades, my M-16 and the 10 million rounds of ammo, they'll come for my hunting rifle next.  Thats not an issue in Canada.  But guns are not needed for anything outside of hunting (and Ill defer on the argument of personal protection).  Fortunately, in Canada, we havent wrapped ourselves up in misunderstanding very old amendment into making guns a culture thing.

But yeah, no guns (outside of hunting).  

So here are my thoughts on this, in regards to the grenade launcher and rocket-propelled projectile, I actually do believe those should require an extra class, and not fall under the restricted class. I also believe for them to require a special permit, that would require a justifiable use for them, which would most likely lead to the permit never being authorized. As for the M16, or these “style” of guns, they are very similar to hunting rifles. I’ll go over a few differences. First off the M16 is restricted while the “hunting rifle” is non-restricted. So no you can’t hunt with them. The second difference is the the way they look, the M16 was based off the look of the AR-15. There aren’t many more differences then that. The M16 being cambered in .223 is less then my 7mm or .308. So I do think the liberals should go for it all and say ban all guns, I would have more respect if they were more straight up. As for “needs” who are you to determine what are a persons needs? There are collected, target shooting, competitive. 

[Tiny759]

38 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Such trivial commentary. First off, it's borders. Second, there are numerous controls at ports of entry meant to stop the flow of illicit goods such as weapons and controlled substances into the country, be it at airports, land border crossings, or commercial points such as rail facilities and highway warehouses. It seems to you fail to realize how skilled and resourceful smugglers and organized criminals are when it comes to finding ways to get those illicit goods into Canada. Law enforcement tends to play from somewhat of a disadvantage, as criminal organizations don't have to play by any set of rules, be it legal or ethical, when it comes their activities.

First off, I made a grammar/spelling mistake, sue me. And yes there are controls, but when someone who is not allowed to buy guns in Canada, can go to the states buy a gun and smuggle it in, there has to be a better control system because that shouldn’t be happening. I would say that is the responsibility of both US and Canadian governments. And yes criminals don’t follow laws, that’s why they are criminals. 

[The Unknown Poster]

25 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

So here are my thoughts on this, in regards to the grenade launcher and rocket-propelled projectile, I actually do believe those should require an extra class, and not fall under the restricted class. I also believe for them to require a special permit, that would require a justifiable use for them, which would most likely lead to the permit never being authorized. As for the M16, or these “style” of guns, they are very similar to hunting rifles. I’ll go over a few differences. First off the M16 is restricted while the “hunting rifle” is non-restricted. So no you can’t hunt with them. The second difference is the the way they look, the M16 was based off the look of the AR-15. There aren’t many more differences then that. The M16 being cambered in .223 is less then my 7mm or .308. So I do think the liberals should go for it all and say ban all guns, I would have more respect if they were more straight up. As for “needs” who are you to determine what are a persons needs? There are collected, target shooting, competitive. 

None of those are needs.  

And I disagree that someone should have to apply for a special permit to own a rocket or grenade launcher because they shouldnt have that option.  Period.

I generally am defensive of collectors but let's be real.  It's not a need.  Its something I'd be willing to support in the US because of their insane gun culture but even then, collectors can can weapons pre 1900-ish (I cant remember the exact date).   Collecting AR-15's and whatnot...come on.  No need.  It might be a want.  But there are plenty of "wants" that are banned by law.

So, I dont have an issue with this at all and I dont think its a case of they should go further.  I think the Liberals (who I did not vote for and everyone here knows how I feel about them) have been pretty forthright on it.

[Tiny759]

7 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

None of those are needs.  

And I disagree that someone should have to apply for a special permit to own a rocket or grenade launcher because they shouldnt have that option.  Period.

I generally am defensive of collectors but let's be real.  It's not a need.  Its something I'd be willing to support in the US because of their insane gun culture but even then, collectors can can weapons pre 1900-ish (I cant remember the exact date).   Collecting AR-15's and whatnot...come on.  No need.  It might be a want.  But there are plenty of "wants" that are banned by law.

So, I dont have an issue with this at all and I dont think its a case of they should go further.  I think the Liberals (who I did not vote for and everyone here knows how I feel about them) have been pretty forthright on it.

So I’m actually more inclined to to agree with you on the first part. The reason I mentioned special permit is for a few reasons. 1) I would classify those as explosives, and with buying all explosives, that should require extra licenses, 2) I should’ve clarified more, the ones that would be able to acquire them would be museums or special shooting ranges. Obviously at the museum they would have to be “tweaked” so they are unable to fire. Shooting ranges would be high regulated. 
As for the need, well depends how you value needs. For a collector, target shooter or competitor, it could be a need. If we wanted too, we could get into what are only true needs are, food, water and shelter. 
the reason people are against this ban, is because the guns banned, (excluding the RPG) are no different for the most from a “hunting rifle”. So the ban takes away property from law abiding citizens, while putting a bandage on a much larger problem. Anti gun people will love it and pro-gun people will hate it. And when a conservative gets into power again, the rules will most likely change, and the reactions will be the opposite. And this cycle will continue on for a long time. Not much any of us can do about this but agree to disagree. 

[Mr Dee]

I’m disappointed in Peter MacKay’s stance on gun control.

And isn’t he doing the same thing he’s accusing the PM of doing.

 

 

 

[Tracker]

26 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

I’m disappointed in Peter MacKay’s stance on gun control.

And isn’t he doing the same thing he’s accusing the PM of doing.

 

 

 

Most change is born out of crisis, and what happened in New Brunswick would never have happened if people-killer weapons were completely banned. 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

54 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

I’m disappointed in Peter MacKay’s stance on gun control.

And isn’t he doing the same thing he’s accusing the PM of doing.

 

 

 

Apparently he has not seen the polling about this issue.

[Brandon]

29 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Most change is born out of crisis, and what happened in New Brunswick would never have happened if people-killer weapons were completely banned. 

You do realize that most crime committed with guns are from illegal weapons smuggled into the country right?    

When someone is sick in the head ,  they'll use knives,  cars,  baseball bats or whatever else to commit crimes.  

I'm indifferent when it comes to buying a gun because I have no interest.... but I do roll my eyes when people think that banning guns will somehow drastically reduce crime and murders.     

[Tracker]

14 minutes ago, Brandon said:

You do realize that most crime committed with guns are from illegal weapons smuggled into the country right?    

When someone is sick in the head ,  they'll use knives,  cars,  baseball bats or whatever else to commit crimes.  

I'm indifferent when it comes to buying a gun because I have no interest.... but I do roll my eyes when people think that banning guns will somehow drastically reduce crime and murders.     

You are wrong- most firearms used in crime are weapons legally possessed but have found their way into the wrong hands. Mass shootings have come from firearms legally obtained for the most part. Most killings are impulse driven, and if there is no firearm at hand, the perpetrator will have to look for something else, and the alternative will be less lethal. Would you rather have a killer on the loose with a firearm or a knife? As regards your last statement, I suggest you look at the Australian experience before you say that removing most firearms will change nothing.

[Fatty Liver]

6 hours ago, Tiny759 said:

So I’m actually more inclined to to agree with you on the first part. The reason I mentioned special permit is for a few reasons. 1) I would classify those as explosives, and with buying all explosives, that should require extra licenses, 2) I should’ve clarified more, the ones that would be able to acquire them would be museums or special shooting ranges. Obviously at the museum they would have to be “tweaked” so they are unable to fire. Shooting ranges would be high regulated. 
As for the need, well depends how you value needs. For a collector, target shooter or competitor, it could be a need. If we wanted too, we could get into what are only true needs are, food, water and shelter. 
the reason people are against this ban, is because the guns banned, (excluding the RPG) are no different for the most from a “hunting rifle”. So the ban takes away property from law abiding citizens, while putting a bandage on a much larger problem. Anti gun people will love it and pro-gun people will hate it. And when a conservative gets into power again, the rules will most likely change, and the reactions will be the opposite. And this cycle will continue on for a long time. Not much any of us can do about this but agree to disagree. 

I'm all in for providing gun lovers total freedom  to do as they please within a controlled area,  as a compromise to this ongoing argument I propose we allow them the freedom to shoot at each other on the firing range with full immunity from prosecution......just so they can go back for more fun.  De facto killing two birds with one stone.

 

 

[Fatty Liver]

4 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

I’m disappointed in Peter MacKay’s stance on gun control.

And isn’t he doing the same thing he’s accusing the PM of doing.

 

 

 

I involuntarily flinched when ole Petey opened with "friends".

[SpeedFlex27]

On 2020-04-29 at 2:32 PM, iHeart said:

 

Useless career politician. From a Liberal to Mayor of Winnjpeg to the NDP to the Greens.

[do or die]

17 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Lol

Well, them fellas down South, are not happy about their Charter of Rights, being trampled on, either.....

[pigseye]

The conservatives are wrong on this. People are buying the weapons legally and then turning around and reselling them to the criminals. A ban on certain weapons is the only way to shut that side of it down, I agree with the Liberals on this one. 

[Tracker]

40 minutes ago, pigseye said:

The conservatives are wrong on this. People are buying the weapons legally and then turning around and reselling them to the criminals. A ban on certain weapons is the only way to shut that side of it down, I agree with the Liberals on this one. 

Lets go one further. If someone sells a firearm illegally and that weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the seller ought to be charged as contributing to the crime.

[pigseye]

17 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Lets go one further. If someone sells a firearm illegally and that weapon is used in the commission of a crime, the seller ought to be charged as contributing to the crime.

And they would be, except people are smart enough to file off the serial numbers making the weapon untraceable. They have looked at this problem from all angles and have come to the only rational conclusion. 

[Tiny759]

11 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

I'm all in for providing gun lovers total freedom  to do as they please within a controlled area,  as a compromise to this ongoing argument I propose we allow them the freedom to shoot at each other on the firing range with full immunity from prosecution......just so they can go back for more fun.  De facto killing two birds with one stone.

 

 

What a weird comment lol

[The Unknown Poster]

Sometimes something comes along where it becomes easy to identify the truly moronic and hateful.  The people posting JT as Hitler pics all over social media...that’s one. 

[Brandon]

16 hours ago, Tracker said:

You are wrong- most firearms used in crime are weapons legally possessed but have found their way into the wrong hands. Mass shootings have come from firearms legally obtained for the most part. Most killings are impulse driven, and if there is no firearm at hand, the perpetrator will have to look for something else, and the alternative will be less lethal. Would you rather have a killer on the loose with a firearm or a knife? As regards your last statement, I suggest you look at the Australian experience before you say that removing most firearms will change nothing.

Lol not true at all,  are you suggesting that all organized crime goes around stealing registered guns and commit crimes?  What you see or read in the media is a minuscule amount of the crime that is committed around the country.  Your head would spin if you knew how much more f'd up stuff happens and it isn't reported.

Most killings?  Not exactly true while I assume their is more manslaughter then 1st degree murders committed....  for the most part in Canada most 1st degree murders the people would of murdered with or without gun or would of found a way to get a gun.  If a nut job wants to go down guns blazing they will find a way.

I would believe that culture and poverty are way larger factors in why some places have way more people gunned down then others.  Fortunately Canada is a great place and overall anyone can live a good life even if they don't have a tonne of money.   You can't compare the States with Canada or Australia they are not similar at all.  Australia is a beautiful country and I know several people who moved down under and financially it's way more stable.  Go to Mexico or South America and poverty equals way more unnecessary murders via high powered guns.  If those countries were to ban guns it would do jack squat.   

As I said before personally I don't have any interest in guns and owning one so I could care less if they ban them all.    Banning these guns will not impact the crime numbers in Canada at all and for the most part just impact the gun enthusiasts.  

If Trudeau wants to lower crime the whole justice system would need to change with stiffer penalties,  way more liberties removed from jails,  and maybe bringing back the death penalty.  Which clearly he never would push for.

[Mark H.]

9 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Lol not true at all,  are you suggesting that all organized crime goes around stealing registered guns and commit crimes?  What you see or read in the media is a minuscule amount of the crime that is committed around the country.  Your head would spin if you knew how much more f'd up stuff happens and it isn't reported.

Most killings?  Not exactly true while I assume their is more manslaughter then 1st degree murders committed....  for the most part in Canada most 1st degree murders the people would of murdered with or without gun or would of found a way to get a gun.  If a nut job wants to go down guns blazing they will find a way.

I would believe that culture and poverty are way larger factors in why some places have way more people gunned down then others.  Fortunately Canada is a great place and overall anyone can live a good life even if they don't have a tonne of money.   You can't compare the States with Canada or Australia they are not similar at all.  Australia is a beautiful country and I know several people who moved down under and financially it's way more stable.  Go to Mexico or South America and poverty equals way more unnecessary murders via high powered guns.  If those countries were to ban guns it would do jack squat.   

As I said before personally I don't have any interest in guns and owning one so I could care less if they ban them all.    Banning these guns will not impact the crime numbers in Canada at all and for the most part just impact the gun enthusiasts.  

If Trudeau wants to lower crime the whole justice system would need to change with stiffer penalties,  way more liberties removed from jails,  and maybe bringing back the death penalty.  Which clearly he never would push for.

Stiffer penalties will do nothing to change cultures or improve poverty and hunger.  The United States already has some of the stiffest penalties in the world, they are clearly not the answer.  Since you cited Australia - I am quite sure their stability does not come from tough prison sentences.  

The return of the death penalty?  Now there would be an exercise in futility.