Ramrod
Well-Known Member
Yet you can still go buy a pack of cigarettes . They account for 37000 deaths in Canada a year . How many legal gun owners are murdering people a year in Canada ? Think about that
Possible assault rifle ban
- Thread starter scribe
- Start date
Yet you can still go buy a pack of cigarettes . They account for 37000 deaths in Canada a year . How many legal gun owners are murdering people a year in Canada ? Think about that
bassaholic
Well-Known Member
Apples and oranges. It starts with the banning of "scary guns" and ends with citizens having only pellet. Once you give up one thing to the government it's a slippery slope to become numb to the fact that its par for the course. We have to fight for our rights as they're on the hit list to obtain the popular TO vote
I'm not a rifle owner, just a 22 for "home defence", I hate those squirrels. I bought my first shotgun from Lebarons in the late 80's, bought a muzzleloader from the Kerwood General Store, bought a new shotgun from Sail a couple years ago. However when I go into most stores these days, I'll use Bulls Eye in London for a example, most of the rifles displayed look like assault weapons of war, they don't look like my idea of hunting rifles. Maybe this is part of the problem, is there a reason hunting rifles need to look like machine guns?
To me the main issue with all of this is not the guns they want to take but just the fact that the government is going to confiscate legally acquired private property just on a whim for ideological reasons. Public safety has nothing to do with it. I just feel this is a very bad precedent to set ( even though it's not the first time in recent history that the Canadian government has taken legally acquired firearms). I know people will think this is crazy (they always do) but if the Liberals were to stay in power for the next 20 years it's not above the realm of possibility for them to declare that all fossil fueled vehicles will be banned and everyone will be forced to drive electric or other alternative fueled vehicles. Of course with no firearms to persuade them otherwise we will be forced to comply. TC
wknd_warriors
Well-Known Member
No firearm is a assault weapon, assault is action a verb. A firearm is just a object, any object can be used to assault someone. Do mosin nagants or lee enfield look like assault weapons of war? They look like hunting rifles but were used in wars and are still used by some people for hunting. Times change and so do firearms and the way they're built for better functionality, durability and ergonomics for the user. No firearm is made to "look like" a assault war weapon. They're designed to function and be reliable for different uses.
What's comical is not a single person who supports the Libs plan can provide 1 or more logical reasons for banning these firearms. It's all emotion with zero facts to support the idea that banning these guns will reduce gun crime.
For more of an apples to apples comparison, the government would have to ban certain brands of cigarettes because their appearance makes them seem more harmful even though they're all equally harmful. In case you were wondering, an AR15 has the same capacity (in Canada) and rate of fire as semi's deemed "hunting rifles" meaning a modern sporting rifle (assault rifle to the clueless) and grandpa's semi are the same despite looking much different.
This ban will be as effective at reducing gun crime like the long gun registry did. Just another bad idea to punish law abiding citizens that'll cost hundreds of millions to make the Libs feel good about themselves.
can't miss
Well-Known Member
Just a thought? but should gun owners be so vocal? Not as much here on this site, but in general? no offence meant, I am one.
What are we as firearm enthusiast, less then 7% of the population, probably closer to 5%. We can argue legal owners vrs thugs, new style's vrs old school, harvesting your own food vrs factory food. sport shooting and home protection. End of the day, the majority will decide, scream and yell all we want, out of my cold dead hand, yey I get it.
Our population over the last 50 yrs + has shifted from rural to city, harvesting food vrs the G store. Most here have, and do pass on our hunting heritage to those around us, friends and family.
Alot here point at the government of the day, timely with the election Mon. But really, if the large cities, the majority say no guns of a certain style, laws will pass?
If I find the need to ever buy a new arm, I like the black composite with a pistol grip and a multi attach rail? and I guess that makes it scary to the gen. public.
Not saying to lay down and die, but bitching here or any other public forum, will do dick, look at the #'s and general public opinions, right or wrong?
Happy hunts this fall
CM
What are we as firearm enthusiast, less then 7% of the population, probably closer to 5%. We can argue legal owners vrs thugs, new style's vrs old school, harvesting your own food vrs factory food. sport shooting and home protection. End of the day, the majority will decide, scream and yell all we want, out of my cold dead hand, yey I get it.
Our population over the last 50 yrs + has shifted from rural to city, harvesting food vrs the G store. Most here have, and do pass on our hunting heritage to those around us, friends and family.
Alot here point at the government of the day, timely with the election Mon. But really, if the large cities, the majority say no guns of a certain style, laws will pass?
If I find the need to ever buy a new arm, I like the black composite with a pistol grip and a multi attach rail? and I guess that makes it scary to the gen. public.
Not saying to lay down and die, but bitching here or any other public forum, will do dick, look at the #'s and general public opinions, right or wrong?
Happy hunts this fall
CM
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
I just had this conversation with an American relative (a cousin) of mine 3 weeks ago. She wanted to know what the difference was between our gun laws and theirs.
What I told her was this: I made sure to let her know that not everyone in Canada agrees with our gun control laws but this is how I understand them (yeah I copied and pasted for the most part it was easier.)
Canada's laws are considerably stricter than those in the US. All gun owners have to be licensed, and all handguns and most semi-automatic weapons are restricted and have to be registered, while certain others may be prohibited. Any registered handguns can't be carried out of the home, either concealed or openly, except with a specific license, which is very difficult to get approval for, and is usually only given to people who need guns for work. (police, armed guards etc) Licenses require training in gun safety and an extensive background check and all guns when being stored have to be kept in a locked cabinet, including trigger locks, and they must be stored unloaded.
In the Canadian system, there are three classes of firearms and firearm licences: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited firearms are not forbidden outright, as the name might imply, but their legal possession and acquisition are dependent upon their registration history and an individual's firearm licence. As of December 1, 1998, the prohibited clause must be grandfathered to acquire or possess prohibited firearms. New prohibited licences are available only at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer of the province or the RCMP. It is illegal to fire any restricted firearm (which includes the AR-15 and any variants of that weapon) anywhere other than at a shooting range. They cannot be used for hunting purposes.
Anyone who wishes to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:
She found all of that to be very interesting. A little confusing she said, but interesting. She asked me if it was a "right" for us to own guns like it is for them. I said NO, and then explained it to her by saying:
A "right" is something that can never legally be denied, revoked, or taken from you for any reason.
A "privilege" is something that can legally be denied, revoked or taken from you for any valid and legally justifiable reason, ie your driver's license can be denied if you fail the written or the road test, and it can be revoked and taken from you for any number of valid and legally justifiable reasons, ie DUI. Driving and holding a driver's license is a privilege, it is not a right.
Likewise, you can be denied a PAL, RPAL, or POL and/or prohibited from owning or being in possession of any firearm or ammunition for any number of valid and legally justifiable reasons, ie mental health illness, or criminal convictions and especially if those convictions are violent in nature or a result of any gun related crimes.
Since confederation in 1867, Canadian laws have always reflected that gun ownership is a "privilege" not a "right", and in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that unlike the United States, in Canada, it is NOT a "right" to own a gun or "bear arms." It is a "privilege." That ruling has been upheld in subsequent challenges, including a 2010 case when a court in Ontario also ruled that there is no "right" to bear arms in Canada, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
I told her that because under certain circumstances, and according to certain US law as she explained it to me, it is legal for the police to seize their guns, courts can and have prohibited people from owning or being in possession of any firearm as well as ammunition, and because they can be legally denied the ability to purchase any firearm if they don't pass the background checks they do have for any reason, it could be argued that even though they have that second amendment they protect so much, the reality is, it's not a "right" for them to own or bear arms either, it's become a "privilege" because under certain circumstances, that "right" can legally be denied, revoked or taken from them thus violating their second amendment. I then told her again that a "right" is something that can never legally be denied, revoked, or taken from you for any reason.
She said she'd never looked at it that way before, then told me she was off to go clean her gun, she'd just gotten home from the shooting range
.
What I told her was this: I made sure to let her know that not everyone in Canada agrees with our gun control laws but this is how I understand them (yeah I copied and pasted for the most part it was easier.)
Canada's laws are considerably stricter than those in the US. All gun owners have to be licensed, and all handguns and most semi-automatic weapons are restricted and have to be registered, while certain others may be prohibited. Any registered handguns can't be carried out of the home, either concealed or openly, except with a specific license, which is very difficult to get approval for, and is usually only given to people who need guns for work. (police, armed guards etc) Licenses require training in gun safety and an extensive background check and all guns when being stored have to be kept in a locked cabinet, including trigger locks, and they must be stored unloaded.
In the Canadian system, there are three classes of firearms and firearm licences: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited firearms are not forbidden outright, as the name might imply, but their legal possession and acquisition are dependent upon their registration history and an individual's firearm licence. As of December 1, 1998, the prohibited clause must be grandfathered to acquire or possess prohibited firearms. New prohibited licences are available only at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer of the province or the RCMP. It is illegal to fire any restricted firearm (which includes the AR-15 and any variants of that weapon) anywhere other than at a shooting range. They cannot be used for hunting purposes.
Anyone who wishes to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:
- Safety training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) for a non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC) for a restricted licence; the non-restricted class is a prerequisite to the restricted licence. Each province/territory's chief firearms officer publishes information on the locations and availability of these courses.
- Applying for a licence: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). People can request a PAL by filling out Form CAFC 921.
- Security screening: Background checks and reference interviews are performed. All applicants are screened, and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants, but final approval time may be longer.
She found all of that to be very interesting. A little confusing she said, but interesting. She asked me if it was a "right" for us to own guns like it is for them. I said NO, and then explained it to her by saying:
A "right" is something that can never legally be denied, revoked, or taken from you for any reason.
A "privilege" is something that can legally be denied, revoked or taken from you for any valid and legally justifiable reason, ie your driver's license can be denied if you fail the written or the road test, and it can be revoked and taken from you for any number of valid and legally justifiable reasons, ie DUI. Driving and holding a driver's license is a privilege, it is not a right.
Likewise, you can be denied a PAL, RPAL, or POL and/or prohibited from owning or being in possession of any firearm or ammunition for any number of valid and legally justifiable reasons, ie mental health illness, or criminal convictions and especially if those convictions are violent in nature or a result of any gun related crimes.
Since confederation in 1867, Canadian laws have always reflected that gun ownership is a "privilege" not a "right", and in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that unlike the United States, in Canada, it is NOT a "right" to own a gun or "bear arms." It is a "privilege." That ruling has been upheld in subsequent challenges, including a 2010 case when a court in Ontario also ruled that there is no "right" to bear arms in Canada, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
I told her that because under certain circumstances, and according to certain US law as she explained it to me, it is legal for the police to seize their guns, courts can and have prohibited people from owning or being in possession of any firearm as well as ammunition, and because they can be legally denied the ability to purchase any firearm if they don't pass the background checks they do have for any reason, it could be argued that even though they have that second amendment they protect so much, the reality is, it's not a "right" for them to own or bear arms either, it's become a "privilege" because under certain circumstances, that "right" can legally be denied, revoked or taken from them thus violating their second amendment. I then told her again that a "right" is something that can never legally be denied, revoked, or taken from you for any reason.
She said she'd never looked at it that way before, then told me she was off to go clean her gun, she'd just gotten home from the shooting range
.Yea I get all that, and like I say I'm not much of a rifle person. I guess I was referring to the AR style gun. I've attached a picture from a local gun shop, AR style guns on the left, "traditional" looking hunting guns on the right. To the layman eye the ones on the left look "scary", that was my point. I did not realize the design of these weapons increased functionality, durability, and ergonomics so much. Will have to give them a try sometime.
Disagree especially with a federal election a few days away. 5percent me as alot especially in a tight race as this is projected to be. The more times you can see it written debated and projected the better set in your mind it will be come October 21.
You can buy an AR style pellet gun and air soft here ...should we ban those too? Water about water guns ? A vote for the liberals next week is a vote for giving away some of your freedoms which may or may not be important to you