Quote:
Originally Posted by heretohunt
If the government learned anything from the pandemic it is that everybody will talk tough but a lot of people will just comply.
They don’t have to take our guns or buy our guns. I don’t think they even want to. But as soon as there is any kind of incident at all, A fire, a break and enter, a check stop with rifles behind the seat. The news will report prohibited weapons found at the scene. Just like when the news says it’s a high-powered rifle or a sniper rifle, what does that even mean? Or we can just hide them in our gun safes and never take them out. Really sneaky there. Legal gun owners are in a catch 22 position. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The way our political system is set up, no politician would want to go against Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
The funny thing is I don’t think anyone believes that they are a safety issue. It just looks like they’re getting tough on guns. It’s an easy move to make and the liberals can stand tall and thump their chests. Their voters are unwittingly being duped.
These silly laws need to be reversed when the grownups get control of the situation. My fingers are crossed.
|
I see most people not complying, and hoping that a new government will repeal this nonsense.
Quote:
NZ *claims* 30% compliance based on their estimates of what citizens had.
That is like Mendocino claiming there are only 80,000 ARs and variants, or 20,000 Ruger Mini 14s, or 50,000 SKS rifles in Canada. Then when a few get turned in, it looks like a successful ban because they had 30% compliance, when in reality it was probably less then 10%.
And I anticipate compliance in Canada won't top 10%. Which is too much compliance by far.
|
Even at 30%, the -program would be a failure. So it will turn the people who opposed the bans, against the government, and show others how idiotic the plan was in the first place. The plan failing , will likely just cost them more more votes.