Discussions

Don't all politicians lie? I thought that it was a job prerequisite!

Farmers Feed the World said " So this morning trudeau tweeted that the new gun laws would require people to show their licenses. This is nothing new. Anyone that wants to buy a gun needs to have a PAL. Why would the prime minister of Canada lie to Canadians. I understand pandering for votes but to tweet this outright lie is outrageous and I'm at a loss. "

And not surprising.

Or has he simply got no clue what the existing law is?

Re removed posts, a reminder that political discussions on hot button topics are fine. Turning them into derogatory insult-laden personal attacks isn't. Posts of that nature only serve to turn threads into partisan flame wars which do nobody any good. Please keep it objective and constructive. If anyone has any questions please dont hesitate to drop a note though the Contact/Support link at the bottom of the page. thx

Ok, I''ll get back to that in a moment.  
Did a bit of reading not about the tweet but about the law,or the need of it being changed. Government loves to use statistics to try and show a problem, in this case they showed an increase in gun related homicides in the last few years. What they forget to do when presenting statistics is to distinguish who has commited those crimes. I could be wrong on this but we do have a bit of a drug problem in this country, which does seem to have a real weapons element to it, another statistic that maybe should have been looked at would have been how many incidents involved alcohol, and alcohol is something that government is supposed to control.  
Back to the wall. If drugs and the related activities are a major part of increased gun related homicides, then a wall would serve a better deterrent than some of the other ideas presented by the government.  
As for the PM, there are so many things that he doesn''t understand when looking at the diversity of the country.  
Read a bit about the pro gun lobby in this country, shucks, I didn''t even know we had a pro gun lobby, oh well, you learn something new every day.  
 
Thought I should add a bit about the wall idea. Those who commit gun violence and are connected to drugs likely don't fill out many forms to get guns, and since we have one of the worlds longest indefended borders in the world, without a wall there likely continue to be elements of society who get guns from outside our country.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2018-03-20 20:56:01

I am not here to bash politicians but I would bash any that think our gun laws need changed. I am a law abiding farmer who doesn’t like hunting but I have lots of guns. They are not for protection as we have very little crime here and if I really needed them they would be locked away with their ammo stored separately.  
 
I have my possession acuasition licence for both non restricted and restricted weapons. It takes some time, criminal record and mental health check and they can contact any person you have been in a serious relationship with to see if they are ok with you being able to have guns. These are the things the US are lacking in my opinion. Please everyone remember we don’t live in the US, I really have very little hope they will fix their problems but we again don’t live there so we can’t fix their problems by making laws for here where we don’t have the same problem.

The laws were changed. Basically  
-They made it mandatory for licenses to be checked and a reference number be issued before a non restriced firearm can be transferred (sold). Essentially they are forcing everyone to check a license with the government before a sale. Before you could just look at the license if you were comfortable with that as a seller.  
 
-Firearms dealers must record and retain the info of who bought a firearm for 20 years after the sale.  
 
- Two models of firearms in Canada (CZ858 and Swiss ''classic'' rifles) are now prohibited outright. Before they were non restricted.  
 
- They tightened up the transportation rules on restricted weapons. Now you need to apply for and be granted a special permit to take a restricted firearm anywhere other than a gun range in province.  
 
Essentially these laws target law abiding gun owners only and do absolutely nothing to deter or lessen violent criminals and violent crime.  
 
Edited by JamesDean, 2018-03-21 02:30:13

It's not a lie to state that the law requires people to show their license etc. Even if NO change was made, it's just stating what the current requirements are. Why make a big deal about it if it's basically the same as before?  
 
Like any kind of violence, gun violence in this country is largely between people who are known to one another, whether the relationship is illegal business or domestic/romantic or work related etc.  
 
No need to freak out.

The new proposed changes are not going to stop a criminal from using guns. The changes will make it more inconvenient for law abiding tax paying citizens to go to shooting range or transfer his guns to someone.  
A criminal does not abide by the current regulations and laws so what makes anyone think this will help.  
The only part that makes sense is the extended background check for anyone who may of been unstable in their past.  
There are so many different types of guns out there that transferring a couple to the prohibited class will not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. If they want one they will get one and it won't be by applying for a license.  
These new regulations appear to make more work for the ones who already do the work, so will the government be justified in raising our current license fees? It would be interesting to know how many legally bought, legally stored, and legally transported guns now are used in the commission of crimes, not many if any I would guess.

I think the biggest thorn in this bill is that it is adding another useless obstacle to private firearms transactions, which will cost the owners money. Currently, you go to a gun show, see a non-restricted rifle you like, pay the money, show you valid license to the seller, and walk out with your gun.  
 
The government is trying to claim that you don't need to show a license. Under the law right now, it says that the seller only has to believe that the purchaser is not prohibited from buying a firearm. The onus is on the buyer if he is in legal possession of the firearm. This stopped the RCMP from running around gun shows (or following up ads in papers or online) and trying to buy guns and then charging the seller for not ensuring the buyers license was valid.  
 
Under the new law, the private seller will have to call the firearms center with his license number, and the license number of the purchaser, and then receive an authorization number that will only be valid for a certain period of time. Since, currently, the firearms center is not open evenings or weekends, this means that the transfer will not be authorized until the next working day at best. If either party is from out of town, now the firearm has to be shipped, which is more expense to the owners.  
 
I have privately bought and sold firearms at gun shows, and can state that I have never sold a firearm to someone who has not shown me a valid license. It would be stupid to do so. This bill only adds obstacles to the legal gun owners, and does nothing to prevent those who do sell guns to un-licensed owners.  
 
Ralph Goodale also states that the records a dealer now has to keep will only be accessible to the government under a warrant. This is not written into the bill, and as it stands, all records pertaining to firearms sales are subject to inspection by the firearms officers. So in effect, the government will now have the ability to collect data on the majority of firearms transactions and maintain a pseudo registry.  
 
The adding of about 10,000 rifles that are currently either restricted or non-restricted over to the prohibited class also does nothing for public safety. The rifles that are in these classes are somewhat expensive, and not the arm of choice for the criminal element. Identical rifles are still available but under model names that will not fall into the prohibited class (for now). It will also come with the requirement that the owners will have to store these particular rifles in a safe, as opposed to the normal storage regulations that pertain to long-arms. More cost to the owners. And while the rifles will be eligible to still be brought to and from the range, if history shows anything, it is that eventually the government will stop issuing the required permit to take them to the range and they will become safe-queens. Just ask anybody who owns firearms that are currently in the 12.2, 3, 4 or 5 classes. Despite the promises by the government of the day that the owners would be grandfathered to continue to use them, the government eventually quit issuing the permit to take them to the ranges, essentially turning them into paperweights and de-valuing them.  
 
I also note the bill is going to do something with the stupid and useless UN marking scheme. Anything short of flushing that scheme down a toilet is just a waste.  
 
The finer points of the bill will be expanded on in the near future, as well as be questioned in the house by the opposition parties. No doubt there will be more thorns in it for gun owners.  
 
Thankfully the polls are showing the conservatives leading the Liberals by about 10% in the polls, so hopefully in a year and a bit, the next election will bring back a conservative government who will undo this crap. Mr Trudeau....please keep doing what you have been doing....it is working

is a means to impose restrictions and prohibitions on the law abiding because criminals and mentally disturbed people do not obey the law

Would issue a valid licence to firearms owners and then create a bureaucracy to check its validity.

Its funny when the Liberals talk about "common sense" gun laws, when they cant even understand the current laws. A prime example is how Trudeau thinks that you don't need to show you PAL (RPAL) before purchasing a gun. "This will change!" He cries. Its sad.  
 
All this is, is a failed attempt to pull on people heart strings as a result of what's happening in the US right now, so they can buy votes for their next election. There is no reason why we should make/adjust our laws because of things happening in the US, or other countries. It's not right, and as Ive said before on several comments that keep getting deleted (likely because the mods here don't like different opinions on this matter) changing these laws will not lower crime. This only restricts law abiding citizens.  
 
If this is to pass (and the Liberals buy some miracle manage to stay in power for another term), mark my words, this will be the first step in banning all semi-automatics and scary looking black rifles/accessories.

It looks like it’s still relatively easy to buy normal guns like hunting rifles and shot guns...as for restricted guns, why shouldn’t that be difficult? How do “law abiding” (that term is getting tired) people suffer by not being able to easily purchase a hand gun or other restricted weapon?

MrDobalina said "It looks like it’s still relatively easy to buy normal guns like hunting rifles and shot guns...as for restricted guns, why shouldn’t that be difficult? How do “law abiding” (that term is getting tired) people suffer by not being able to easily purchase a hand gun or other restricted weapon? "

The answer to that question, is another question.  
 
Why shouldn''t people be able to purchase those types of guns? The only things they (handguns and all other restricted guns) can be used for is sport shooting/range shooting. Its a fun, entertaining hobby for some people. Why deny them that?  
 
But yes, hunting rifles, and all non restricted guns are easy to buy. Walk into a store, pay for it, show your PAL, and walk out with it.  
 
Edited by FarmerMike, 2018-03-21 20:23:20

the biggest issue I see is the Police, not elected officials democratically decided on as it should be in a non-police state can arbitrarily re-classify firearms. This can lead to anything they choose being prohibited for no reason other than they want to. Police can't make the law.

Klemmy31 said "the biggest issue I see is the Police, not elected officials democratically decided on as it should be in a non-police state can arbitrarily re-classify firearms. This can lead to anything they choose being prohibited for no reason other than they want to. Police can't make the law. "

Totally 100% agree, and it started with the Ruger .22 magazines last year. Now they are targeting the CZ 858. Which is why I stated above that this is the first step in restricting/banning all semi autos.

Hand guns and all restricted or prohibited guns are MADE to kill people...PEOPLE, not animals or rodents...Smith and Wessons don't work well hunting geese, but they are very efficient at killing people. I don't know why everyone's head explodes when this kind of stuff comes up in the news. You register your car, your house, your trailer, your ski doo and none of those things seem to be as near and dear to your entire "reason to be" as these hand guns seem to be. My argument, is if you're a law abiding citizen why do you not want to tell the government what guns you have? I know why a criminal doesn't..but why do you care? All you're doing is standing in a building shooting at targets, whats the harm in filling out a form?  
 
Also as far as background checks...do you think people with criminal records should be allowed to get a restricted gun? or any gun for that matter? because I know most of you get posting pretty quick calling for life sentences any time a crime is committed so I'd assume you don't think any kind of criminal record should warrant something as dangerous as a gun...

MrDobalina said "Hand guns and all restricted or prohibited guns are MADE to kill people...PEOPLE, not animals or rodents...Smith and Wessons don't work well hunting geese, but they are very efficient at killing people. I don't know why everyone's head explodes when this kind of stuff comes up in the news. You register your car, your house, your trailer, your ski doo and none of those things seem to be as near and dear to your entire "reason to be" as these hand guns seem to be. My argument, is if you're a law abiding citizen why do you not want to tell the government what guns you have? I know why a criminal doesn't..but why do you care? All you're doing is standing in a building shooting at targets, whats the harm in filling out a form?     Also as far as background checks...do you think people with criminal records should be allowed to get a restricted gun? or any gun for that matter? because I know most of you get posting pretty quick calling for life sentences any time a crime is committed so I'd assume you don't think any kind of criminal record should warrant something as dangerous as a gun... "

Ok, lets hash this out a bit. Yes, you can say that the primary reason for the creation of guns was to kill people. Some will say it was to defend their country/themselves/other people, it really doesn't matter, the end result is yes, a faster easier way to kill. That being said, there is more uses for a gun, like Ive stated before, the sport of shooting targets has become more and more popular. Its not for everyone, because not everyone likes guns...and that's totally fine! I don't tell you what hobbies to enjoy, and you don't tell me what I should enjoy, its what makes us all unique. For obvious reasons, some guns, like handguns are not used for hunting, its impractical. However, some guns, like a lot of the restricted super duper scary AR style black rifles, could be used for hunting, but we cant. Those guns are restricted because they are scary. Fine and dandy, we respect the laws and use the typical hunting rifles (or shotguns) made with dull old wood. Its the rules, we follow them.  
 
I, and I'm sure every other restricted gun owning person out there, has absolutely zero issue with registering our pistols, and other restricted rifles. It doesn't matter to me, and if authorities want to know all the guns I have, they have but to call me and ask. I wont hide anything, I've got no reason to. Guns to me are a hobby, and I enjoy them. They are my property, so why wouldn't I show them the same kind of respect that you would a house, car, skidoo, anything else like that? Keep in mind, cars and skidoos kill people too...as well as knives etc. Its not the tool, its the person.  
 
The background checks I have no issue with, and I agree to a point that some criminal activity should limit what a person can or cannot purchase. Should a person with a rap sheet longer then your arm be allowed a gun? No. Should a person with any mental illness in their past have a gun? No. Should a person who maybe got in a bar fight one night at 18 years old then had a clean record after that, apply at the age of say 35 for a gun? A situation like that I don't see why not. Everything should be done in reason, and you wont find one person that would argue that guns shouldn't be in the hands of those that are criminals or mentally unfit...THAT part is common sense. The changes the Liberals want to bring in, is catering to the fear in the US, and is being done to win more votes for next year. Don't fall for it.

FarmerMike said "    MrDobalina said "Hand guns and all restricted or prohibited guns are MADE to kill people...PEOPLE, not animals or rodents...Smith and Wessons don't work well hunting geese, but they are very efficient at killing people. I don't know why everyone's head explodes when this kind of stuff comes up in the news. You register your car, your house, your trailer, your ski doo and none of those things seem to be as near and dear to your entire "reason to be" as these hand guns seem to be. My argument, is if you're a law abiding citizen why do you not want to tell the government what guns you have? I know why a criminal doesn't..but why do you care? All you're doing is standing in a building shooting at targets, whats the harm in filling out a form?     Also as far as background checks...do you think people with criminal records should be allowed to get a restricted gun? or any gun for that matter? because I know most of you get posting pretty quick calling for life sentences any time a crime is committed so I'd assume you don't think any kind of criminal record should warrant something as dangerous as a gun... " Ok, lets hash this out a bit. Yes, you can say that the primary reason for the creation of guns was to kill people. Some will say it was to defend their country/themselves/other people, it really doesn't matter, the end result is yes, a faster easier way to kill. That being said, there is more uses for a gun, like Ive stated before, the sport of shooting targets has become more and more popular. Its not for everyone, because not everyone likes guns...and that's totally fine! I don't tell you what hobbies to enjoy, and you don't tell me what I should enjoy, its what makes us all unique. For obvious reasons, some guns, like handguns are not used for hunting, its impractical. However, some guns, like a lot of the restricted super duper scary AR style black rifles, could be used for hunting, but we cant. Those guns are restricted because they are scary. Fine and dandy, we respect the laws and use the typical hunting rifles (or shotguns) made with dull old wood. Its the rules, we follow them.     I, and I'm sure every other restricted gun owning person out there, has absolutely zero issue with registering our pistols, and other restricted rifles. It doesn't matter to me, and if authorities want to know all the guns I have, they have but to call me and ask. I wont hide anything, I've got no reason to. Guns to me are a hobby, and I enjoy them. They are my property, so why wouldn't I show them the same kind of respect that you would a house, car, skidoo, anything else like that? Keep in mind, cars and skidoos kill people too...as well as knives etc. Its not the tool, its the person.     The background checks I have no issue with, and I agree to a point that some criminal activity should limit what a person can or cannot purchase. Should a person with a rap sheet longer then your arm be allowed a gun? No. Should a person with any mental illness in their past have a gun? No. Should a person who maybe got in a bar fight one night at 18 years old then had a clean record after that, apply at the age of say 35 for a gun? A situation like that I don't see why not. Everything should be done in reason, and you wont find one person that would argue that guns shouldn't be in the hands of those that are criminals or mentally unfit...THAT part is common sense. The changes the Liberals want to bring in, is catering to the fear in the US, and is being done to win more votes for next year. Don't fall for it. "

Hand guns WERE and ARE made to kill people. 99% of the hand gun argument is protection. Please don't try to make anyone believe hand guns are made for fun. You may like to target shoot but they are designed, built and sold to kill human beings.  
 
Please set Rifles aside, as the law makers have. They know that 99% of rifles are purchased for the reason I have mine. To shoot animals, maybe if I'm really bored once every 30 years I'll go shoot at beer cans but I find that super boring so I don't get the whole "I buy hand guns for sport" (Not saying you don't...I know lots of people like yourself genuinely do sport shoot).  
 
And finally lets set Automatic rifles and everything else that's restricted/prohibited under the same filing as handguns...designed to kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's O.K if you're fine with that but it derails anyone taking arguments seriously when people argue those specific classifications of HAND guns and rifles are necessary.  
 
And finally finally this whole thing also misses the point that MOST of the guns you want are still attainable, you just need to fill out some paper work and qualify...like a cell phone. Nobody can walk off the street and walk out with a cell phone anonymously and without any back checks (credit, proof of address) etc so why would a hand gun be any different?

MrDobalina said "    FarmerMike said "    MrDobalina said "Hand guns and all restricted or prohibited guns are MADE to kill people...PEOPLE, not animals or rodents...Smith and Wessons don't work well hunting geese, but they are very efficient at killing people. I don't know why everyone's head explodes when this kind of stuff comes up in the news. You register your car, your house, your trailer, your ski doo and none of those things seem to be as near and dear to your entire "reason to be" as these hand guns seem to be. My argument, is if you're a law abiding citizen why do you not want to tell the government what guns you have? I know why a criminal doesn't..but why do you care? All you're doing is standing in a building shooting at targets, whats the harm in filling out a form?     Also as far as background checks...do you think people with criminal records should be allowed to get a restricted gun? or any gun for that matter? because I know most of you get posting pretty quick calling for life sentences any time a crime is committed so I'd assume you don't think any kind of criminal record should warrant something as dangerous as a gun... " Ok, lets hash this out a bit. Yes, you can say that the primary reason for the creation of guns was to kill people. Some will say it was to defend their country/themselves/other people, it really doesn't matter, the end result is yes, a faster easier way to kill. That being said, there is more uses for a gun, like Ive stated before, the sport of shooting targets has become more and more popular. Its not for everyone, because not everyone likes guns...and that's totally fine! I don't tell you what hobbies to enjoy, and you don't tell me what I should enjoy, its what makes us all unique. For obvious reasons, some guns, like handguns are not used for hunting, its impractical. However, some guns, like a lot of the restricted super duper scary AR style black rifles, could be used for hunting, but we cant. Those guns are restricted because they are scary. Fine and dandy, we respect the laws and use the typical hunting rifles (or shotguns) made with dull old wood. Its the rules, we follow them.     I, and I'm sure every other restricted gun owning person out there, has absolutely zero issue with registering our pistols, and other restricted rifles. It doesn't matter to me, and if authorities want to know all the guns I have, they have but to call me and ask. I wont hide anything, I've got no reason to. Guns to me are a hobby, and I enjoy them. They are my property, so why wouldn't I show them the same kind of respect that you would a house, car, skidoo, anything else like that? Keep in mind, cars and skidoos kill people too...as well as knives etc. Its not the tool, its the person.     The background checks I have no issue with, and I agree to a point that some criminal activity should limit what a person can or cannot purchase. Should a person with a rap sheet longer then your arm be allowed a gun? No. Should a person with any mental illness in their past have a gun? No. Should a person who maybe got in a bar fight one night at 18 years old then had a clean record after that, apply at the age of say 35 for a gun? A situation like that I don't see why not. Everything should be done in reason, and you wont find one person that would argue that guns shouldn't be in the hands of those that are criminals or mentally unfit...THAT part is common sense. The changes the Liberals want to bring in, is catering to the fear in the US, and is being done to win more votes for next year. Don't fall for it. " Hand guns WERE and ARE made to kill people. 99% of the hand gun argument is protection. Please don't try to make anyone believe hand guns are made for fun. You may like to target shoot but they are designed, built and sold to kill human beings.     Please set Rifles aside, as the law makers have. They know that 99% of rifles are purchased for the reason I have mine. To shoot animals, maybe if I'm really bored once every 30 years I'll go shoot at beer cans but I find that super boring so I don't get the whole "I buy hand guns for sport" (Not saying you don't...I know lots of people like yourself genuinely do sport shoot).     And finally lets set Automatic rifles and everything else that's restricted/prohibited under the same filing as handguns...designed to kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's O.K if you're fine with that but it derails anyone taking arguments seriously when people argue those specific classifications of HAND guns and rifles are necessary.     And finally finally this whole thing also misses the point that MOST of the guns you want are still attainable, you just need to fill out some paper work and qualify...like a cell phone. Nobody can walk off the street and walk out with a cell phone anonymously and without any back checks (credit, proof of address) etc so why would a hand gun be any different? "

We already agree that guns (including hand guns) were primarily created for killing. But, so were bows and arrows. Do you wish to see restrictions on archery clubs? Granted, guns have the ability to do more damage faster, but the point is still there, that harm can be committed to another person by improper use of it.  
 
Rifles have to be i:ncluded in these discussions because of how so many of them are classified these days. Look up the CZ 858, currently non restricted as it is only a 7.62 (.308) semi automatic gun. The liberals wish to make this rifle prohibited. Why?  
 
I think we can both agree that registering restricted guns is a fair idea, and I have no issue with it, so long as the guns classified as restricted make sense. Why classify one semi auto as non restricted and not the other? The answer is simple - It looks scary. The reason why the 858 is going to get moved - it "looks" like an AK47. People hear that and are petrified. However, simple research on these kinds of guns will show how dissimilar they actually are.  
 
We cant even talk about automatics as they are already banned and that will never be lifted! Heck, we cant even shoot one at a range under supervision.  
So, guns that are completely unobtainable to gun owners should never be put in the same category as restricted guns.  
 
The only change that the Liberals are going to do to purchasing a gun is removing the mandatory 5 year check prior to getting a license. From what I understand that check will now go back as far as? It doesn't say. Is it when a person is 10? 16? 18? Who knows. That's why I'm saying, it needs to be clear. Does someone who got in a bar fight at 18 and got a charge for it deserve the same negative spotlight as someone with a history of assaults/ harsher crimes? Leaving it so vague while trying to push this into law is why people are upset.  
 
And, I'm not sure I'm reading your last line correct, but I'm going to assume your not familiar with the process of owning a RPAL and purchasing a restricted gun (if you are perfect, ignore the rest of this). When you possess an RPAL, you get DAILY CRIMINAL CHECKS done by the RCMP. Trust me, they will know if you earn a criminal charge and likely will be in contact with you concerning ownership of your restricted guns after being charged. Besides the checks, when you buy a restricted gun, the bill of sale, and proof of a range membership is sent into the CFO (chief firearms officer) in Manitoba where you are again checked to ensure your license is valid, your range membership is valid, and the sale is then approved. Once the CFO gives you the clearance and the checks are done, you can then take your restricted gun home.  
 
The point of that is, there is already extensive checks in place for restricted guns. It doesn't need any modifying in any way shape or form. Prescreening before licenses are gotten for medical history/criminal history could be tweaked, but again, the Liberals don't have any idea what that is. They are leaving it open, and that is scary.  
 
I know gun enthusiasts keep saying it over and over, but its just because its that simple and true, that it doesn't matter what laws, checks, or restrictions you have in place, if someone wants todo harm, they will simply illegally get a gun. Ban then outright? They will still get them. No one will argue for sensible laws, but they need to be SENSIBLE when introduced, and not a bunch of waste like these ones are.  
 
Lastly, I (and others) feel that the RCMP should not be the ones deciding the classification of firearms. It SHOULD be a separate board that knows all the ins and outs of guns that determine that. Does the RCMP determine safety ratings on vehicles? They see them and deal with them all the time on the roads during check stops etc.

MrDobalina said "Hand guns and all restricted or prohibited guns are MADE to kill people...PEOPLE, not animals or rodents...Smith and Wessons don't work well hunting geese, but they are very efficient at killing people. I don't know why everyone's head explodes when this kind of stuff comes up in the news. You register your car, your house, your trailer, your ski doo and none of those things seem to be as near and dear to your entire "reason to be" as these hand guns seem to be. My argument, is if you're a law abiding citizen why do you not want to tell the government what guns you have? I know why a criminal doesn't..but why do you care? All you're doing is standing in a building shooting at targets, whats the harm in filling out a form?     Also as far as background checks...do you think people with criminal records should be allowed to get a restricted gun? or any gun for that matter? because I know most of you get posting pretty quick calling for life sentences any time a crime is committed so I'd assume you don't think any kind of criminal record should warrant something as dangerous as a gun... "

Yes as I matter of fact I do know what a Police State is thank you, the power of Google and Wikipedia is amazing.  
A society where POLICE create and enforce the law. Were a government exerts control by members of a police force that operates outside normal constitutional boundaries. When the RCMP decide what the law is, not politicians and enforce them. When they decide to reclassify firearms based on their whims it goes in that direction.

Chlorine was 100% made to kill people as well, we have now found a better and more practical use for it.

https://www.realagriculture.com/2018/03/liberals-downplaying-concerns-about-new-gun-safety-legislation/  
 
A good talk with Mark Holland, Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Public Safety. Confirms that the Liberals think semi automatics should be restricted and also that they think that high powered rifles should be reclassified as restricted/prohibited.  
 
This is only the start of them restricting every gun out there. Listen starting to 9:20. None of this is true, and sad that they think this way. They are 100% wrong and now are trying to justify their changes based on lies. Unreal.  
 
Edited by FarmerMike, 2018-03-22 17:03:38

those of you who think our present gun laws are OK need to read this  
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/solomon-friedman-firearms-laws-deny-law-abiding-citizens-their-rights

In a way I''m not that upset, sort of odd because I enjoy having guns and being able to use them, in a responsible way.  
Sometimes when you take a bit of time to think you come up with some unusual thoughts, now the next comment might make people more mad than thoughtful.  
Political parties in this country don''t really look at everyone and the interests of everyone, they tend to form political ideology and throw the idea of compromise away. Gun owners are a minority, and a majority government basically does as it pleases following party line. We are seeing it with this liberal government which has always claimed that they are concerned about the well being of the ordinary person, and we know that gun control has always been an agenda.  
As a farmer I realize that I''m in a minority, I saw what the majority conservative government did with the wheat board, it was an all or nothing attitude, with no compromise, now as a minority, as a gun owner, I''m seeing a majority liberal government carry out their agenda, and I doubt there will be any compromise.  
For me the saddest part of this is we see much of the same thinking from politicians at all levels, it really sucks but that''s the way the world has gone.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2018-03-22 19:48:42

High River, Alberta. Flood of 2013. RCMP blatantly broke the law, in my (and many other's) opinion. No-one ever answered to that...  
 
Yes, it is a real issue. The RCMP top leadership, which is more of a political force than a law-enforcement force, is utterly opposed to civilian ownership of firearms. As is the liberal party.  
Both groups have only one agenda where it comes to firearms: total civilian dis-armament. Make no mistake about it.  
Alan Rock, commonly considered the father of the current firearms act, said, and I quote..." I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that only the police and military should have guns".  
 
Police State. It is here. It is happening.  
 
If we let it...  
 
 
pinkflamingos wrote:  
 
That's a lot of talk of hypotheticals. I'd be interested if he backed it up with any sort of statistics on how many of those potential problems actually happen. I'm not saying abuse of the laws doesn't happen, but I'd be curious as to if it's a real issue or just something this particular fellow feels threatened by.

I have 6 guns...rifles and a couple of shot guns. I would be defiant if the government tried to "Take them away" so in that respect I get what most people are saying. Except that's not even close to what the "Government" or any "political party" is trying to do. They'll always be fine with rifles and shotguns (Normal rifles and shotguns) The kind farmers and hunters and most of us use.  
 
I wish there was another name for hand guns and M-16's and sniper rifles and all of the guns politicians are actually trying to legislate some form of controls for so that the debate could be clarified and streamlined.  
 
I think hand guns should be prohibited for all except law enforcement. I think high powered rifles and assault rifles should be prohibited to all except law enforcement and military, and even for them it should be highly monitored.  
 
You'll always be able to buy a 306 Winchester the government will never make them illegal to responsible gun owners. You will always be able to own a 22.  
 
Are there any countries where you can not own a rifle or shotgun? (normal ones, and if you need to ask rhetorically or otherwise what a normal rifle or shotgun is you actually already know the answer your just bogging down the debate).

What’s the difference between your hunting rifle and high powered rifle and an assault rifle ?  
 
The action and their appearance?  
 
If you can purchase all 3 so called types of rifles in the same caliber, and same actions, why should one be banned and the other is OK ?  
 
Once they start more sub categories, they will quickly make more prohibited.  
 
They will eventually push to make all semi automatic firearms prohibited. Look at Australia.

check out Overview of guns laws by nation-Wikipedia. Will give you your answer