Fake news really.

I don't think you understand the legal interpretation of......

without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm.

What this means in simple terms is that in Canadian law a firearm is ALWAYS considered a weapons regardless of use or intended use.

I got that. .. It's in the catch-all Weapons category... for a reason.

I am confused why this is such an emotionally charged issue for some. Guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. are all weapons by definition.

weap·on

/ˈwepən/

noun

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

"nuclear weapons"

a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.

"resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"

The only other definition in Canada that matters is from the Criminal Code:

“Weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person

and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm.

Don't molly coddle this stuff. Call it what it is and if people want to scream and cry in terror becauwe of words then offer them a bowl of snowflakes and walk away.

I am just fine with grabbing my weapon and going hunting. And my goal is to kill something ethically so it can be enjoyed.

If those two sentences trigger you somehow then feel free to start a parade.

Right.. when the intended use is a person it is a weapon. According to the Can Criminal code all firearms are listed as a Weapons. Apart from that, call it what you want. Weapon sounds like a good choice.

My paranoia can be extended a bit further. All firearms are considered weapons in Canada. The last gun registry referred to them as "long guns".
What are you going to do when they eventually ban all citizens from owning Weapons ?
:thinking-006:

Because firearms are weapons. Don't let the use of a simple work get you worked up. That's a weakness/tactic of the political left in which they utterly lose their minds over other people exercising their right to use words and then often go on to misinterpret and infer what the person meant by their use of a word or words, of course vilifying that person in the process.

Well, that's going to make it tough to play golf, or baseball or hockey, since those 'clubs' and 'sticks' can all be used as weapons.

Or hammers. Pipe wrenches. Saws and drills (prominently used as weapons in slasher films)...and speaking of slasher, we are going to have to ban any kind of blade, like the UK has so moronically been working on.

Ball point pens are a weapon, saw it in the Bourne Identity. Along with a magazine, and a bath towel. All weapons.

Jesus, by the time we ban all the weapons, we will be back in the stone age. Wait a minute!! Stones?? Didn't Cain kill Abel with a stone??? We can't even go back to the stone age now!!

Maybe we can start a new 'age', the snowflake rounded off and padded corners with bubble wrap everywhere age. How about that?

Idiots, everywhere. Save us.

Snowflake is pretty much it.

If hammers and wrenches or golf clubs ever became classified as weapons that just could be the case. Your bang-on about the stones. IF they were ever classified by the Gov't as weapons, they could be as well. Firearms are already there..plus, Big Brother doesn't want us to have guns at this very moment. You're missing my point and your talking at the wrong guy.. The "New Age" has already started and I sure as hell had nothing to do with it,
Know anybody in Austrailia ?

Whatever you say Chuck. What day is it?

I actually was agreeing with you with my post. Still do. I think the idiocy going on is our worst enemy. I'm not sure how you took it, but I think we are actually on the same page.

And yes, I have a great friend in Australia, going to visit him in April and do some fishing and generally having fun.

My apologies TC. I took it the wrong way. Seems to happen often on the internet.

Glad to hear you agree. It doesn't take much on that topic to put me on the glycerin. It's pretty sad to witness the negative changes over the years within the hunting community and not many even notice .. or care.

Enjoy Australia !

Gord

No worries bud, it is hard to get nuance on the internet, and I'm so sarcastic anyway, I can see where I'm hard to read...:lol:

And I get right wild at stupidity from all the sheeple, it doesn't help.

So here's the deal
1. People are stupid - look around you
2. Words Matter
3. For those who say they will not be dictated to by a group of left leaning whining sheep, uh, who do you think is driving the bus in Ottawa? or for that matter in Edmonton (although to give her her due, Rachel is somewhere way out to the right of the prancing clown).
They are there no matter how offensive you (we) find them.

IMO the issue arises from the Criminal Code definition.
As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, that definition presupposes criminal intent. In the Criminal Code context, it is logical - if a firearm arises in a Criminal Code context, it most probably is a "weapon". In most situations where the police have to deal with firearms they are indeed a "weapon".

The problem is that this presupposition has carried across to the media, who for the most part appear to be too d*mn lazy to bother using language with any precision, and to the general public, the bulk of whom are informed about firearms by movies and their nightly diet of shoot 'em up cop shows where people routinely make 70 yard shots with handguns, cross body, while running at full speed and panting,where single bullets cause massive explosions, where holding a handgun sideways is the norm etc. etc.

So the general assumption is that if you are a firearms owner, your base intent is to run down the street spraying the neighbourhood with your H&K on full auto. The prancing clown and his supporters believe that this issue is one that can get them re-elected and are flogging that pony to within an inch of its life.

I object to the supposition that I am a criminal,so for me, they are called rifles, shotguns and in general, firearms, in order to make the distinction. One opinion changed may be one less vote for the idiots.

^^amen^^

Let’s not trigger the left. Heaven forbid.

So we should bow to their pressure? By this logic we should just turn in all firearms right now. This makes zero sense. Sorry.

“That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

What we should do is be precise in our use of language.
When a shotgun is in my gun locker it is not a "weapon"
When a shotgun is used to break clays it is not a "weapon"
When a rifle is being used to punch holes in a piece of paper it is not a "weapon"
When a firearm is being transported in my vehicle it is not a "weapon"

I will grant that by definition it becomes a "weapon" when I use it to punch a hole in a deer or to pick a pheasant out of the air.
However my firearms are only "weapons" for a very small percentage of the time that I own them, the rest of the time they are not.

As for "bowing to the left" IMO what we as firearms owners and enthusiasts need to do is to stop those fellatalists from taking over the agenda by using nomenclature that is too broad and does not reflect reality.
As in my original post - Words Matter

I wish people would say mayonnaise instead of mayo I wish people would say tomato instead of tamato etc . Wish people would say soda instead of Pop
I wish people would say northern pike instead of slew sharks

The terms Mayo, Tamato, Slew Shark, etc. don't scare potential voters with undecided opinions though like the term weapon does. See the difference?

I hate the term pickeral, but the feds aren't looking for excusing to ban fishing yet.

Absolutely Brilliant ! I wish people would say "slough" instead of "slew

I'm one who takes issue with people calling hunting rifles/shotguns "weapons", for the reasons outlined above. Anyone who thinks the language doesn't matter is fooling themselves. Remember who is sitting in the captain's chair in this country, and that teary-eyed, useless bag of shi* and his government would like nothing more than to have lawful gun owners start referring to their firearms as "weapons". Expect to get misquoted if you do!

I don't consider it to be pandering, being "soft", being "politically correct"...etc. It's not. It's being aware of the anti-gun climate in Canada, and not spoon-feeding left-wing latte-sippers in Ottawa anything to use against us. There is already enough false information, and twisting of facts...we don't need hunters calling their duck gun a "weapon". Bill Blair is already confused enough.

Yes it is still a weapon. The word is defining first and an intention second.

A sword is always a weapon, cutting a rope with it doesn't change that.

Firearms were not an advancement for target shooting. Their purpose was war, defense and therefore a weapon.

Pandering is the momentum of a sliding scale. And that slider is rocketing with stupidity right now. It needs to stop.

Weapons in the hands of good people shouldn't scare anyone. I am more fearful of the average driver and stray dogs.

I use a weapon to kill, not harvest but to kill wild game to fill my freezer so I can eat....some do it by shopping and letting someone else use a weapon to kill thier choice of game they wish to eat.

We are to far removed from knowing someone who has died to defend this country. When we are worried that calling a rifle a name will become offensive to someone because of some fear of real life we’ve gone too far. Terms like hate speech, micro aggression, social justice, triggered are a real concern. It’s high time we quit fanning that fire.

We would be far better off for our image if we bathed, combed our hair, and put on clean clothes before a gun show.

The hunting regs refers to them as weapons.

I think that firearms owners are more sensitive to hearing the term weapon than the general public is. People that hate guns hate them and it wouldn’t matter what you called them. True dat!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundog57 View Post
So here's the deal
1. People are stupid - look around you
2. Words Matter
3. For those who say they will not be dictated to by a group of left leaning whining sheep, uh, who do you think is driving the bus in Ottawa? or for that matter in Edmonton (although to give her her due, Rachel is somewhere way out to the right of the prancing clown).
They are there no matter how offensive you (we) find them.

IMO the issue arises from the Criminal Code definition.
As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, that definition presupposes criminal intent. In the Criminal Code context, it is logical - if a firearm arises in a Criminal Code context, it most probably is a "weapon". In most situations where the police have to deal with firearms they are indeed a "weapon".

The problem is that this presupposition has carried across to the media, who for the most part appear to be too d*mn lazy to bother using language with any precision, and to the general public, the bulk of whom are informed about firearms by movies and their nightly diet of shoot 'em up cop shows where people routinely make 70 yard shots with handguns, cross body, while running at full speed and panting,where single bullets cause massive explosions, where holding a handgun sideways is the norm etc. etc.

So the general assumption is that if you are a firearms owner, your base intent is to run down the street spraying the neighbourhood with your H&K on full auto. The prancing clown and his supporters believe that this issue is one that can get them re-elected and are flogging that pony to within an inch of its life.

I object to the supposition that I am a criminal,so for me, they are called rifles, shotguns and in general, firearms, in order to make the distinction. One opinion changed may be one less vote for the idiots.


So we should bow to their pressure? By this logic we should just turn in all firearms right now. This makes zero sense. Sorry.


SOOOO CHUCK did you actually read the thread ????????? :thinking-006::mad0100: