[N_Fiddledog]

[Freakinoldguy]

0:

morgan_freeman_pissed_off_meme1.jpg [ 39.48 KiB | Viewed 529 times ]

Okay here we go.

I just watched the news and if they're right, our PM and the Liberal Party are now enacting their anti gun legislation as order in council just so they can get around letting parliament and especially those nasty Conservatives debate their terrible gun control bill.

Sadly for us, this underhanded act is legal but, as far as alot of people myself included are concerned it's completely unethical and makes a mockery of parliament as a governing body. It also falls right in line with their blatant attempt to usurp parliament and give themselves unlimited tax and spend powers.

So, does anyone in Canada besides the completely partisan liberal supporters and the rabid anti gun lobbyists think this is the right way to pass legislation as contentious as this?

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

You know what the biggest joke about this legislation is? The absolute worst year for homicide by long gun was 65 deaths. Unfortunately the stats don't differentiate between single shot and semi-auto. So it's a pretty safe bet that the worst year ever for homicide by semi-auto rifle had fewer than 65 deaths.

Let's put that into perspective. The fed govt is going to spend a budgeted $600 million on buy backs, ads and what not for this legislation, all for fewer than 65 deaths a year. Yet they are only going to spend $250 over 5 years to "combat" gang violence, which is responsible for around 50% of all homicides in any given year.
Am I the only one who thinks there's something inherently wrong with the leftard logic on this matter?

Based on the estimated numbers of just the 11 rifles on the list, there are 124,755 of those types of rifles in the hands of Canadians. And those particular 124,755 semi-automatic rifles need to be banned because they are used in fewer than 65 homicides a year. Which of course is assuming they aren't being shot with a nice cheap Norinco or something other than one of the types on "the list".

Fewer than 65 deaths. Christ, second-hand smoke kills more Canadians every year than some fucking semi-auto rifles.

And finally, this ban is fucking MEANINGLESS except to the law abiding. The Akwesasne reserve is a goddam flood gate for firearms into Canada. Unless the fed does something about that, then all they're doing is making sure only criminals will have these rifles. Funny how all these leftard laws tend to make life easier for criminals while somehow either punishing the law-abiding or making them easier victims for the criminals they keep making life easier for.

Seriously man, what the fuck kind of govt essentially tells it's citizens they simply have to put up with home invaders and shit? Think about this for a second. If someone has broken into your home while you're at home and you plan on defending it and your family, the govt actually holds YOU to a higher fucking standard than they hold the police to.
Some asshole breaks into my home at 3AM and wakes me up in the process. At that point I'm disoriented and pissed right off but I'm still supposed to assess their intent and possible weapons. Meanwhile, cops jacked up on caffeine, white sugar and who knows what else can shoot the moment they "fear for their lives". But when someone breaks into my home while I'm home, fear of dying or my family being murdered don't matter one whit.

The final irony is Groper is going to let provinces and municipalities determine how to treat handguns as opposed to more federal legislation and yet handguns are a far bigger problem when it comes to homicides in Canada than semi-auto rifles.

Can't wait to see Toronto proudly proclaim they've banned handguns and then watch as the homicide rate doesn't even tick down one notch. And before anyone actually thinks I'm hoping it happens, the "can't wait to see" part is called sarcasm. Because I KNOW it won't change one goddam thing in TO. I mean look how well it's worked in Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore, to name a few. The latter two of which have consistently been on the list of the 50 Most Dangerous Cities in the World for years.

If you're using an AR-15 to defend yourself in your home, you're doing it wrong. A shotgun is a far better close-in weapon than an AR-15.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Meanwhile your police agencies will not at all pause as they arm themselves with actual military weapons and transform into an authoritarian paramilitary.

Coincidentally, disarming Canadians will make the job of the paramilitaries easier when they get their orders to do whatever the hell it is you people would never allow if you were armed.

[Winnipegger]

Watching this morning's announcement...

Bill Blair recognized citizen concern of militarization of police, but blamed that on militarization of society. That's blaming the victim! That cannot be excused. Police cannot be allowed to possess weapons of war. That means average police must not possess carbines or other fully automatic weapons. Such weapons must be reserved exclusively for tactical teams. In fact, when I was a child police did not carry a sidearm. We have seen police kill suspects far too often. It's not the job of police to kill people, it's the job of police to bring suspects alive to trial. The reason is falsified accusation. The nature of a falsified accusation can be raised at trial, you cannot un-kill a suspect. Ever since tasers were invented, we have the opportunity to take away firearms from average police officers, issue non-lethal weapons such as tasers only. Only tactical team will carry firearms.

OMG! Bill Blair mentioned "Red Flag Laws"! You do realize that these laws are abused in the United States. There have already been cases of neighbours in the US who have a grievance calling police to make a falsified accusation. This has resulted in police bursting into a home and police killing the homeowner. This when the homeowner did nothing wrong, and was not going to do anything wrong. This was actually over some petty dispute such as a someone didn't like the type of flowers a neighbour planted or how the neighbour kept his/her own yard.

[Winnipegger]

David Lametti just contradicted the Prime Minister. Trudeau said there will be a buy-back, but Lametti said owners can "surrender" their firearm to police WITHOUT compensation. He also said there's an exception for indigenous people; they may continue to use firearms restricted under this new rule until acquiring a replacement. He didn't mention any time limit. That's biased, gives one group ability to continue to use the weapons while others do not. Obvious pandering to a group the Liberals want to be part of their political base.

[Tricks]

Thanos Thanos:

A drop in the violent crime rate isn't what's intended with this mess. What's wanted is some kind of grand prize in virtue signalling.

To be honest, even if it eradicated all homicides conducted by legally purchased in Canada firearms, you might have to take off a shoe to count that high.

56 total homicides in 2018 from rifles and shotguns, and lets say half were from the U.S. So 28 of BOTH types of firearms. If they do a buy back we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars that, to Caleb's point, would be better suited to go to the border to stop shit from coming over.

[Public_Domain]

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, my post assumes that people who comply with gun laws don't commit gun crimes. Are the law abiding citizens doing B&E to steal guns? No. If straw buyers are a problem, crack down on them, don't confiscate $200M in legally purchased property because the government refuses to fund police properly.

Its a fact that that all guns in the hands of criminals were supplied by law-abiding gun owners. Every gun that ever found its way into a criminals hands other than hime-made zip guns and the like was once legally owned by SOMEBODY. And that legal gun owner either sold it illegally or had it stolen. Therefore when law abiding gun owners can no longer my mini-14s, then criminals will no longer be able to get them either.,,, unless they go over the border...which is more difficult and risky

$1:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Secondly the argument that Canadian gyn control doesn’t work because guns are smuggled in from the US doesn’t make sense. Obviously, the reason guns have to be smuggled in from the US at great risk to the smuggler is precisely because Canadian gun control DOES work. Criminals wouldn’t be taking chances getting caught at the border and serving long prison sentences for smuggling firearms if they didn’t have to.

Circular argument much? Gun control creates the need for a black market in guns which fosters the need for gun control?

Since the 90's when the Liberals brought in the gun registry I have maintained the billions the registry cost us could have been more effectively spent on border controls to prevent the flow of black market guns.

Nothing circular about it. These are parallel gun supply lines for criminals:

1) stealing guns from legal Canadian gun owners
2) illegally buying guns from legal Canadian gun owners
3) smuggling guns in from US

Criminals would rather do #1 or 2 because its less risky and therefore also less expensive to purchase, since smugglers usually charge an added risk premium. Canadian gun control makes #1 and 2 less available to criminals so demand causes some to resort to #3. ALL should be addressed with different measures.

[fifeboy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

You know what the biggest joke about this legislation is? The absolute worst year for homicide by long gun was 65 deaths. Unfortunately the stats don't differentiate between single shot and semi-auto. So it's a pretty safe bet that the worst year ever for homicide by semi-auto rifle had fewer than 65 deaths.

Let's put that into perspective. The fed govt is going to spend a budgeted $600 million on buy backs, ads and what not for this legislation, all for fewer than 65 deaths a year. Yet they are only going to spend $250 over 5 years to "combat" gang violence, which is responsible for around 50% of all homicides in any given year.
Am I the only one who thinks there's something inherently wrong with the leftard logic on this matter?

Based on the estimated numbers of just the 11 rifles on the list, there are 124,755 of those types of rifles in the hands of Canadians. And those particular 124,755 semi-automatic rifles need to be banned because they are used in fewer than 65 homicides a year. Which of course is assuming they aren't being shot with a nice cheap Norinco or something other than one of the types on "the list".

Fewer than 65 deaths. Christ, second-hand smoke kills more Canadians every year than some fucking semi-auto rifles.

And finally, this ban is fucking MEANINGLESS except to the law abiding. The Akwesasne reserve is a goddam flood gate for firearms into Canada. Unless the fed does something about that, then all they're doing is making sure only criminals will have these rifles. Funny how all these leftard laws tend to make life easier for criminals while somehow either punishing the law-abiding or making them easier victims for the criminals they keep making life easier for.

Seriously man, what the fuck kind of govt essentially tells it's citizens they simply have to put up with home invaders and shit? Think about this for a second. If someone has broken into your home while you're at home and you plan on defending it and your family, the govt actually holds YOU to a higher fucking standard than they hold the police to.
Some asshole breaks into my home at 3AM and wakes me up in the process. At that point I'm disoriented and pissed right off but I'm still supposed to assess their intent and possible weapons. Meanwhile, cops jacked up on caffeine, white sugar and who knows what else can shoot the moment they "fear for their lives". But when someone breaks into my home while I'm home, fear of dying or my family being murdered don't matter one whit.

The final irony is Groper is going to let provinces and municipalities determine how to treat handguns as opposed to more federal legislation and yet handguns are a far bigger problem when it comes to homicides in Canada than semi-auto rifles.

Can't wait to see Toronto proudly proclaim they've banned handguns and then watch as the homicide rate doesn't even tick down one notch. And before anyone actually thinks I'm hoping it happens, the "can't wait to see" part is called sarcasm. Because I KNOW it won't change one goddam thing in TO. I mean look how well it's worked in Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore, to name a few. The latter two of which have consistently been on the list of the 50 Most Dangerous Cities in the World for years.

If you're using an AR-15 to defend yourself in your home, you're doing it wrong. A shotgun is a far better close-in weapon than an AR-15.

Yeah, but the shotgun won’t let you shoot through the wall and kill the policeman coming to investigate the intrusion.

[fifeboy]

I’m pissed off, nobody has posted the meme with the glue gun and staple gun. On the bright side, someone did bring up the armed Switzerland argument.

[fifeboy]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

build the wall

[fifeboy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, my post assumes that people who comply with gun laws don't commit gun crimes. Are the law abiding citizens doing B&E to steal guns? No. If straw buyers are a problem, crack down on them, don't confiscate $200M in legally purchased property because the government refuses to fund police properly.

Its a fact that that all guns in the hands of criminals were supplied by law-abiding gun owners. Every gun that ever found its way into a criminals hands other than hime-made zip guns and the like was once legally owned by SOMEBODY. And that legal gun owner either sold it illegally or had it stolen. Therefore when law abiding gun owners can no longer my mini-14s, then criminals will no longer be able to get them either.,,, unless they go over the border...which is more difficult and risky

$1:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Secondly the argument that Canadian gyn control doesn’t work because guns are smuggled in from the US doesn’t make sense. Obviously, the reason guns have to be smuggled in from the US at great risk to the smuggler is precisely because Canadian gun control DOES work. Criminals wouldn’t be taking chances getting caught at the border and serving long prison sentences for smuggling firearms if they didn’t have to.

Circular argument much? Gun control creates the need for a black market in guns which fosters the need for gun control?

Since the 90's when the Liberals brought in the gun registry I have maintained the billions the registry cost us could have been more effectively spent on border controls to prevent the flow of black market guns.

Nothing circular about it. These are parallel gun supply lines for criminals:

1) stealing guns from legal Canadian gun owners
2) illegally buying guns from legal Canadian gun owners
3) smuggling guns in from US

Criminals would rather do #1 or 2 because its less risky and therefore also less expensive to purchase, since smugglers usually charge an added risk premium. Canadian gun control makes #1 and 2 less available to criminals so demand causes some to resort to #3. ALL should be addressed with different measures.

Point of order here. Anyone illegally selling a firearm in Canada, no matter how they got the gun, excludes them from the “legal” group.

[fifeboy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

David Lametti just contradicted the Prime Minister. Trudeau said there will be a buy-back, but Lametti said owners can "surrender" their firearm to police WITHOUT compensation. He also said there's an exception for indigenous people; they may continue to use firearms restricted under this new rule until acquiring a replacement. He didn't mention any time limit. That's biased, gives one group ability to continue to use the weapons while others do not. Obvious pandering to a group the Liberals want to be part of their political base.

I really don’t know any Aboriginal people with firearms that would be excluded. Mostly old Lee Enfields and Cooey SS, both 12/16 gauge and .22’s.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

bootlegga bootlegga:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

You know what the biggest joke about this legislation is? The absolute worst year for homicide by long gun was 65 deaths. Unfortunately the stats don't differentiate between single shot and semi-auto. So it's a pretty safe bet that the worst year ever for homicide by semi-auto rifle had fewer than 65 deaths.

Let's put that into perspective. The fed govt is going to spend a budgeted $600 million on buy backs, ads and what not for this legislation, all for fewer than 65 deaths a year. Yet they are only going to spend $250 over 5 years to "combat" gang violence, which is responsible for around 50% of all homicides in any given year.
Am I the only one who thinks there's something inherently wrong with the leftard logic on this matter?

Based on the estimated numbers of just the 11 rifles on the list, there are 124,755 of those types of rifles in the hands of Canadians. And those particular 124,755 semi-automatic rifles need to be banned because they are used in fewer than 65 homicides a year. Which of course is assuming they aren't being shot with a nice cheap Norinco or something other than one of the types on "the list".

Fewer than 65 deaths. Christ, second-hand smoke kills more Canadians every year than some fucking semi-auto rifles.

And finally, this ban is fucking MEANINGLESS except to the law abiding. The Akwesasne reserve is a goddam flood gate for firearms into Canada. Unless the fed does something about that, then all they're doing is making sure only criminals will have these rifles. Funny how all these leftard laws tend to make life easier for criminals while somehow either punishing the law-abiding or making them easier victims for the criminals they keep making life easier for.

Seriously man, what the fuck kind of govt essentially tells it's citizens they simply have to put up with home invaders and shit? Think about this for a second. If someone has broken into your home while you're at home and you plan on defending it and your family, the govt actually holds YOU to a higher fucking standard than they hold the police to.
Some asshole breaks into my home at 3AM and wakes me up in the process. At that point I'm disoriented and pissed right off but I'm still supposed to assess their intent and possible weapons. Meanwhile, cops jacked up on caffeine, white sugar and who knows what else can shoot the moment they "fear for their lives". But when someone breaks into my home while I'm home, fear of dying or my family being murdered don't matter one whit.

The final irony is Groper is going to let provinces and municipalities determine how to treat handguns as opposed to more federal legislation and yet handguns are a far bigger problem when it comes to homicides in Canada than semi-auto rifles.

Can't wait to see Toronto proudly proclaim they've banned handguns and then watch as the homicide rate doesn't even tick down one notch. And before anyone actually thinks I'm hoping it happens, the "can't wait to see" part is called sarcasm. Because I KNOW it won't change one goddam thing in TO. I mean look how well it's worked in Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore, to name a few. The latter two of which have consistently been on the list of the 50 Most Dangerous Cities in the World for years.

If you're using an AR-15 to defend yourself in your home, you're doing it wrong. A shotgun is a far better close-in weapon than an AR-15.

That wasn't the point I was making about home defense. The point is you'll be treated like a criminal while the criminal will be treated like the victim.