Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Printed it out at one point, it came out to 45 pages.
Played with the margins and the type font size, got it down to 36 pages.
That's a BUNCH of guns.
It might be complete, or might just be a work in progress. Keep checking back to see if any more are being added later.
--------------------------
Will the Canadians be any safer now?
How many owners of these guns, will meekly turn them in? Especially the vast majority who have never shot anybody, threatened anybody, scared anybody, or anything else? You know, law-abiding citizens?
My guess is, many will not.
And then, what will happen to those who do not, after the two-year "grace period" is up? Will SWAT teams (or the Canadian equivalent) start surrounding houses, seizing them at gunpoint, etc.? As has been done in California for the last several years?
Maybe it's different in Canada in that hey are legally obligated?
I don't consider such bans effective but either way, their country, their rules.
On another note I really like their border control/immigration policies. The gold standard, IMO whereas we're still thinking in late 19th century.
Re: police obligations in Canada it has been ruled in court that the police are bound by duty to be guardians of public safety, not guarantors of public safety.
The one thing that will be effective about the bans is that the violent minded kinds of obsessives who relish and slaver over those kinds of weapons won't be able to legally access and purchase those weapons in Canada. If they are absolutely determined to possess them they will have to go to the extra effort and expense and personal danger to their own selves that is involved in acquiring them illegally. They still won't be able to use them and if they do it will be in the commission of crimes.
Reasonable, practical minded people who only want firearms for legal hunting won't be so hot-headed about acquiring such weapons. They won't want to be bothered with all that criminal contact and criminal hassle and the many potential risks to their own personal selves that is involved with acquiring and possessing the banned weapons.
How many owners of these guns, will meekly turn them in? Especially the vast majority who have never shot anybody, threatened anybody, scared anybody, or anything else? You know, law-abiding citizens?
My guess is, many will not.
And then, what will happen to those who do not, after the two-year "grace period" is up? Will SWAT teams (or the Canadian equivalent) start surrounding houses, seizing them at gunpoint, etc.? As has been done in California for the last several years?
This is true. Many law abiding citizens who already have those guns registered to them will turn them in within the grace period.
Many of them will instead have already lost them in boating accidents while crossing big lakes and rivers during one of their last hunting trips prior to 2020. Or some such other tragic loss that involves one or more of Canada's 6 million lakes.
It wasn't about assault rifles though. It is about semi auto "military style" rifles which wraps up features that have no affect on a rifles parameters.
Thankfully I know there are Canadians that see through this "Feelz Good, Darn it we are doing something!" nonsense and call it for what it is.
“Justin Trudeau is using the current pandemic and the immediate emotion of the horrific attack in Nova Scotia to push the Liberals’ ideological agenda to make major firearms policy changes,” said the Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, following Trudeau’s comments. “Taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals who obtain their guns illegally.”
You need more Andrew Scheer types and less Justin Trudeau types regarding this particular topic.
Scheer is an idiot. He made a fool of himself in the last election. The Conservatives don't even want him anymore. He will be out as soon as they elect a new leader.
Funny you should ask that question. Those people keep on shaking their heads and asking the exact same question about you people.
What is wrong with you that would cause you to get so unreasonably upset with other countries' policies and ideals that have no effect on you? It doesn't make any sense.
Are you upset because people in other countries reject your violent beliefs? Maybe you should just mind your own business and stop thinking about trying to impose your own unwelcome violent policies and ideals on other countries.
.
Statist calls an anarchist "violent".
Merriam-Webster will be in touch with you. They want to use this post as the definition of irony in their next edition.
That's why the murder rate by guns in Canada is going to be far far far far less than it will be in the USA this year! It's called 'common sense'
Sorry, it's called 'different societal norms'. It makes no sense to chalk it up to 'common sense' and it could be argued that attribution of the latter is actually reflective of the lack of it's presence.
I'm a moral persona nd don't feel affronted at all. You did -- that's your feelings and you don't live there. Don't go there. Don't buy Canadian do whatever makes you feel like you showed them but what the heck does it matter.
I have to agree with you. It's Canada and none of our business. If folks don't like Canada's laws, then don't list Canada.
a mugger holding me up is robbery, theft, extortion, etc. and is illegal. that is not debatable and not the same as what we are discussing.
Sorry, had a brain fart.
Forgot I'm talking to someone who believes that when the incident is between two individuals it's robbery, theft, extortion, etc. and illegal.
But
when the incident is between an individual and a government it's "taxation", "eminent domain", "collateral damage", etc. and therefore "legal".
I've been detoxed from public school for a long time now so the lapses happen. My bad. Forgot where you were coming from.
More irony here as you say you don't want to meddle in the affairs of others yet you are clearly condoning an involuntary 3rd party (in this specific case the entity that calls itself the Canadian government) from interfering in two individuals buying, selling, gifting, trading, etc property.
Sounds like meddling to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
