Nova Scotia shooter dead after killing 22 people/CDN Govt "assault style" weapons ban.

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Tell us the government definition. 

Pears you still not going to tell us the definition lol

[Warhippy]

Trudeau to my knowledge based on what I have been reading and what experts have been talking about, cannot pass this legislation past the wording.  The Privy council has to, then the Governor General.  Then it has to pass an ACT reading and will need support in the house and the senate after 3 count em 3 separate readings.  Meaning support of multiple parties in the house AND senate 3 separate times to become law in its present form.  

 

There is little to no chance this passes in to law without being neutered in to complete Bellwood status

 

The biggest threat to canada isn't a loss of freedoms because some peoples precious pew sticks that they most likely never hunt with are all of a sudden illegal in two years.

 

The biggest threat is the level of misinformation and willingness to believe stupid people with political agendas because they conform to someone's political, religious or personal beliefs regardless of the actual information as it exists.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Warhippy

[Standing_Tall#37]

4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Trudeau cannot pass this legislation past the wording.  The Privy council has to, then the Governor General has too.  Then it has to pass an ACT reading and will need support in the house and the senate after 3 count em 3 separate readings.  Meaning support fo multiple parties in the house AND senate 3 separate times.  

 

The biggest threat to canada isn't a loss of freedoms because some peoples precious pew sticks that they most likely never hunt with are all of a sudden illegal in two years.

 

The biggest threat is the level of misinformation and willingness to believe stupid people with political agendas because they conform to someone's political, religious or personal beliefs regardless of the actual information as it exists.

 

Again, losing guns isn't the danger.  Stupid people are.

Clearly. What troubles me is not the gun laws, but for the 2nd time in the last couple of months Trudeau has tried to circumvent the democratic process, which should raise red flags for even the strongest of his supporters. 

[Ryan Strome]

Let's see how Rupert, pears, destroyer and Toews explain this one. Like they said they support the legislation and "assault rifles" have no place in Canada. 

 

Indigenous hunters excluded from Ottawa’s assault weapons ban under Section 35

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/05/01/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

[Ryan Strome]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Trudeau to my knowledge based on what I have been reading and what experts have been talking about, cannot pass this legislation past the wording.  The Privy council has to, then the Governor General.  Then it has to pass an ACT reading and will need support in the house and the senate after 3 count em 3 separate readings.  Meaning support of multiple parties in the house AND senate 3 separate times to become law in its present form.  

 

There is little to no chance this passes in to law without being neutered in to complete Bellwood status

 

The biggest threat to canada isn't a loss of freedoms because some peoples precious pew sticks that they most likely never hunt with are all of a sudden illegal in two years.

 

The biggest threat is the level of misinformation and willingness to believe stupid people with political agendas because they conform to someone's political, religious or personal beliefs regardless of the actual information as it exists.

 

I'm glad you come out and said this after I corrected you on your earlier claim of all parties working on this.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Ryan Strome

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Clearly. What troubles me is not the gun laws, but for the 2nd time in the last couple of months Trudeau has tried to circumvent the democratic process, which should raise red flags for even the strongest of his supporters. 

Yet it doesn't meanwhile these same people are in the Trump thread talking about how trump circumvents American law.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Let's see how Rupert, pears, destroyer and Toews explain this one. Like they said they support the legislation and "assault rifles" have no place in Canada. 

 

Indigenous hunters excluded from Ottawa’s assault weapons ban under Section 35

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/05/01/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

Well, I would say that the final bill hasn't been tabled yet.  The process for buy back and grandfathering hasn't been worked out yet, as said in the article you posted. 

[Warhippy]

9 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Clearly. What troubles me is not the gun laws, but for the 2nd time in the last couple of months Trudeau has tried to circumvent the democratic process, which should raise red flags for even the strongest of his supporters. 

This one I think is shady as hell.  There's no question he's trying to use an obscure motion to pass something by.

 

But

 

Checks and balances.  At days end this still needs a ton of consent before it truly passes in to law in its current from.

 

The prior one, Once the full story came to light I actually applauded the party for having the stones to use that option to avoid a snap election in the midst of this crisis.

 

But ya, this is shady.  But no; it's not passing

[Warhippy]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I'm glad you come out and said this after I corrected you on your earlier claim of all parties working on this.

I didn't come here for you at all.  Don't do that.  You're not that important.

 

This will, as stated need multi party consent to actually become legislation.  This will need ALL of the bloc, which won't happen.  or some of the bloc and ALL of the NDP which is the most likely scenario.  But then, to my knowledge it will need to pass with the consent of the privy council, then the Governor General.  Then it is subject to an ACT motion which again, if I am reading this right needs 3 passes through the house and senate.  The senate with more independents and conservatives than liberals.  

 

People proclaiming what is evidently one fo the most fairly democratic processes on the planet; is in fact "dictatorial" which I have been seeing a lot of today; is insane.  This is a shady move.  But they also knew full well what challenges this would face.  While an obscure motion, it is powerless to ever become law in its current form and will be chopped down to insignificance like the gender rights bill passed a few years ago which did literally nothing except state the exact same thing 3 other laws already did.

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Well, I would say that the final bill hasn't been tabled yet.  The process for buy back and grandfathering hasn't been worked out yet, as said in the article you posted. 

Right and apparently First Nations individuals are more trusted with "assault rifles."

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

This one I think is shady as hell.  There's no question he's trying to use an obscure motion to pass something by.

 

But

 

Checks and balances.  At days end this still needs a ton of consent before it truly passes in to law in its current from.

 

The prior one, Once the full story came to light I actually applauded the party for having the stones to use that option to avoid a snap election in the midst of this crisis.

 

But ya, this is shady.  But no; it's not passing

He really has no respect for the rule of law.

[Standing_Tall#37]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

This one I think is shady as hell.  There's no question he's trying to use an obscure motion to pass something by.

 

But

 

Checks and balances.  At days end this still needs a ton of consent before it truly passes in to law in its current from.

 

The prior one, Once the full story came to light I actually applauded the party for having the stones to use that option to avoid a snap election in the midst of this crisis.

 

But ya, this is shady.  But no; it's not passing

So was the unequivocal rights to spending bill he tried sneaking in that would have given him unlimited power until the end of 2021. 

 

 Don’t get me wrong here either the shooting was tragedy, but I think the bigger problem that needs to be solved is how in the Hell did this guy acquire weapons he wasn’t allowed to have.  The solution even if it could be passed is not to punish law abiding citizens. But to get better at policing people who are not legally allowed to possess firearms.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Warhippy said:

I didn't come here for you at all.  Don't do that.  You're not that important.

 

This will, as stated need multi party consent to actually become legislation.  This will need ALL of the bloc, which won't happen.  or some of the bloc and ALL of the NDP which is the most likely scenario.  But then, to my knowledge it will need to pass with the consent of the privy council, then the Governor General.  Then it is subject to an ACT motion which again, if I am reading this right needs 3 passes through the house and senate.  The senate with more independents and conservatives than liberals.  

 

People proclaiming what is evidently one fo the most fairly democratic processes on the planet; is in fact "dictatorial" which I have been seeing a lot of today; is insane.  This is a shady move.  But they also knew full well what challenges this would face.  While an obscure motion, it is powerless to ever become law in its current form and will be chopped down to insignificance like the gender rights bill passed a few years ago which did literally nothing except state the exact same thing 3 other laws already did.

You claimed earlier a different story. Remember your reminder that I corrected you on? Now you actually followed the story and realized you were wrong.

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Just want to remind folks.

 

It's a minority government.  This took multi party support.

You even got a like from @Jimmy McGill who usually is a little more knowledgeable on current events. 

[Smashian Kassian]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

As @Smashian Kassian said earlier. It’s a complete political play,  the liberals are going to protect you from the big scary assault firearms and the people, like in this very thread, suck that crap up. Because when they hear that term COD immediately jumps in their minds. 
 

if the liberals gave a rats about reducing gun related deaths it starts with handguns. You know the type of firearm type represents 75% of Canadian gun related crime and 60% of Canadian gun homicides. The type of firearm that Canada allows to go over the 5 round magazine limit. But nope free pass on those and instead we must ban the AR-15 which has caused 3 deaths in Canada over the last 30 years.  But you never hear a peep about that. Because it doesn’t buy you the fear vote. 

 

No doubt.

 

If you take the logic that banning guns will prevent less crimes (via stolen guns or however legal guns do end up in the hands of illegals/crazies) then you'd start at handguns, as you say. Gun enthusiasts won't like it but if we're doing anything on the gun control front that's where the conversation needs to shift too. 

 

Its irresponsible & unfortunate how in a time of economic hardship (now and/or impending) we are going to be spending money further curbing an area that's already curbed. While looking past handguns, the border where illegal weapons are smuggled, exc.

 

But then again he's been irresponsibly misleading people about Canada's gun laws for years now. So I guess our tax dollars will buy him a few brownie points.

[Ryan Strome]

@Warhippy I don't need explaining but thanks. Over the course of 6 hours your two posts are complete opposite. Again I'm happy after I corrected you that you decided to do your homework. 

[Pears]

29 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Pears you still not going to tell us the definition lol

Since you insist

 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=canadian+definition+of+assault+rifles

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Pears said:

Since you insist

 

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=canadian+definition+of+assault+rifles

You should try it then you will see why you have been told your posts are ridiculous. 

[Warhippy]

5 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

So was the unequivocal rights to spending bill he tried sneaking in that would have given him unlimited power until the end of 2021. 

 

 Don’t get me wrong here either the shooting was tragedy, but I think the bigger problem that needs to be solved is how in the Hell did this guy acquire weapons he wasn’t allowed to have.  The solution even if it could be passed is not to punish law abiding citizens. But to get better at policing people who are not legally allowed to possess firearms.

That's the one I was speaking of applauding him over.  It was to give Morneau rights to spend without oversight until 2021.  Not give them overreaching power.  That one though needed multi party consent, it was tabled as a response to mentions of refusing to accept the emergency benefits package which needed unanimous consent to get money tot he people.  When some MPs were willing to risk postponing payments to people this was openly tabled as a response as it would have neutered the potential triggered election.

 

If this government was smart they'd instead institute a full lockdown of any and all travel/parcels/packages/mail coming from the US.  Full search of everything coming in to the country and restrictions of ammo of the types used by the guns suggested in this ban.  At least that way they'd ensure that less weapons of the types causing the most harm in gun violence statistics stopped entering the country.

 

I don't agree with this.  But I also don't really disagree with more restrictions on firearms.  As a gun owner I literally own only to hunt and hunt only to eat.  Otherwise my guns never ever leave the safe.  I don't go to a range with my rifles, I don't speak of them in public I don't worry about them at all.  To me others losing their status pieces is inconsequential.  I don't agree with his because I don't think it will stop gun violence like they claim it will.  They need to clamp down on illegal gun smuggling from the US for that to happen

[Ryan Strome]

7 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

That's the one I was speaking of applauding him over.  It was to give Morneau rights to spend without oversight until 2021.  Not give them overreaching power.  That one though needed multi party consent, it was tabled as a response to mentions of refusing to accept the emergency benefits package which needed unanimous consent to get money tot he people.  When some MPs were willing to risk postponing payments to people this was openly tabled as a response as it would have neutered the potential triggered election.

 

If this government was smart they'd instead institute a full lockdown of any and all travel/parcels/packages/mail coming from the US.  Full search of everything coming in to the country and restrictions of ammo of the types used by the guns suggested in this ban.  At least that way they'd ensure that less weapons of the types causing the most harm in gun violence statistics stopped entering the country.

 

I don't agree with this.  But I also don't really disagree with more restrictions on firearms.  As a gun owner I literally own only to hunt and hunt only to eat.  Otherwise my guns never ever leave the safe.  I don't go to a range with my rifles, I don't speak of them in public I don't worry about them at all.  To me others losing their status pieces is inconsequential.  I don't agree with his because I don't think it will stop gun violence like they claim it will.  They need to clamp down on illegal gun smuggling from the US for that to happen

1) incorrect, it very much was over reaching power as they were giving Morneau the right to raise taxes as he sees fit. I'm not even bringing up the fact he is a poor finance minister. 

 

2) agreed.

[Pickly]

If you feel you need a firearm strictly for the purpose of self defence then you will be just fine with a pump action, defender style shotgun. If you really feel you need to squeeze off multiple rounds to get your point across than as far as I am aware you are still legally allowed to own pistols and revolvers. Other than that, I don’t see the average Joe needing a 556 AR platform weapon or anything of the sorts.