RCMP move to ban semi-automatic rifles

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

Do we not have controls in place already?

I think tweaking the controls we have now is a way better move than restricting and banning weapons. It's also a realistic step to make everyone happy.

[purgatory.sv]

Why must people who participate in legal ownership be the target of control?

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

Why must people who participate in legal ownership be the target of control?

Well I'm just guessing but it's probably because because the people participating in illegal ownership won't give up their guns if asked.

[duceman]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

Why must people who participate in legal ownership be the target of control?

because the only way for the do-gooders, that are trying to save us from ourselves, can feel as though they have actually accomplished something, is to show a statistic that says the crap they forced down our throat is being adhered to; whether it has any positive effect on society or not.

and since criminals aren't real good at following rules, the only ones that are dumb enough to follow said rules, are the ones that pay the price.

because gun owners in general are a fragmented group, that won't stick together from start to finish, these laws are easily weaseled in, one at a time.

[purgatory.sv]

true

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by fitzy

Well I'm just guessing but it's probably because because the people participating in illegal ownership won't give up their guns if asked.

And now explain how the control you are advocating will help with this.

[Newview01]

Look fitzy, you are asking what we need ar15s and handguns for. You tell us what you need your firearms for? It is something you can do without. If people want to take handguns, they will want to take single shot shotguns. There is no middle ground. Can you show one example from history where the government took only handguns and semi-autos, and did not or has no intention of taking everything else?

[Brad6510]

Originally Posted by qwert

If our only goal and purpose is to shoot feathers, fur, clay or paper,
then the vast majority of non-gun owners will feel no sense of common purpose,
as they consider both us and our activities as distasteful, noisy, dangerous
and more importantly of no personal self interest or benefit.

IMHO, our task is to convince non gun-owners THEY are the prime beneficiaries,
of our activities and our firearm training and ownership.

Good Luck, YMMV.

Sorry qwert I should have clarified that I meant gun owners need to put aside our differences i.e. the fudds. I broke it down in my mind into owners and non owners, the common interest being gun ownership

But I do like your points, if we can convince the non gun owners that us having guns is a good thing it would take a lot of wind out of their sails

[purgatory.sv]

Fitzy reason for participating in this thread was to generate meaningful disscusion, he likes it, believes it will help us, so he has taken the position of an anti gun stance, yet he wants meaningful discussion.

The responses posted by Fitzy never contained information, yet some of the other participants have included information.




I believe as a child no one took him fishing?

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Newview01

And now explain how the control you are advocating will help with this.

You have the wrong idea my friend. I'm in no way advocating for more gun control at all. I would change the existing rules to harsher pumisents for improperly secured and stored firearms.
That's about it.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Look fitzy, you are asking what we need ar15s and handguns for. You tell us what you need your firearms for? It is something you can do without. If people want to take handguns, they will want to take single shot shotguns. There is no middle ground. Can you show one example from history where the government took only handguns and semi-autos, and did not or has no intention of taking everything else?

I hunt. Target shoot. Clay pigeons. Plink with my kids. I could do without the. I certainly don't need them to survive but nobody is taking them without a fight. I have my grandfathers double barrel greener and my son will have that gun.

There is no example is history anywhere where once a government started taking firearms they stopped without a huge movement.
I don't think you should give up anything.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

Fitzy reason for participating in this thread was to generate meaningful disscusion, he likes it, believes it will help us, so he has taken the position of an anti gun stance, yet he wants meaningful discussion.

The responses posted by Fitzy never contained information, yet some of the other participants have included information.




I believe as a child no one took him fishing?

Lol I must have lost you along the way or didn't explain myself good enough. Sorry.
You're welcome. To believe what you like but keep in mind that it's attitudes like this that will lead to both of us shooting slingshots.

[purgatory.sv]

Actually its threads and posts like yours that divide more than bridge.

I wish you well, have a good evening.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by fitzy

snip
There is no example is history anywhere where once a government started taking firearms they stopped without a huge movement.
I don't think you should give up anything.

At last, some wisdom I can agree with.

Always
"Ask yourself this question . . .
Just what is it that government has in mind
that they feel they cannot do with an armed society?"
http://lasc.us/

History is full of examples of what too often happens after Citizens are disarmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Many of those in favor of 'gun control' are well meaning,
but do not realize or understand that history teaches
they are enabling tyranny and mass murder.

Good Luck to us all, YMMV.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by qwert

At last, some wisdom I can agree with.

Always
"Ask yourself this question . . .
Just what is it that government has in mind
that they feel they cannot do with an armed society?"
http://lasc.us/

History is full of examples of what too often happens after Citizens are disarmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Many of those in favor of 'gun control' are well meaning,
but do not realize or understand that history teaches
they are enabling tyranny and mass murder.

Good Luck to us all, YMMV.

I'm sorry to disagree but I don't see the connection. In this day and age gun control doesn't lead to tyranny and mass murder. You can always vote in a government to reverse it. It's the beauty of democracy...... 3 more years of NDP then boot.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

I'm sorry to disagree but I don't see the connection. In this day and age gun control doesn't lead to tyranny and mass murder. You can always vote in a government to reverse it. It's the beauty of democracy...... 3 more years of NDP then boot.

Once a firearm has been banned and confiscated and destroyed, no government can bring it back.

[buck403]

I don't know if this was posted but RCMP just made two restricted into non restricted. From the canadian national firearms association

[buck403]

Here the other

[qwert]

Originally Posted by fitzy

I'm sorry to disagree but I don't see the connection. In this day and age gun control doesn't lead to tyranny and mass murder. You can always vote in a government to reverse it. It's the beauty of democracy...... 3 more years of NDP then boot.

The common pattern of events it to
1st ban Citizen ownership of firearms, then after they are collected,
ban or suspend elections then
suspend Constitution and Rule of Law
then
confiscation of property
pogrom and focused or unfocused genocide and class persecution
concentration camps
forced migration
deliberate starvation
failed economy
war.

In the last century. this pattern has resulted in 262 MILLION murders of Citizens by their own governments.
(see links in my previous post)
This is a death toll higher than ALL the wars in history.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. - George Santayana

[Newview01]

Those sure are good to see. Hopefully ARs can become non restricted.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by Brad6510

Sorry qwert I should have clarified that I meant gun owners need to put aside our differences i.e. the fudds. I broke it down in my mind into owners and non owners, the common interest being gun ownership

But I do like your points, if we can convince the non gun owners that us having guns is a good thing it would take a lot of wind out of their sails

No apology needed,
I was just using your post as an example of arguing from our own interest and perspective rather than that of those who's support we need.

I firmly believe that public safety and the interests of non-gun owners benefit more from responsible Citizen ownership than do the actual owners.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by fitzy

We need to get over the US vs us thing and learn to be able to have a conversation like adults without attacking each other before we have any hope at all of tackling an us vs them scenario. How do we expect to teach anybody the value of what we do and stand for if we can't even talk to each other about it.

I'm not convinced that some gun control is a bad thing. I also don't want to lose my guns.

What type of gun control do you think is good? Just curious. I personally think any gun control is not a good thing. This whole thread is based on an inanimate object that is not a threat to anything in and of itself. The real problem is people who don't know how to properly handle firearms. Another thing that adds to the gun violence problem (not an issue in Canada so much as the States) is the video games, movies, and TV shows that condone and graphically depict all kinds of violence and gore. The average youth has seen so much violence and gore that they become accustomed to it. Again, it's not the guns that are the problem, and banning certain kinds are not going to fix the problem.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by qwert

The common pattern of events it to
1st ban Citizen ownership of firearms, then after they are collected,
ban or suspend elections then
suspend Constitution and Rule of Law
then
confiscation of property
pogrom and focused or unfocused genocide and class persecution
concentration camps
forced migration
deliberate starvation
failed economy
war.

In the last century. this pattern has resulted in 262 MILLION murders of Citizens by their own governments.
(see links in my previous post)
This is a death toll higher than ALL the wars in history.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. - George Santayana

I'll respectfully tip my hat to your passion on the subject and take my chances that the Canadian armed forces won't be rolling through my town shooting unarmed civilians any time soon.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Newview01

What type of gun control do you think is good? Just curious. I personally think any gun control is not a good thing. This whole thread is based on an inanimate object that is not a threat to anything in and of itself. The real problem is people who don't know how to properly handle firearms. Another thing that adds to the gun violence problem (not an issue in Canada so much as the States) is the video games, movies, and TV shows that condone and graphically depict all kinds of violence and gore. The average youth has seen so much violence and gore that they become accustomed to it. Again, it's not the guns that are the problem, and banning certain kinds are not going to fix the problem.

As I answered earlier I think stiffer penalties for improperly stored firearms is a great start. The less guns stolen or picked up by a kid the better. Every gun kept out of the news in negative light is a good one. Maybe background checks and waiting periods I don't know though.

[Brad6510]

Originally Posted by fitzy

I'll respectfully tip my hat to your passion on the subject and take my chances that the Canadian armed forces won't be rolling through my town shooting unarmed civilians any time soon.

Indoctrination. Sheeple will always follow the leader, doesn't matter the reasoning behind it.

All I can say is gun owners better start pushing back. Or we'll be in a new age version of Nazi Germany wishing we still had our guns

[Brad6510]

Originally Posted by fitzy

As I answered earlier I think stiffer penalties for improperly stored firearms is a great start. The less guns stolen or picked up by a kid the better. Every gun kept out of the news in negative light is a good one. Maybe background checks and waiting periods I don't know though.

We already have background checks and waiting periods, or did you forget how long it took Mirimachi to call your references and mail your plastic? Get the damned criminals off the street and better mental illness screening through schooling and half our problems are solved

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

It would be a hoot to see how many they actually confiscate if it did go through.

Will they get mine..no

Will they get yours ? Doubtful

With the sks being as cheap as it is, these guns alone would keep them busy for the next 50 years

In hindsight to my first reaction, I think it's just a scare tactic
They would have a better chance of reducing carbon emissions than people handing over there firearms which could easily be turned over when the cons get back home

[qwert]

Originally Posted by fitzy

I'll respectfully tip my hat to your passion on the subject and take my chances that the Canadian armed forces won't be rolling through my town shooting unarmed civilians any time soon.

The fact of the matter is that small arms are primarily useful for defensive tactics,
except when your enemy is un-armed, in which case spears, swords or starvation are equally effective for slaughter.
Small arms are seldom effective against a similarly armed enemy, who is probably occupying a defensive position with ample cover.

The primary function of small arms in a civil situation is deterrence,
Criminals do not know who has and who doesn’t.
The Army or Police will always have superior firepower, and probably numbers,
and can simply surround and contain, while they wait for armoured vehicles and/or artillery.

Citizens are fools to think they will survive combat with military or police.
But a Government using deadly force against any significant population will lose huge amounts of political capital and popular support.
In Parliamentary terms, they will likely lose the ‘confidence’ of the Nation,
and probably the support of the Courts, Military and Police.

Think of an armed Citizenry as a group who has ‘consented to be governed’,
and that IMHO, is the true foundation and greatest strength of Democracy.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[wolf308]

Originally Posted by qwert

The fact of the matter is that small arms are primarily useful for defensive tactics,
except when your enemy is un-armed, in which case spears, swords or starvation are equally effective for slaughter.
Small arms are seldom effective against a similarly armed enemy, who is probably occupying a defensive position with ample cover.

The primary function of small arms in a civil situation is deterrence,
Criminals do not know who has and who doesn’t.
The Army or Police will always have superior firepower, and probably numbers,
and can simply surround and contain, while they wait for armoured vehicles and/or artillery.

Citizens are fools to think they will survive combat with military or police.
But a Government using deadly force against any significant population will lose huge amounts of political capital and popular support.
In Parliamentary terms, they will likely lose the ‘confidence’ of the Nation,
and probably the support of the Courts, Military and Police.

Think of an armed Citizenry as a group who has ‘consented to be governed’,
and that IMHO, is the true foundation and greatest strength of Democracy.

Good Luck, YMMV.

We'll put. But if we had camo ........and a 30-06 that's like 5:1 odds hunters vs goverment drones. Always has been always will be. Ask Vietnam. Wait 7.62x54 or 39. Take 9 meals away from you and your family and we'll see what small arms can accomplish. They know this too

[Unregistered user]

Here's a cut and paste from today's CSSA news, quite pertinent to the thread. Gun-grabbers please take note you are not spewing anything new.

TEAM CSSA E-NEWS – February 5, 2016
Team CSSA E-News via CSSA-CILA-E-News <cssa-cila-e-news@cssa-cila.org>
To Team CSSA E-news
CC Team CSSA E-News Today at 9:31 PM
TEAM CSSA E-NEWS – February 5, 2016



** Please share this with your friends **

COMMENTARY – STRANGENESS ON THE FIREARMS FRONT

Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette (L) has again taken the role of attack dog on the firearms file. While not unexpected, it is a little perplexing in relation to other events in the last few weeks.

Incensed by the fact that licenses for restricted firearms (primarily handguns) have jumped more than 75% since 2010, Senator Hervieux-Payette has renewed her call to ban all firearms except for those deemed “acceptable” for hunting.

While English-speaking media refuse to report on it, CBC’s Quebec wing (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/q...pularite.shtml) is happy to report that the Senator’s plan to ban all firearms is moving forward.

Along with banning all firearms, her plan would also have all firearms stored in central repositories – not in individual homes.

Not to open the debate in the commentary, but would this measure ensure less home invasions since criminals will now have a one-stop shop for all their gun-theft needs or would they guarantee more home invasions with the knowledge that their victims are helpless? Inquiring minds need to know.

Senator Hervieux-Payette hates guns, including those in the hands of trained RCMP officers guarding Parliament Hill:“Every time I enter the Senate Chamber, I see two armed police officers at the door, one with a handgun and one with an automatic firearm. I must admit that this does not make me feel safe. On the contrary, I am frightened by the thought that a police officer armed with an automatic weapon could shoot it on the Hill.”

She then attacked the very notion of private firearm ownership, decreeing that a Liberal government would ban all firearms except those deemed “acceptable” for hunting purposes.

She proposed to do the following:

· Prohibit all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms;
· limit the definition of hunting firearms to the arms that are really used for the purposes of hunting;
· limit the transport of circumscribed firearms to transporters, thus controlling the movement of firearms in Canada.

That means banning all guns except the few she would “allow” hunters to possess. Of course, the criteria for which guns she finds acceptable for hunting remain thoroughly and purposefully unclear.

Not only would she ban all firearms but also hunting rifles and shotguns. If you are a target shooter, you would no longer be permitted to drive to the shooting range with your firearms. You would be forced to use an authorized (official Star Trek) “transporter” instead.

We couldn't make this stuff up. Apparently the good senator has already met the “phazer on stun.”

To add to the week’s craziness, the RCMP has declared classifications for two new-to-Canada firearms. For years the erstwhile technicians in the Firearms Lab have been burning the midnight oil to categorize two firearms, the Akdal MKA 1919 and the Norinco Type 81.

The Akdal MKA 1919 is a 5-shot self-loading 12-gauge shotgun manufactured in Turkey. It looks somewhat like an AR-15 but of course, being a shotgun, it functions very little like the older Armalite rifle. All the controls on the shotgun are in the same place as the AR-15 rifle making the Akdal very useful in 3-gun competition.

The Norinco Type 81 is a civilian 7.62x39mm self-loader based on a Chinese military rifle. Like most Com-bloc rifles, there is a resemblance to the AK although the rifle has far more in common with the ubiquitous SKS rifle. It looks pretty racy though and, of course, less than a year ago the Firearms Lab declared a blowback .22 (the Mossberg Blaze 47) to be an AK-47 variant because the Mitchell Arms AK-22 (another blowback .22) was also an AK-47 variant.

Excedrin please!

And the verdict is (drum roll here): Both firearms have been declared non-restricted.