Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-20-2019, 08:33 AM   #6561
2Stonedbirds
Powerplay Quarterback
 
2Stonedbirds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rando View Post
The illegal handguns are already illegal.
All firearms smuggled into the country are illegal.
Now they want to make certain types of firearms that are legal, and not a problem in Canada illegal.
Please try and keep up.
2Stonedbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 08:34 AM   #6562
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

From the CBC link 2stonedbirds posted...


Quote:
Alexandre Bissonnette used a legally owned gun to attack a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, killing six men and seriously wounding five others. And Kimveer Gill, who carried out a shooting at Montreal's Dawson College in 2006, was also a legal gun owner. …cole Polytechnique attacker Marc Lepine was a legal firearm owner, too.
But wait! I thought it was only illegal guns being used? By non-law abiding owners? Except for that one. Oh, and that one. Ya and that one too...
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2019, 08:35 AM   #6563
2Stonedbirds
Powerplay Quarterback
 
2Stonedbirds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
First comment: irrelevant to the discussion.

Second comment: if assault weapons are already banned, then you are just pissing in your own face here by complaining about how the government will ban something already banned.

Your whole argument of using the US as a metric to banning rifles is irrelevant.

ARs are not assault weapons. If they are then how are Canadians able to own something already banned?

You're embarrassing yourself.
2Stonedbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 08:36 AM   #6564
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Second comment: if assault weapons are already banned, then you are just pissing in your own face here by complaining about how the government will ban something already banned.
Assault weapons (select fire) have been banned for decades in Canada. The term has been repurposed to capture a whole raft of semi-automatic firearms based on aesthetics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man View Post
I'm on board with tougher gun laws, and if they ban any future sales of AR weapons. I guess for me, if they do ban it, then they should ensure people who already own AR weapons either get fairly compensated through a buyback program, or the ban has grandfather clauses for existing owners. Seems unfair to just all of a sudden declare its banned, and people lose thousands of dollars on stuff they purchased legally.
There won't be a fair buy back. If they implement only what has been hinted, it will be billions of dollars to compensate owners. It will either be outright confiscation with a token payment that doesn't reflect value or they will simply change the laws like they did in the past to make them impossible to use and they can rust in a safe until they are surrendered upon the owner's death.
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 08:38 AM   #6565
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

It's funny how this goes. Everybody is a law-abiding gun owner because of the fact that gun laws are so lax. All of those mass shooters get their guns from a law-abiding sources. Las Vegas guy was a law-abiding owner.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 08:41 AM   #6566
Rando
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
From the CBC link 2stonedbirds posted...



But wait! I thought it was only illegal guns being used? By non-law abiding owners? Except for that one. Oh, and that one. Ya and that one too...
It's such a muddy argument, and he's having trouble keeping up. "Breaking and entering to steal firearm" was added to the criminal code in 2008 and numbers had gone up every year until 2017. So which definition will he use to brush the issue aside. Stolen weapons are illegal, but they were purchased legally in Canada and weren't smuggled across the border.

Obviously the flow of illegal weapons into Canada has to be addressed but this country can do both.
Rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 08:47 AM   #6567
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll View Post
Assault weapons (select fire) have been banned for decades in Canada. The term has been repurposed to capture a whole raft of semi-automatic firearms based on aesthetics.
And the fact that they are kinda useful for slaughtering large numbers of people in a very, very short period of time.

Kind of like... an assault weapon.

You, and 2stonedbirds can quibble over semantics if you like, not that it will help. Like I said, this is one of the Liberal policies I'm perfectly okay with.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2019, 08:50 AM   #6568
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

shooting guns is really fun

plz do not ban
stone hands is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to stone hands For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2019, 09:02 AM   #6569
2Stonedbirds
Powerplay Quarterback
 
2Stonedbirds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Yeah look at lilwhiteout and I quibble over legal definitions that class firearms.
Let's consider Resolutes feelings when drafting legislation.
2Stonedbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:06 AM   #6570
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

This is embarrassing from the Liberals. But clearly, judging by this thread, it's worked like a charm

RED MEAT
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Johnny eats garbage and isnít 100% committed.
nik- is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2019, 09:19 AM   #6571
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

How does this stop the flow of smuggled guns from the US? Scheer should turn around and say mandatory minimum of 5 years for an illegal handgun. Caught at the border with a bunch? 5 years per weapon.
burn_this_city is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:23 AM   #6572
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
Whataboutism is strong
I mean both sides are doing it.

"Scheer should apologize for the things he said in 2005."

"bUt TrUdeAu bRoKe tHe law!"

As if both things can't be true.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:23 AM   #6573
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds View Post
Yeah look at lilwhiteout and I quibble over legal definitions that class firearms.
Let's consider Resolutes feelings when drafting legislation.
Can you please give us the correct semantics so that we can have a reasonable discussion about banning all weapons which aren’t regularly used for hunting.

Like our healthcare system we only look good relative to the US.

What are Australia’s gun laws? They used to be a leader in gun deaths but cut it substantially with their buybacks and modifications.

Last edited by GGG; 09-20-2019 at 09:27 AM.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:31 AM   #6574
2Stonedbirds
Powerplay Quarterback
 
2Stonedbirds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Can you please give us the correct semantics so that we can have a reasonable discussion about banning all weapons which arenít regularly used for hunting
Lol. Ok, sure.
The AR family of rifles is no different from any other semi auto rifle and if it meets the legal requirements in barrel length and overall length, it should be treated no different than any other non restricted firearm.
2Stonedbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:33 AM   #6575
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds View Post
Lol. Ok, sure.
The AR family of rifles is no different from any other semi auto rifle and if it meets the legal requirements in barrel length and overall length, it should be treated no different than any other non restricted firearm.
Perfect so I should be saying we should ban all semi-automatic weapons
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2019, 09:35 AM   #6576
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

People don't seem to realize there are already reasonable restrictions on AR-15s and other semi autos. You are only permitted a 5 shot magazine in Canada, which is the biggest difference to the US.
burn_this_city is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:38 AM   #6577
stang
CP's Fraser Crane
 
stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan View Post
If itís too vague for you just ban all guns. Done.
Worked well with meth and cocaine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
I'll never get or understand peoples fascination with guns. Is there a legitimate belief that if Trudea gets uppity a bunch of overweight dudes in their 30s and 40s and older are going to overthrow the government with their weapons? If you want to protect your home and put your family at risk, get a pistol and roll the dice. But there's no reason you need a god damn AR15.
Iím not a gun guy by any means. I live rurally and have a rifle in case of coyotes. Go shoot some gophers every couple of years.

But no one is asking you to understand or get there interests. I like guitars and dirt bikes. You like hockey. So what. There are people that donít understand your interest in that either.

People are upset because there is literally guns that can cause more harm in a short time then the ar15. But because they are brown and made of wood, no one blinks an eye. But the AR gets a bad rap because of its looks.
stang is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to stang For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2019, 09:40 AM   #6578
2Stonedbirds
Powerplay Quarterback
 
2Stonedbirds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Perfect so I should be saying we should ban all semi-automatic weapons
Is that what youd call evidence based policy?
2Stonedbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:41 AM   #6579
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds View Post
Yeah look at lilwhiteout and I quibble over legal definitions that class firearms.
Let's consider Resolutes feelings when drafting legislation.
God I love projection.

Your entire argument is based on feelings. You feel that AR-15s shouldn't be considered assault weapons, even though they are really only used to slaughter at a rapid rate. And that, in turn, is your entire argument for why they shouldn't be banned.

Because of your feelings.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2019, 09:42 AM   #6580
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I mean both sides are doing it.

"Scheer should apologize for the things he said in 2005."

"bUt TrUdeAu bRoKe tHe law!"

As if both things can't be true.
Of course both sides do it - that should be the general rule.

Sure they both can be true, but they don't excuse the other.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
ďLine up all kinds of people to write op-eds.Ē
MelBridgeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:15 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016