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

[CBH1926]

On 5/1/2020 at 6:20 PM, Lionized27 said:

Molon Labe.

So what will happen if government  tries to take your guns?

What is your response?

[Lionized27]

6 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

So what will happen if government  tries to take your guns?

What is your response?

There won't be an armed standoff if that's the response you're hoping for.

[CBH1926]

2 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

There won't be an armed standoff if that's the response you're hoping for.

So what’s the point of posting “come and take it”?

 

[Lionized27]

Just now, CBH1926 said:

So what’s the point of posting “come and take it”?

 

Good grief. Sound. It. Out.

 

Come and take means I'm not going to hand them over willingly. The government wants me to hand them over, come and get them. Do you honestly believe someone would admit to wanting to engage in a firefight with the government in an online forum?!

 

Some real winners in this thread.

[Warhippy]

37 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

I didn't say "ask her to respond".

How do the kids feel about daddy being an internet troll? Something you might brag about over gruel come dinner bell?

 

The right to possess private, legally obtained property the government has (kind of) offered to "buy back". Two problems: they never owned it to begin with and they'd be buying it back with my own tax dollars.

The right to own goods, essentially.

 

Again, I am not losing anything here although it's only a matter of time before I am. This is only the beginning. I'm upset because I see it coming and have seen it for some time. It was about a year ago or so when you said I was "willfully ignorant" for believing this would actually become reality yet, here we are.

 

Where is that F$&€ING ignore button.

So you're whining and crying about something you're not actually losing but are afraid to lose but aren't actually losing?

 

Ha.  Ok.  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this as I don't hunt, but makes total sense.

Yep,  no one wants an animal to suffer, so you need to make sure you are using the right caliber to put an animal down quickly and not just wound them. Canada's made it a law.  Here's a good chart for reference.  And these are just rifles.  Shotguns are typically used for waterfowl (geese and ducks).

 

I have a few different types of shotguns based on the type of day it is.  If it's a light rain, the semi auto 12g will often clamp up so my pump action is better in that situation.  

 

I have two 7mm rifles which is pretty versatile (I have two because I just bought a new one last year),  In the last 4 years i've got a mule, whitetail, Elk and my old man shot his moose with it.. I also have a two 22, which were giving to me, they are like a 100 years old but they are perfect for gophers.  and the wife likes to shoot targets with them as the have zero recoil.   

 

I may or may not have a few other guns around too ....but to be honest, i've only ever bought two.  everything else was passed down to me from my old man and my grandpa. They're not worth anything to sell, so they sit in my safe for the most part.  

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

33 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Alright thanks for clarifying where you stand. We agree on how it could of been done better or even before we considered this sort of ban.

 

I think parties always want to grow and solidify their audience that agree with them year round, regardless of whether or not we are a ways away from an election. I think that's a natural thing politicians do. Yeah they do turn it up to 11 by the time a new campaign needs to start.

 

Is it true that Trudeau passed this legislation when the Liberal party effectively shut down parliament due to Covid? That might be what people are getting at when saying it is undemocratic. I haven't experience too much of the other side to say that some may be overboard with it as you say. So I am not saying that you're wrong with people calling it communistic/dictatorial, that is kind of ridiculous a sentiment to have. However it could be considered inappropriate timing given the circumstances.

 

I have also read that a lot of these talking points were already written into law. That for decades real assault rifles and high capacity magazines were already prohibited. That some real hunting rifles and even in some cases pest rifles are on the ban list. If that's truly the case then this ban may be overboard to a degree.

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.  

[Warhippy]

16 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

So what’s the point of posting “come and take it”?

 

To appear tough.  The moment the buyback comes there will be more griping.  Then afterwards when laws aren't followed and the rcmp do come and confiscate now contraband weapons there will be moaning and griping about the loss of rights or freedoms, not of course that there was years to fall in line with said laws.

 

Honestly, it's statements like that; that in all honesty, make people support gun laws.  They're the statements made by people who appear to be the least likely to be a responsible owner.  They're the statements that give the anti gun crowd a higher platform to stand on.

[CBH1926]

7 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Good grief. Sound. It. Out.

 

Come and take means I'm not going to hand them over willingly. The government wants me to hand them over, come and get them. Do you honestly believe someone would admit to wanting to engage in a firefight with the government in an online forum?!

 

Some real winners in this thread.

Let’s use a phrase that most people know what it implies.

But hey, let’s pretend and say that’s not what it really means in this case.

We do have some winners in this thread for sure.

[Lionized27]

1 minute ago, CBH1926 said:

Let’s use a phrase that most people know what it implies.

But hey, let’s pretend and say that’s not what it really means in this case.

We do have some winners in this thread for sure.

You asking me to implicate myself isn't going to make it happen, unfortunately.

[bishopshodan]

 

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

They're the statements made by people who appear to be the least likely to be a responsible owner.  They're the statements that give the anti gun crowd a higher platform to stand on.

I think a few pages back someone said they left their gun out overnight with bullets on their porch? I didn't follow the rest of the convo so I don' t know if he was serious but your comment made me think of that. I don't know how that is responsible. 

This thread is interesting. It's mostly gun owners/supporters having the discussions about this ban. Some agree, some don't but the anti-gun crowd is enjoying some popcorn.  

[Junkyard Dog]

12 minutes 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.  

I thought parliament was shut down a while ago which the rare come together for like the wage subsidy bill back in early April. Also that it was always a shortened council. The argument is that no one was able to debate this in the HoC which is what MPs are saying. It seems pretty valid the more I read up on it.

 

Would you be in agreement that if there are some guns on the ban list, I mean 1500 are a lot, that shouldn't be on it to take them off? Personally I feel, in time, some probably will be taken off. It wouldn't be major in the grand scheme. 

[Lionized27]

7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

I think a few pages back someone said they left their gun out overnight with bullets on their porch? I didn't follow the rest of the convo so I don' t know if he was serious but your comment made me think of that. I don't know how that is responsible. 

This thread is interesting. It's mostly gun owners/supporters having the discussions about this ban. Some agree, some don't but the anti-gun crowd is enjoying some popcorn.  

Hahahaha, that's a long standing joke about guns being inanimate and never being able to fire on their own.

[Warhippy]

Just now, Lionized27 said:

Hahahaha, that's a long standing joke about guns being inanimate and never being able to fire on their own.

the long standing joke is laughing about irresponsible storing of arms and ammo....laughing about it gives the anti gun crowd more fuel.  So.  Ya, keep laughing

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Lionized27 said:

Hahahaha, that's a long standing joke about guns being inanimate and never being able to fire on their own.

Oh, thanks.

as I said wasn't really following.

[Lionized27]

6 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Oh, thanks.

as I said wasn't really following.

It suits this discussion however. This gun ban is solely based on rifles that appear more dangerous than others.

That's all.

The rifles included on the list are no more or less dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Lionized27
Spelling

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I thought parliament was shut down a while ago which the rare come together for like the wage subsidy bill back in early April. Also that it was always a shortened council. The argument is that no one was able to debate this in the HoC which is what MPs are saying. It seems pretty valid the more I read up on it.

 

Would you be in agreement that if there are some guns on the ban list, I mean 1500 are a lot, that shouldn't be on it to take them off? Personally I feel, in time, some probably will be taken off. It wouldn't be major in the grand scheme. 

I own 2 Remington muzzle loaders.  Are you familiar with a muzzle loader? I have to set up every shot and I get just one.  But I consistently tag what I aim at.  There is no pew pew pew it's pew damn or pew got it.  1500 types of arms.  FIFTEEN HUNDRED, by estimates there are still over 1100 types of arms still totally legal for hunting and recreation. I am sorry but there are still over a thousand options?  That's plenty by my standards and griping about the loss of different shades of grey seems pointless.

 

Just my opinion

 

That being said; to my knowledge, this will have to be approved by the privy council.  Then the Governor General.  Then face an ACT motion, in which it will need 3 separate readings through the house and senate before booming a true law or enshrined in to legislative law.  There is zero chance that this bill makes it that far without massive and major changes.  By the time this hits the second reading it will be so whittled down as to be completely worthless due to changes, amendments etc,

 

Parliament came back a week or two ago after some ugliness regarding virtual sittings.  

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Hahahaha, that's a long standing joke about guns being inanimate and never being able to fire on their own.

 

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

the long standing joke is laughing about irresponsible storing of arms and ammo....laughing about it gives the anti gun crowd more fuel.  So.  Ya, keep laughing

Hip has a good point.

A lot of folk don't give AF about guns and just want them gone. Many don't understand everyday people owning products designed to kill, outside of hunting. Self defence is the next reason. Some of those folks will also understand that, but not the need for military style multi shot assault style weapons. 

 

 

[Lionized27]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Hip has a good point.

A lot of folk don't give AF about guns and just want them gone. Many don't understand everyday people owning products designed to kill, outside of hunting. Self defence is the next reason. Some of those folks will also understand that, but not the need for military style multi shot assault style weapons. 

 

 

I don't believe he does, but that's just my opinion. He's entitled to believe whatever fits his narrative.

 

Again, this idea that "military assault style multi-shot AR-14 murder sticks" are somehow more dangerous to own is a farce. 

[bishopshodan]

6 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

I don't believe he does, but that's just my opinion. He's entitled to believe whatever fits his narrative.

 

Again, this idea that "military assault style multi-shot AR-14 murder sticks" are somehow more dangerous to own is a farce. 

I hear ya. I guess that convo goes down the road to the right of the average guy owning semi autos etc..

 

I remember once being at the range with a bunch of the bouncers I managed. Big tough dudes, you should have seen the arsenal some of them showed up with. Kinda a dic measuring contest I suppose.

Just pointing out what some gun owners look and act like and who the anti -gun crowd may perceive them as.

Edited May 3, 2020 by bishopshodan