The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

its not progressive but it might appeal to the "progressive" wing of the party
I dont see how only apportioning enough money for 10% of the registered restricted firearms is a policy win

Remember that we are lucky that compensation is being offered at all. The Firearms Act has provisions for seizure and forfeiture without compensation for any good and sufficient reason such as "that model is now prohibited and you can no longer possess it". The antis have always stood against compensation as it would give owners cash to buy replacement firearms like an SKS.

 

[MrWhyt]

I guess it boils down to if you think under pressure, or by non compliance the government eventually either terminates the buyback program, grandfathers the remaining AR's and cites whatever they collected as a "success" for the Quebec voters.

they will collect/confiscate the formerly restricted guns before they give up the on program IMO. They know who has them and where they are. Collecting them will be an easy victory "we got X guns off the street".

 

[Eaglelord17]

Remember that we are lucky that compensation is being offered at all. The Firearms Act has provisions for seizure and forfeiture without compensation for any good and sufficient reason such as "that model is now prohibited and you can no longer possess it". The antis have always stood against compensation as it would give owners cash to buy replacement firearms like an SKS.

Common law and pre-1867 property rights are enshrined in the Constitution (reinforced by the Bill of Rights). The government cannot declare they owe you nothing as much as they would like to.

If we had to pay slave owners compensation you have to pay gun owners compensation.

They aren’t getting anything from me, I will deactivate and make a art display before I surrender anything.

 

[Stoker]

Remember that we are lucky that compensation is being offered at all. The Firearms Act has provisions for seizure and forfeiture without compensation for any good and sufficient reason such as "that model is now prohibited and you can no longer possess it". The antis have always stood against compensation as it would give owners cash to buy replacement firearms like an SKS.

Apparently that's the reason why the Anti's want the SKS banned now so people don't go out and buy one with the compensation money.

 

[North Star]

Based on recent diplomatic events, it's a bit funny that some may spend their compensation money on crap Chicom imports.

 

[Lumber]

I'm just being petulant assuming you voted Liberal after mentioning being a proud progressive. I still think you're a cool dude even if you're probably obsessed with soup.

You're right about people being ambivalent. I think anyone who voted Liberal should be embarassed by their support for the government, specifically leading to this. The truth is many don't care, and many will be very happy over this. Some will no doubt be angry the Liberals even offered $1 compensation. I hope karma kicks into over drive here.

Did I mention I was a "proud progressive"? I don't recall that, and I don't think I would label myself as such. Progressive? Sure, but getting more and more conservative with my age. Though I'm actually an enigma in that my time in the navy did not endear me toward soup (though I love a good Seafood Chowder).

I think what you, and many on here, fail to appreciate is just how much of a non-issue gun ownership is for the vast majority of Canadians. The latest numbers I could find indicate that up to 26% of households have guns, but in terms of individuals, only about 7% of Canadians own guns. So, already there isn't that many Canadians who really care about gun ownership. Now the mistake I think you and others on here are making is assuming that those 7%, which is already a pretty small number, are a monolithic block that are all hardcore Liberal hating, pro-property, pro-gun absolutists; they are not. Included in this number are supporters and/or votes of every party. Included in this numbers are people who probably AGREE with the Liberal policy. Included in this number are probably even those who agree with the position that semi-automatics have no real use-case and are fine to see them go bye bye. So, if you remove THOSE people form the 7%, and then just look at the Liberal voting gun owners who are left, how many are there actually who would "be embarrassed" by this policy?

Now, you probably do have supporters from even non-gun owners, who think this buy-back program is utter bullshit, and that taking away legal guns from harmless and law-abiding gun owners won't do shit to help with gun violence, but it's not enough to make a "splash" in the Liberal calculus.

 

[suffolkowner]

Did I mention I was a "proud progressive"? I don't recall that, and I don't think I would label myself as such. Progressive? Sure, but getting more and more conservative with my age. Though I'm actually an enigma in that my time in the navy did not endear me toward soup (though I love a good Seafood Chowder).

I think what you, and many on here, fail to appreciate just how much of a non-issue gun ownership is for the vast majority of Canadians. The latest numbers I could find indicate that up to 26% of households have guns, but in terms of individuals, only about 7% of Canadians own guns. So, already there isn't that many Canadians who really care about gun ownership. Now the mistake I think you and others on here are making is assuming that those 7%, which is already a pretty small number, are a monolithic block that are all hardcore Liberal hating, pro-property, pro-gun absolutists; they are not. Included in this number are supporters of every party. Included in this numbers are people who probably AGREE with the Liberal policy. Included in this number are probably even those who agree with the position that semi-automatics have no real use-case and are fine to see them go bye bye. So, if you remove THOSE people form the 7%, and then just look at the Liberal voting gun owners, how many are there actually who would "be embarrassed" by this policy?

Now, you probably do have supporters from even non-gun owning, who think this buy-back program is utter bullshit, and that taking away legal guns from harmless and law-abiding gun owners won't do shit to help with gun violence, but it's not enough to make a "splash" in the Liberal calculus.

tyranny of the majority

 

[Jarnhamar]

Did I mention I was a "proud progressive"? I don't recall that,

I'm being a dick and lashing out. Sorry. You didn't phrase it as a proud progressive.

You're simply right about many Canadians just not caring. And even if they don't have a dog in the fight and don't support what the Liberals are doing, their ambivalent.

Emotionally, I hope this decision fucks Liberal & left-wing voters somehow (without loss of life, that is). But pragmaticly speaking the country will just move on.

Carney showed his true colours here and took the cowards way out. I'm not surprised but I am disappointed.

 

[Lumber]

I'm being a dick and lashing out. Sorry. You didn't phrase it as a proud progressive.

You're simply right about many Canadians just not caring. And even if they don't have a dog in the fight and don't support what the Liberals are doing, their ambivalent.

Emotionally, I hope this decision fucks Liberal & left-wing voters somehow (without loss of life, that is). But pragmaticly speaking the country will just move on.

Carney showed his true colours here and took the cowards way out. I'm not surprised but I am disappointed.

I'm still holding out hope that, either by honest coincidence, or by Machiavellian planning, Carney claims to have finally looked at the same numbers as we are (i.e. this many guns, this much money available) and goes, "What the hell, this makes no sense, sorry Poly, policy reversed", but I'm not holding my breath.