"Canada Bans Assault Weapons; People 'Deserve More Than Thoughts and Prayers' ”

[Shadow Wolf]

I can certainly tell you that nothing in the world would make me wish to give up Canada and become an American. (By the same token, my best friend was born in Schenectady NY, and lived the majority of his life and work in the US -- but is now a happy, proud Canadian, having recently taken the oath of citizenship. And he says he would never go back.)

When I get my masters, I might head up that way. Not as high priority as getting out of Indiana was, and I'm willing to take things that may tie me down here, but depending on how things go spending the rest of my life where religion isn't such a major huge deal and where fear of gun violence seems non existent seems appealing. I may even throw the money Ill be reimbursed from transitioning into a bank account to get moved there.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Why would a police force need them? Why would military need them?

There's no equivalence between an ordinary citizen and police/military. Police/military have a lifetime of training, experience and other important prerequisites. Besides, police/military face dangers on daily basis. Going by that logic, maybe ordinary citizens should own nukes too

 

[Curious George]

There's no equivalence between an ordinary citizen and police/military. Police/military have a lifetime of training, experience and other important prerequisites. Besides, police/military face dangers on daily basis. Going by that logic, maybe ordinary citizens should own nukes too

I do not see how. Do you think nukes are a reasonable response to an armed assailant with intent to kill?

Next question, is a gun?

Is an "assault weapon?"

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

That's not what I meant. Nuclear armed nations know how to deal with nukes just like police/military knows how to manage weapons like assault weapons, something not every ordinary citizen do.

I agree that gun/assault weapon can be useful when dealing with armed assailant hell-bent on harming you/your family, but only to certain extent. It has it's benefits, but costs are far greater. Not just the dangers of some psycho misusing the weapon, but also accidents and other hazards it brings with it.

I think there should be a better alternative, ESPECIALLY for assault weapon. We should really find better alternatives which isn't as dangerous as assault weapons and can be used for defensive purposes

 

[Curious George]

That's not what I meant. Nuclear armed nations know how to deal with nukes just like police/military knows how to manage weapons like assault weapons, something not every ordinary citizen do.

I agree that gun/assault weapon can be useful when dealing with armed assailant hell-bent on harming you/your family, but only to certain extent. It has it's benefits, but costs are far greater. Not just the dangers of some psycho misusing the weapon, but also accidents and other hazards it brings with it.

I think there should be a better alternative, ESPECIALLY for assault weapon. We should really find better alternatives which isn't as dangerous as assault weapons and can be used for defensive purposes

I agree that there should be better alternatives, i even agree that in many situations there are.

I do not agree that it is my right to foreclose an other's option in safeguarding a fundamental right when we both acknowledge that it is an reasonable, efficient and effective tool towards that end.

I

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The legislation contains a list. You can look it up in Hansard, which is published by the Government of Canada online for all to read.

If you don't know, why do you respond?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you don't know, why do you respond?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I have no intention of listing the 1500 weapons named by the Government of Canada. I don't even have any interest. If you DO have an interest, as you implied, I provided you with information that would help you find out what the Canadian government thinks constitute those weapons.

If that's not satisfactory to you, well, ooopsy!

 

[Curious George]

I have no intention of listing the 1500 weapons named by the Government of Canada. I don't even have any interest. If you DO have an interest, as you implied, I provided you with information that would help you find out what the Canadian government thinks constitute those weapons.

If that's not satisfactory to you, well, ooopsy!

His point was that it is emotional rhetoric. Surely you see that! Not that it was his point but that the term is indeed emotional rhetoric.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I have no intention of listing the 1500 weapons named by the Government of Canada. I don't even have any interest. If you DO have an interest, as you implied, I provided you with information that would help you find out what the Canadian government thinks constitute those weapons.

If that's not satisfactory to you, well, ooopsy!

OK. You don't know. Apparently neither does the OP.

Everyone wants them banned but no one knows what a 'military grade assault rifle' is. Seems to me you need to define that before you make a list.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The legislation contains a list. You can look it up in Hansard, which is published by the Government of Canada online for all to read.

His point was that it is emotional rhetoric. Surely you see that! Not that it was his point but that the term is indeed emotional rhetoric.

Interesting. You see my post above as "emotional rhetoric?" It looks rather matter-of-fact to me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why would a police force need them? Why would military need them?

But surely it is all about escalation - I want a bigger, faster, more bullets, etc. weapon than the next bloke who might threaten me. The military has the same conundrum, and which has led to nuclear weapons, but for the ordinary Joe it should be about lessening such threats not about provoking them - which is what allowing gun ownership usually leads to - and the USA is a prime example of this stupidity. If people didn't feel threatened then they would have no need for such weapons. And many nations seem to appreciate this fact. Sorry, you lot got your constitution wrong but that is the issue.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

But surely it is all about escalation - I want a bigger, faster, more bullets, etc. weapon than the next bloke who might threaten me. The military has the same conundrum, and which has led to nuclear weapons, but for the ordinary Joe it should be about lessening such threats not about provoking them - which is what allowing gun ownership usually leads to - and the USA is a prime example of this stupidity. If people didn't feel threatened then they would have no need for such weapons. And many nations seem to appreciate this fact. Sorry, you lot got your constitution wrong but that is the issue.

OK. What is the 'threat'? Is it real or perceived?

Which weapons do we have need of, according to you?

No, we got the Constitution of 1776 right, and 1787. That is the issue.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK. What is the 'threat'? Is it real or perceived?

Which weapons do we have need of, according to you?

No, we got the Constitution of 1776 right, and 1787. That is the issue.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Some other bloke has a weapon that might threaten me so I need one too? Those countries that don't allow such possession know this is a dumb game to play.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I remember when Canada pretty much restricted long rifles and such, and still remember the protesting over it.

Canada's never restricted long guns in general.

Are you talking about the long gun registry (which has since been repealed)?

My friend used to go from the States to Canada to hunt game and would bring his guns over the border back in the good old days, and now the red tape is so immense he just doesn't do it anymore.

From what I understand, there's a lot of red tape for a non-citizen to bring a firearm into the US, too.

There's been some huge shifts in free world countries now where freedom is really becoming a focus and a concern.

Especially in light of terrorism and now the virus.

But one thing I know for certain, if people are happy who am I to say it's not working for them?

I do wish Canada the best though because it is a beautiful and great country which I think is a mirror image of the United States in terms of freedom and autonomy. I would hate to see that destroyed.

Sounds like you and I have very different ideas of what "freedom" means. To me, it includes habeas corpus, government that's responsive to the people, freedom of movement, etc.

For instance, I see universal health care as a protector of freedom... which I'm guessing you don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good riddance. Why the hell would an ordinary citizen need a ****ing Assault Weapon? Are you preparing for Zombie Apocalypse or are you Usama's relative?

FWIW, I'm starting to soften my stance on guns... at least in the American context.

People like these numpties are getting more and more brazen in their attacks on people's rights. It seems more and more likely that at some point, the cause of liberty would be greatly helped by the ability to put a bullet through their body armour:

Armed lockdown protesters in Michigan statehouse

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's just a matter of getting north of Michigan.

*waves from the part of Canada south of Michigan*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

*waves from the part of Canada south of Michigan*

As someone who makes a yearly pilgrimage to Stratford and/or Niagara-on-the-Lake, I should have known better.

 

[metis]

*waves from the part of Canada south of Michigan*

Been there at the southern tip of Point Pelee. Also, we used to regularly camp at Pinery Provincial Park near Grand Bend and also at Goederich (sp?). We've spent a LOT of time in Windsor and, as a matter of fact, we were going to see Pit Bull at the Windsor Casino last month until it got cancelled because of the virus. We also shop on Erie street regularly because my wife's from Italy, plus we go to the Italian festival there in the summer.

 

[Rival]

As someone who makes a yearly pilgrimage to Stratford and/or Niagara-on-the-Lake, I should have known better.

I am reminded of a conversation I oversaw in an online chat years ago.

A: I live in the UK.
B: I thought you said you live in Scotland?

 

[Curious George]

Interesting. You see my post above as "emotional rhetoric?" It looks rather matter-of-fact to me.

Now you have misunderstood my post as well. "The term" refers to the term you were discussing. That term is "military grade assault rifles." I hope this adds clarity.