Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Trudeau to spend a billion dollars pleasing anti-gun nuts

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

They are making a decision without being properly informed or highly encouraged by the liberal media machine...most Canadians are not smart enough or to lazy to research

This may well be true, and it applies to other issues as well.   Nonetheless, Canadians as a whole support this legislation, including almost half of current gun owners.  Dismissing the majority of Canadians as "anti-gun nuts" just because you disagree with the legislation is extreme partisanship in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The poll was an attempt at misleading Canadians to get an incorrect answer.

It's like posting a poll about abortion and saying "Do you like killing babies" and then using that to prove that Canadians do not approve of abortion.

You think Fox and the Rebel are credible news sources so your opinion of this poll gives it a lot more credence.  If you don't like it, it's probably as close to truth and accuracy as we can hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not about defending the nation from the government , or foreign invader,

This is about trying to preserve our existing privilege's to own and operate firearms , already laid out by some of the toughest gun laws in the western world.. And are now being banned because of what reason again....oh ya safety...… Most of the firearms that are being banned have not ever been used in a homicide or crime in Canada. The AR -15 or any of it's variants have never been used in a homicide or attempted homicide...So why are they on the list, because they look scary, the liberals will have you think they are military wpns ...they are not military wpns are a different animal all together....these wpns were designed for use by civilians, and in accordance with governmental specs, and policies... Todate their has been less than 30 murders in Canada by center fired, semi auto wpns… 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

my point is just because it's popular in Canada does not mean the public knows best.

I agree.  But I personally don't see a need for people to own machines made for mowing other people down, video game style.  Sure, if criminals want them, criminals will get them - but that's not an excuse to make them more common and accessible in Canada.  Gun sports that require targetting skills don't need guns that can shoot lots of bullets easily and quickly, nor are they needed for bringing down animals.  Their primary purpose is killing people; secondary purpose seems to be ego building for self-styled tough guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This may well be true, and it applies to other issues as well.   Nonetheless, Canadians as a whole support this legislation, including almost half of current gun owners.  Dismissing the majority of Canadians as "anti-gun nuts" just because you disagree with the legislation is extreme partisanship in action.

I'm not dismissing anyone, what I said was they are either to stupid or lazy to do their own research on the topic. At one time the earth was thought to be flat, shit we still have people that think so....does that mean they were right, Hell No right...so that argument is just a strawman....

This whole thing should be looked at with some common sense.... Show me the evidence that has convinced you that this whole thing is a good idea....how much do you think this entire cluster F888 is going to cost, and are there better solutions out there for the amount of money that is going to be spent....

If they can do this with fire arms, and some slick media coverage, what else can they take away....I know nuts right...thats what gun owners thought as well we have one of the worlds tightest control measures in the world in regards to firearms where every fire arm owner is subjected to a daily back ground check by RCMP, harden criminals , rapist, pedophiles, are not subjected to such stringent laws or policies...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree.  But I personally don't see a need for people to own machines made for mowing other people down, video game style.  Sure, if criminals want them, criminals will get them - but that's not an excuse to make them more common and accessible in Canada.  Gun sports that require targetting skills don't need guns that can shoot lots of bullets easily and quickly, nor are they needed for bringing down animals.  Their primary purpose is killing people; secondary purpose seems to be ego building for self-styled tough guys.

Once again liberal myths....the wpns being banned have NEVER been used in a homicide...they are Not military wpns, they were designed to be used by civilains...not the military....and they are used to hunt small game  providing they are not restricted, if they are restricted then they can only be used at a range NO where else...... for target shooting and sport shooting. you take it to the range with no stopping, take it home and lock it up no stopping...meaning if you stop for a coffee , pick up your wife or children, your breaking the law, and risk having your fire arms taken away, plus hefty fines and possible jail time.

ANY magazine in Canada is restricted to 5 rounds only by law, punishable by up to 2 years in prison for the first offense....all long barrel wpns are limited to 5 rounds only with 2 exceptions M-1 Garand which holds 8 and another i'm not sure what it is.....so there is no mowing down people in massive numbers is not possiable But if you had read the restrictions on fire amrs you already know this, just read it then make an informed opinion........once again these wpns where designed for civilian use not for killing mass numbers of people 

No one is arguing to make them more common, or more accessible….thats not what anyone is arguing....they want to stick with current laws, and what is currently available...and if they are not good enough which ones don't you like. 

Edited by Army Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I'm not dismissing anyone,

Argus is the dismisser; glance at the topic title.

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

there better solutions out there for the amount of money that is going to be spent....

There are.  But I suspect they involve social programs, and the same people howling about this gun legislation also howl at the idea of preventative measures directed towards the social and mental health issues that lead to violence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

wpns being banned have NEVER been used in a homicide...

Never ever anywhere?  None of the 1500 types that were banned?

Anyway, it seems you are mistaken: our recent gun enthusiast spree killer used some kind of now-banned weapon:

"He announced the ban of over 1,500 models and variants of assault-style firearms, including two weapons used by the gunman as well as the AR-15 and other weapons that have been used in a number of mass shootings in the United States"

Perhaps it's not the "liberals" who are spreading myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Argus is the dismisser; glance at the topic title.

There are.  But I suspect they involve social programs, and the same people howling about this gun legislation also howl at the idea of preventative measures directed towards the social and mental health issues that lead to violence.  

I did mention that every fire arms owner is subjected to a daily vetting process, and if mental health pops up, or a police report say domestic violence, your PAL or firearms lic is subject to being revoked, or suspended with your fire arms being confiscated...Just like the NS shooter....

Just a question if there are better solutions then why support this one....why not just call it like it is....this buy back program is not going to be cheap, it is going to cost BILLIONS....these wpns are not cheap....5000.00 to 14,000 when kitted out....and there is 100,000 plus of thee rifles...I;m suggesting we use that funding give it to the border agents and customs, to tackle cross border smuggling of wpns, boast RCMP police groups to tackle the gang and illegal wpns use currently under this same action the liberals have only given up 350 mil to be spread across the country....but at the same time keep repeating this is for our own safety....but the stats clearly show that less than 30 people have been killed by legal owned firearms....over a 30 year period...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Never ever anywhere?  None of the 1500 types that were banned?

Anyway, it seems you are mistaken: our recent gun enthusiast spree killer used some kind of now-banned weapon:

"He announced the ban of over 1,500 models and variants of assault-style firearms, including two weapons used by the gunman as well as the AR-15 and other weapons that have been used in a number of mass shootings in the United States"

Perhaps it's not the "liberals" who are spreading myths.

 

 no more liberal myths....

The NS shooter obtained his guns without a legal fire arms permit, in other words he purchased one in the USA and smuggled across the border, and the other he got some where in Canada once again an illegal purchase....so please tell me how banning these wpns for legal gun owners is going to prevent these types of people from killing others....or do you think that criminals obey the gun law and the gun restrictions... What they are doing is punishing the law abiding citizens to whom have obeyed the law in every aspect, because someone decided to break the law pick up some illegal wpns and kill some people.... does that make any sense to you...i'm not sure what else I can say....except take 5 mins and read about our nations fire arms policies and restriction....it might put your mind at ease....you also might see how stupid this banning thing really is...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Argus is the dismisser; glance at the topic title.

There are.  But I suspect they involve social programs, and the same people howling about this gun legislation also howl at the idea of preventative measures directed towards the social and mental health issues that lead to violence.  

Argus does have a point...if you jump on board that train without knowing anything about the topic , and soak up that liberal myth stuff then you might be a liberal anti gun nut....sorry...but most people are not using any common sense here, have made up their mind...and moving on...atleast try and educate yourself, I thought that was the purpose of debating....or have we just decided that a forum is now just to post opinions with no need to read rebuttals….i'm right your wrong kind of thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 just to post opinions with no need to read rebuttals….i'm right your wrong kind of thing

That's exactly what this forum looks like to me. 

I get what you are saying about guns and this legislation, and to some extent I agree.   Still, it sends a message about how we, as Canadians, feel about guns and gun violence.  Making these types of weapons illegal will make them harder for criminals to obtain, although not impossible given our proximity to the US.  Those are good enough reasons for me. 

I think the tropes about "the start of the end of freedom" and "guns will save us from tyranny" are ridiculous statements designed to appeal to people who lack common sense and couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag.  

We disagree; that's ok.  Most people are not going to be affected by this legislation one way or another, no point in getting all bothered about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Not when Tyranny has tanks, missiles and trained soldiers carrying a bigger, badder version of the firearm you happen to have.  

Except the amount of people owning firearms will vastly outnumber the amount of soldiers who have accesses to tanks and missiles. Even the entire US army couldn't stop 300 million pissed off American's, if the government tried to commit genocide.

If Everyone in Houston who owned a firearm, tried to storm the air force bases, they wouldn't stand a chance. A few thousand marines with machine guns, can't take out 3 million citizens with rifles.

Imagine if every citizen in Poland had a firearm when the Nazi's invaded?

What would happen to the CCP, if 1 billion Chinese had access to firearms? My guess is that they would start having elections pretty quick.

Now we have a possible tyrant in Ottawa called Justin Trudeau. He's demonstrated his contempt for our country, by orchestrating a 3 week railroad blockade, just weeks before a pandemic. If this is the future of our country, maybe allowing the government to confiscate those 1500 firearm models is a bad idea.

Edited by ProudConservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that there's a cost to allowing Canadians the opportunity to buy guns. Once in a while, someones gonna get shot... However 6 million Jews died in world war 2, because they didn't have enough arms to defend themselves. Even though governments are getting more civilized, the risks of tyranny still outweigh the cost of gun violence.

 

Edited by ProudConservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of banning military style assault weapons. I'm in favor very strong background checks. The government should have the right to take firearms away from anyone who has mental health issues, just as long as the majority of Canadians still have access to firearms, so there can be a deterrent against tyranny.

Proper background checks, should be able to reduce gun violence by 90%

If a husband beats up his wife, he loses his firearm

If a guy threatens to kill people online, he loses his firearm

If a guy commits assault, he loses his firearm

Responsible citizens, who use common sense and logic.... shouldn't have their guns taken away.

Edited by ProudConservative
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

Except the amount of people owning firearms will vastly outnumber the amount of soldiers who have accesses to tanks and missiles. Even the entire US army couldn't stop 300 million pissed off American's, if the government tried to commit genocide.

Why would the US government commit genocide against its own people - who would be left to tyrannize?  They'd target a minority group, and the 300 million Americans would be much more likely to say ... "None of my business" or "Hey, good idea!"

Who gets to decide when the line has been crossed from a disliked government or law to actual tyranny?   If you are going to attack the gov and take the country into civil war, you better be pretty damn sure the vast majority agree with you, and not just your own bubble.  

Anyway, tryanny isn't so much imposed on people as they're persuaded into it.   Each incremental step seems reasonable and justifiable for  nationalistic and/or religious 'security' - or even just to make the other side "cry".  Those who object, especially media, are discredited in any way possible.  Those who support are rewarded.  It can be hard to see the difference between a normal democratic government and a government on the way to tyranny, which is why education and critical thinking skills are a much better defense against tyranny than guns would ever be. 

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2020 at 9:30 AM, Argus said:

And the reason for this billion dollars is not really a reduction in crime or the illegal use of firearms, it's to buy popularity for the Liberal party among urban progressives who know nothing about firearms except they don't like them.

 

Those guns should be outlawed before we see the level of mass slaying the US is notorious for.

You can keep politics out of it; it is not appropriate

Sorry Argus, we never seem to be in agreement on anything.   Are you a pro-gun nut by the way?

Edited by cougar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dialamah said:

You think Fox and the Rebel are credible news sources so your opinion of this poll gives it a lot more credence.  If you don't like it, it's probably as close to truth and accuracy as we can hope for.

One HELL of a lot more credible than CBC.   For that matter, so is the National Enquirer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why would the US government commit genocide against its own people - who would be left to tyrannize?  They'd target a minority group, and the 300 million Americans would be much more likely to say ... "None of my business" or "Hey, good idea!"

Who gets to decide when the line has been crossed from a disliked government or law to actual tyranny?   If you are going to attack the gov and take the country into civil war, you better be pretty damn sure the vast majority agree with you, and not just your own bubble.  

Anyway, tryanny isn't so much imposed on people as they're persuaded into it.   Each incremental step seems reasonable and justifiable for  nationalistic and/or religious 'security' - or even just to make the other side "cry".  Those who object, especially media, are discredited in any way possible.  Those who support are rewarded.  It can be hard to see the difference between a normal democratic government and a government on the way to tyranny, which is why education and critical thinking skills are a much better defense against tyranny than guns would ever be. 

The US government already made two attempts to wipe out its own people.  One was the British government of the day attacking its citizens in the "war of independence" and later the new government openly declaring genocide on its aboriginal population.   The former is the very reason for the 2nd amendment and the latter is simply swept under the carpet with a red face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dialamah said:

You think Fox and the Rebel are credible news sources so your opinion of this poll gives it a lot more credence.  If you don't like it, it's probably as close to truth and accuracy as we can hope for.

What I said was an actual fact dialamah. I know that you probably don't understand it, but that's par for the course. 

Getting one's credibility insulted by dialamah and others of her ilk is the ultimate proof of integrity. 

Edited by WestCanMan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there even one country in the world that provides a .556 semi-automatic rifle to their troops? 

The FN that Canadians were issued up until the C7 was semi-auto but that was a 7.62. I've never heard of a semi-auto .556 being used by the military anywhere.

Are there any semi-auto 9mm rifles or .22s on the banned list? Those don't seem to be military-grade either. 

I know that the village idiot lies all the time, he never tells the truth or even answers a question, but this is a whopper of a lie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cannuck said:

The US government already made two attempts to wipe out its own people.  One was the British government of the day attacking its citizens in the "war of independence" and later the new government openly declaring genocide on its aboriginal population.   The former is the very reason for the 2nd amendment and the latter is simply swept under the carpet with a red face.

In the first instance, America started the war and the fighting was between soldiers, not directed towards civilians.  Britain wasn't interested in killing all Americans, only trying to restore is power and keep America as a colony.  In the second case, genocide was the goal, Aboriginals were a specific group and not really considered American, and most Americans responded with "Not my business" or "Yeah, good idea".  You kinda just proved my point, thanks.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In the first instance, America started the war and the fighting was between soldiers, not directed towards civilians.  Britain wasn't interested in killing all Americans, only trying to restore is power and keep America as a colony.  In the second case, genocide was the goal, Aboriginals were a specific group and not really considered American, and most Americans responded with "Not my business" or "Yeah, good idea".  You kinda just proved my point, thanks.  :)

The 13 colony "army" was simply civilians who wanted to win their independence from the Crown.  From what I understand, there really wasn't any actual army before the Declaration - except of course for 10,000 British troops.  Needless to say, to deal with them, the colonials needed to be armed, and it would be more correct to call them a militia at the beginning, not an Army per se.  So, yes, the British were killing civilians who opposed them.  The civilians BECAME military when they were fully organized.   Worth noting: there was a significant policy to NOT have a standing army as a nation at the 1776 point in time (we can see where that one went now!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Is there even one country in the world that provides a .556 semi-automatic rifle to their troops? 

The FN that Canadians were issued up until the C7 was semi-auto but that was a 7.62. I've never heard of a semi-auto .556 being used by the military anywhere.

Are there any semi-auto 9mm rifles or .22s on the banned list? Those don't seem to be military-grade either. 

I know that the village idiot lies all the time, he never tells the truth or even answers a question, but this is a whopper of a lie. 

 

You are assuming the drama queen...er  - teacher...even knows what a rifle IS (he should have learned when he was on the set of The Great War where he played Papineau - and from what others on that set tell me, he was already the most ignorant and arrogant idiot they have ever encountered).   You are right, nobody issues 556 calibre (0.556") weapons, but there is a NATO standard 5.56mm cartridge that fits several weapons from several countries.  Yet another leftover from Big Tur...TRUdeau's ill planned metrification drive.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 10:50 PM, jacee said:

... semi auto magazine fed guns" or assaults' wpns as they are calling them, which they are not, the only people that can use or operate assault wpns are the military and RCMP, the rest , the ones available to the public look like the military wpns, but are infact manufacture for civilian use, and have much different characteristics, full auto, sighting systems, magazine capacity, and more.

Army guy, can you clarify for me what "full auto" means, and what guns have it, of the guns now banned (and those not): 

Auto-loading? Auto-firing? Both? Which are now legal/not legal? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...