• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Further to my last...a thought. Fluffy pablum, but also an excuse to make C-21 a confidence motion? Perhaps get the NDP to trigger an election on a issue the LPC will want to fight in the suburbs of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver?
 
You don't have a license, I do. I go "purchase" 12ga shells and give it them you. Possession vs buying?
You find some .22 rounds on the ground and you lack a firearms license. Do you deserve to go to jail?

Again its seeking a problem where there is none with the sole intent being to inconvenience firearms owners.

Your strawbuying example can be applied to many more things, which happens quite often like cigerettes, vapes, alcohol, etc.
 
You find some .22 rounds on the ground and you lack a firearms license. Do you deserve to go to jail?

In EITS-land? No.

In future Liberal-Canada? Ammunition?

Excited Rocket Man GIF

Again its seeking a problem where there is none with the sole intent being to inconvenience firearms owners.

Your strawbuying example can be applied to many more things, which happens quite often like cigerettes, vapes, alcohol, etc.

Oh, I am not “for” this, just providing an example of where they might be trying to go.

“Damn. It’s tough being a criminal. First they stopped us from buying guns at Bass Pro and now we can’t buy ammo? That’s it fellas. Im going straight. Those politicians are just too crafty”.
 
Lots of times, when caught, the mags the criminals have are loaded with mismatched brands and aren't full. Ammo is harder to get than the guns.
 
They are just recommendations at the moment.
They are bought-and-paid-for recommendations. Gun control groups received funding from the MCC for their "expert testimony". Gun ownership advocacy groups (CCFR, NFA, CSSA) received nothing.

Some well-informed sources are starting to believe that the GoC will lose the May 2020 OIC court challenge, which begins in 10 days. I suspect a replacement OIC is ready to be dropped on or about April 19th.
 
Based on what I have seen, all the recommendations target the RCMP and licensed gun owners, but nothing appears to be said about the politicians who nickel and dimed police resources in the area for years. Or did I miss something?
 
Based on what I have seen, all the recommendations target the RCMP and licensed gun owners, but nothing appears to be said about the politicians who nickel and dimed police resources in the area for years. Or did I miss something?
Of course not. It is far easier to scapegoat legal gun owners than admit you made bad decisions that probably made a bad situation worse.

Being very clear- Wortman is 100% responsible for all of the loss of life.
 
Based on what I have seen, all the recommendations target the RCMP and licensed gun owners, but nothing appears to be said about the politicians who nickel and dimed police resources in the area for years. Or did I miss something?
You didn't think sparkle sox was going to just quit his demonization and utter contempt for firearms owners did you? You can expect a full court press to implement his plan before an election do you? At least after changing it, it'll have to go back to the Senate where they can hold it up for a bit.
 

dont know if everyone is aware but there is a court case going on right now with regards to the governments attempts to restrict access to firearms

"There was never any instructions or directions given to the RCMP to create the FRT. Mr Smith did it of his own volition. Now it’s the standard for cops. Points to Smith testimony - he single-handedly oversaw the entire FRT on his own."
 
The CCFR et al vs Canada trial ended yesterday. The CCFR's Tracey Wilson did an awesome job of providing a play-by-play on Twitter for the entire trial. She has now turned her Twitter thread into a web story.

This is a complex case and the judge can rule differently on each segment. My gut tells me it will not go in favour of gun owners. Even if I'm wrong and the GoC loses, in whole or in part, there will be more bans or promises of bans as we run up to the next election.
 
The CCFR et al vs Canada trial ended yesterday. The CCFR's Tracey Wilson did an awesome job of providing a play-by-play on Twitter for the entire trial. She has now turned her Twitter thread into a web story.

This is a complex case and the judge can rule differently on each segment. My gut tells me it will not go in favour of gun owners. Even if I'm wrong and the GoC loses, in whole or in part, there will be more bans or promises of bans as we run up to the next election.

Election - that is the opportunity I am hoping Canadians embrace and steer Canada off its current course. Not just for the gun grab but for many other reasons as well.
 
The CCFR et al vs Canada trial ended yesterday. The CCFR's Tracey Wilson did an awesome job of providing a play-by-play on Twitter for the entire trial. She has now turned her Twitter thread into a web story.

This is a complex case and the judge can rule differently on each segment. My gut tells me it will not go in favour of gun owners. Even if I'm wrong and the GoC loses, in whole or in part, there will be more bans or promises of bans as we run up to the next election.
Respectfully, I don't understand why this is a complex case in the slightest.

If someone takes the PAL course, completes the exams, grabs the application package, fills it out, submits it with everything it requires & pays the fee...

Assuming the person is successful and receives their license a few months down the road, and they go to an authorized retailer, legally purchase a firearm, and obey the laws of transporting/storing/using it...I just don't see how buying those firearms back is doing anything to effect some scumbag who got his hands on an illegal gun & is going to use it in a criminal offense

The government came up with this out of nowhere. One day, poof the government wants further firearm restrictions...but only to fulfill their promise of ridding the streets of assault rifles 🙄

Then at the last minute, in their constantly sneaky ways, they try to expand the list of subject firearms to ALL OF THEM...

And when the opposition suggests they want to take away hunting rifles from law abiding Canadians that aren't the gangbangers with pistols, the government says "No that isn't what we are doing!" when it's actually exactly what they are doing...


To me, it screams of government overreach. To me its blatantly confiscating people's personal property when those people haven't done anything to deserve it - heck the whole bill is targeting law abiding citizens. (Criminals get their guns confiscated pretty darn quick once caught with one...)


None of this is meant as argumentative towards you Haggis.

I just don't understand what is complex about this matter, or why/how the government even has a leg to stand on after they blatantly lied about their intentions.

Let people who legally own guns to keep their property. Let the police confiscate the guns that aren't legally owned or used for a lawful purpose...


I just don't see what makes this issue complex 🤷‍♂️
 
Back
Top