Posted on 05/02/2020 3:08:21 AM PDT by Candor7
The crackdown on legal firearms ownership, which was announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on May 1, is another shining moment in the long history of dysfunctional Canadian gun control proposals. It will accomplish nothing in particular, but will come at considerable public expense. It will not improve public safety, nor will it will please either side of this contentious debate.
What it will do is give both Liberals and Conservatives an opportunity to fundraise off the issue — one could be forgiven for wondering if that’s literally the only point to any of this. So, again: a textbook example of Canadian gun control politics.
The government announced that it is “banning“ 1,500 different kinds of “assault weapons.” That sounds impressive. It’s not — not a ban, and not impressive. It’s really 11 types of rifles, each with many, many different versions produced by different manufacturers — that’s where the 1,500 figure comes from. None of the weapons are a true military-type rifle, capable of fully automatic fire or equipped with high-capacity magazines, which have been banned in Canada for decades. The list is really a grab bag of fairly mundane semi-automatic rifles. It’s hardly an exhaustive list — many other comparable rifles were unaffected by the announcement. The only real thing that binds these rifles together is a link to prominent mass shootings (and even that isn’t the case for all of them).
In short, the Liberals have “banned” some guns, ignored a bunch of other comparable ones and called it a day. This is going to outrage the gun owners and the shooting industry, infuriate the anti-gun activists and do little else.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
Liberals, everywhere, live meaningless symbolism. They don’t care if the actual costs of banning guns, such as an increase of crime and criminal attacks, go through the roof.
I know of, since 18, 3 kids who died from fistfights.
Two weren’t really fights. Head hit the ground and soul went to God, I hope.
Third was a full brawl and one kid died.
Fists are assault weapons.
Gonna hurt when they are all chopped off.
“Forearm owners?” LOL! For a moment there, I thought the Canadian government might have hilariously screwed up its banning decree. But, just a typo.
When I saw the patronizing “Deserve Better Than Thoughts and Prayers” announcement by Premier Trudeau, I thought that Canadian firearm owners were probably wishing they had their own 5th Amendment style guarantee of firearm ownership. US experience with it isn’t perfect but it does create a fundamental right the government must justify encroaching on.
This will accomplish the same as US alcohol prohibition:
1. Create a monster parasitic hidden economy that avoids all taxes and regulation.
2. Creates a new sub-culture of citizens that will unite to hate their above ground government. Such anti-govt. attitude will bleed over into every subject and aspect of govt. regulation.
3. Out of spite and middle fingering by this new sub-culture, put many times more of these “banned” firearms in the possession of its citizens.
3A. Just as during prohibition, people would drink alcohol just to be part of the new “cool” sub-culture even if they didn’t want to drink. So it will be will “banned” firearms.
Sorry about the mispelling of “firearm.”
I do not believe Canadian law abiding firearm owners will comply with this ban.
New Zealand had to walk their ban back.Canada is apparently following the New Zealand model of buy back.
I have spoken to several AR-15 owners here in Canada. None of us will voluntarily comply with this “ban” without a court hearubg or a court order. This ban is “retroactive legislation,” and according to Canadian jurisprudence, a law or regulation cannot extinguish property rights already granted. They can change current and future rights to acquire such firearms, but hey can’t make people give them up, other than voluntarily.
Huge Civil Disobedience coming in Canada.
In the 1940s there were ads in magazines urging Americans to donate guns to be sent to tje defenseless British who expected invasion at anytime.
Creates a new sub-culture of citizens that will unite to hate their above ground government. Such anti-govt. attitude will bleed over into every subject and aspect of govt. regulation.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s exactly right. And the Trudeau government will reap the whirlwind.
They actually HAVE these in CANADA??
Is it true that the “assault weapon” this guy in Nova Scotia used is the same one he stole from the cop he killed?
At least it wasn’t foreskin owners!
That would SURELY raise some eyebrows!
The only ones who benefit from a weapons ban are the criminals and murderers.
More people are killed every year in the US by fists and feet than are killed by long guns of all kinds, “assault rifles” included. If you add in the infamous “blunt object,” long guns are left in the dust. When are we going to ban “blunt objects,” fists, and feet? If it saves just one life ...
I haven’t seen anything said about what weapons the guy used, other than that he likely took weapons from the police officer he killed early on.
Google keywords “Why Canada Sucks”.
You will find a rich trove of cites, nearly all of them by Canadians.
The confiscation will net dozens of firearms stolen from the people.
No need to apologize. Once I checked the QWERTY keyboard and verified that “I” and “O” were side by side on the layout, it was obviously just a typo. But it did cause me to pause and wonder if the bureaucrats had screwed up in drafting the regulation; sort of like inadvertently criminalizing breathing in a poorly drafted anti-pollution law or some such.
Yes, I would expect Canadian firearms owners are not going to stand for it. The only concern I would have is that it would become very difficult to engage in any recreational use of the banned weapons without being subject to the attention of law enforcement. It might take the form of direct confrontation at the range or in parking areas or it might be observation in those areas followed up by home visits by armed teams with seizure warrants.
For the latter, I’ll just point to the experience of California firearms owners being visited after making perfectly legal firearms-related purchases in Nevada and other bordering states. Turned out that California law enforcement officers were taking down vehicle license plate numbers outside gun shops and gun shows to ID owners for investigation and possible enforcement action.
Ping!
That would just be a rather transparent attempt to divide the firearms owner community into those who own foreskins and those who don’t.
Perhaps they are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.