Kanukfanatic Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Warhippy said: Trudeau did not in fact pass this during the shut down. He actually did it last week after the house was sitting. The motion in which he did was the shady part, but only in terminology as once you read up what has to happen to pass this bill you realize it will not happen, like at all. I have read the list. A large number of weapons on there, effectively about 80% are more status items than real hunting tools. I remember seeing a video about a guy in Alberta who was actually hunting bears with a spear. A frigging spear. Said it was far more sporting. You only need one well placed bullet to take down most game, you only need 1 high powered bullet to take down large game. A single deer can keep a family in meat for a month or more. I for one gave up a rifle recently, sold it and transferred it back to a sporting store in town here. Was a nightmare of paperwork because it was a store not a PAL licensed individual. I still own two rifles. I can still hunt. My weapons are not on the prohibited list at all. I just don't see the huge uproar myself. I agree it won't help curb gun violence the way they claim. But at days end less available guns is less available guns and in my opinion if the loss of a status weapon over a hunting tool is the biggest gripe people have than that's kind of showing that maybe the idea of them not owning said status weapon isn't the worst idea. So it is clear you don't know anything about human rights issues in Canada nor personal property rights in Canada. Good job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish⑦Canuck Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: So it is clear you don't know anything about human rights issues in Canada nor personal property rights in Canada. Good job. Having access to an assault rifle is not and will never be a human right. Get a grip. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said: Having access to an assault rifle is not and will never be a human right. Get a grip. Ignore tune Trudeau part I don't know how to crop it out on my phone and don't care for that comparison much. But that ruger is used as a hunting rifle. But they banned the bottom one because it looks like an "assault" rifle (which hss been banned since 1977). Sure if you want to ban guns that shoot more rounds at a quicker pace then sure put it in parliament, the left has enough seats it's going to pass anyways. But to ban hunting rifles just because they look scary is wrong and to allow FN an exemption for hunting (wait the government literally said they get exempt from gun ban for hunting, for hunting! Why are they suddenly classified as hunting guns now and not "mass killing weapons") I'm not even a gun owner, don't care for them much myself, I stick to paintball guns only. I just don't like double standards, everything should be one rule in the country and don't like the miss information the government spread and made a sweeping generalization about various guns. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 10 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: They aren't doing a very good job. @Jimmy McGill and a few others..what now? actually you make a good point, maybe we should go after those other gun types too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 2 hours ago, Russ said: But they banned the bottom one because it looks like an "assault" rifle (which hss been banned since 1977). its interesting that the gun lobby is upset about removing guns that look a certain way. It proves the concern over how some people fetishize these weapons. The fact that they look "scary" or "military" is part of what attracts people to buy lots of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: actually you make a good point, maybe we should go after those other gun types too. Handguns are the biggest issue. I have no handguns outside of my kids bb gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Handguns are the biggest issue. I have no handguns outside of my kids bb gun. Whats wrong with leaving your handguns locked up at a gun range? wouldn't that be a fair compromise to a full on ban? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Whats wrong with leaving your handguns locked up at a gun range? wouldn't that be a fair compromise to a full on ban? My kids bb gun? We shoot that in the backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said: Having access to an assault rifle is not and will never be a human right. Get a grip. "Assault rifle" doesn't exist in Canada. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 3 hours ago, Russ said: Ignore tune Trudeau part I don't know how to crop it out on my phone and don't care for that comparison much. But that ruger is used as a hunting rifle. But they banned the bottom one because it looks like an "assault" rifle (which hss been banned since 1977). Sure if you want to ban guns that shoot more rounds at a quicker pace then sure put it in parliament, the left has enough seats it's going to pass anyways. But to ban hunting rifles just because they look scary is wrong and to allow FN an exemption for hunting (wait the government literally said they get exempt from gun ban for hunting, for hunting! Why are they suddenly classified as hunting guns now and not "mass killing weapons") I'm not even a gun owner, don't care for them much myself, I stick to paintball guns only. I just don't like double standards, everything should be one rule in the country and don't like the miss information the government spread and made a sweeping generalization about various guns. I'm going to ask you about the bolded part because you included it in this post. I know you're not the only one to have written it here but what does this mean, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: So it is clear you don't know anything about human rights issues in Canada nor personal property rights in Canada. Good job. Quite the jump to conclusions. I see that there are 3 of you that read an entire response and come to not only an illogical but entirely wildly out of touch conclusion because you cannot see any other possible answer as it doesn't jive with your personal beliefs. Assuming that not being able to own model B of a 7 model catalogue of rifles is somehow an impingement on your human rights or personal property rights. How arrogant and pathetic a person must be. Let me know when you don't have clean water, or your people are murdered on a daily basis. It's a list of guns, of which there are still over 1100 you're allowed to own. How pathetic does this sound, claiming a registered First Nations member doesn't understand human rights issues because you can't own one model of weapon in a 7 model catalogue Good job. Edited May 3, 2020 by Warhippy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 See the issue most pro gun people have is people are so bent on removing these "assault" weapons, yet don't actually have the slightest clue about what that means. It's why so many pro gun people here have asked others to define what the characteristics that determine a firearm to be considered an "assault" weapon in Canada. Yet no one has even remotely tried. Most peoples knowledge is compiled based on what they have heard on the news or what they see happens in the movies... And they often confuse what's legal in the US to what isn't in Canada. You can easily pick these types out, as they constantly parrot statements that are purely emotional based using the generic terms like assault, more dangerous, and military style. You would think that before people take such a strong stance and form an unwavering opinion, that they would have at least some details beyond those generic terms as to what they are crying for. It's why pro gun people just laugh, there's no debate to be had. If someone would have stated they believe "ABC" weapons need to be banned because they have "XYZ" characteristics, then a debate could potentially start. If it ever got to that point, It would not only help broaden thier understanding on what is viewed as dangerous but people might actually take them seriously. "I don't exactly know what an assault weapon is....but i know don't like them....and Canada definitely needs to get rid of them" If that doesn't scream blind sheep then I don't what else does. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 5 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said: Having access to an assault rifle is not and will never be a human right. Get a grip. As I stated. I'm a registered First Nations member. Having someone proclaim I don't understand human rights issues because they can't own model C of a 7 model catalogue is childish, immature and entirely dramatic. I want this individual to come on back when his people are being murdered, or don't have clean drinking water, or suffer systemic racism on a daily basis, or even have the government ignore vital land treaties and side with a development project while having a police force forcibly remove them from their land. Then cry about human rights or property ownership issues 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: its interesting that the gun lobby is upset about removing guns that look a certain way. It proves the concern over how some people fetishize these weapons. The fact that they look "scary" or "military" is part of what attracts people to buy lots of them. What you call a fetish is the modular build style. These rifles can be equipped/tailored to various shooting skills. One rifle, different options for the various platforms, becomes a lot easier and less expensive than a number of different rifles in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 48 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Whats wrong with leaving your handguns locked up at a gun range? wouldn't that be a fair compromise to a full on ban? Gun ranges (especially in the lower mainland) have enough issues, insurance included, to not want to have to deal with this liability as well. I would not be against storing them at a police detachment but again, liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 25 minutes ago, Warhippy said: As I stated. I'm a registered First Nations member. Having someone proclaim I don't understand human rights issues because they can't own model C of a 7 model catalogue is childish, immature and entirely dramatic. I want this individual to come on back when his people are being murdered, or don't have clean drinking water, or suffer systemic racism on a daily basis, or even have the government ignore vital land treaties and side with a development project while having a police force forcibly remove them from their land. Then cry about human rights or property ownership issues You live in Penticton hip give this a rest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: You live in Penticton hip give this a rest. I do. Tens of thousands of first Nations members don't. Framing this as a "human rights issue" is the most dramatic and childish statement a person can make. Don't argue this Strome. Even you know this is true 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Ah yes memes. The new "critical information" argument 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: I do. Tens of thousands of first Nations members don't. Framing this as a "human rights issue" is the most dramatic and childish statement a person can make. Don't argue this Strome. Even you know this is true You aren't helping by bringing up what you're bringing up. I feel it will turn this thread into a argument on First Nations treatment in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now