Remember that these are the guys who said that they were preparing to fight UN and/or Chinese troops who might invade Canada?
Now their lawyer says that they were used for hunting? Was she taking about the pipe bomb or the handguns?
I don’t see a single trigger or cable lock in that photo. Was the ammunition stored in a separate locked container?
These guys should never be allowed to own a firearm again based solely on the UN/China delusion. These types of violent collective fantasies are extremely dangerous and they absolutely should be disqualifying.
All guns seized from this blockade were also being used to disrupt international trade.
Who doesn’t wear plate armor to hunt small game?
You never know when those weaselly wabbits are gonna fire back.
I legitimately do because of other hunters.
Smart!
I wouldn’t give much credit to kevlar vs. a hunting round like a .300WSM.
Removed by mod
I know I do.
He shot a guy in the face…
What would a vest have done?
Stop it!
I’d call 4 of 15 weapons displayed as some, not many. What dickfuckery is this?
But sure, next election, vote for the guy who supported and continues to endorse these neo-nazi pukes. Yeah, vote for the career politician who has never had a real job, never done his own taxes, never experienced need or hunger. He’s your guy, he understands you. He knows you’re a stooge who’ll swallow his bullshit.
Then, when he comes after YOU, I won’t say a word 'cause he’ll have already silenced me.
What choices do we have. That’s the problem
What the guns might have been used for prior to the blockade, or when not present at the blockade, is not relevant. You can commit murder just as easily with a hunting rifle as with a handgun. It’s just more difficult to carry the rifle concealed.
Exactly. These could have been hunting rifles, and used for hunting 100 times. Take them to a blockade and they become weapons.
Hunting rifles are much, much easier to commit murder from afar with. They’re high powered, they’re scoped, and they’re made to kill animals much larger than a person. That doesn’t mean they should be banned. I can kill someone with a pencil too, but they’ll still let me bring one into the courthouse.
And yet mass murders and military and murder fetishists prefer military style weapons. Why is that? Why do those types choose guns based on how they look instead of how they work?
Those are better for up close and personal. It also requires less training and practice.
Which is why the government is banning then.
Hunting with a Kriss Vector is… a choice.
This whole table just looks like the Modern Warfare 2 load out selection.
And this exactly is the issue with gun bans. Just because something looks scary to you, or looks like it’s from a videogame doesn’t mean it’s more capable than other guns, or that it isn’t used for hunting.
I have always found this to be a funny argument.
“You have two guns that are of the same caliber, fire the same cartridge, have the same rate of fire, and the same killing power but one is non-restricted few one is prohibited. I should be able to own the prohibited one.”
Why? You can get the exact same function from the non-restricted one. The only difference between the two is how they look.
I, a 40 year legal gun owner, believe that it is because of how people think the restricted firearm makes them look and how they think it makes other people feel about them.
How about this. This is an idea that I’ve proposed to people many times. You can keep those firearms but every part of the firearm, everything that goes into or onto the firearm, everything associated with the firearm has to be hot pink. Possessing a firearm or anything associated with a firearm that is supposed to be hot pink but isn’t means you instantly and permanently lose the privilege of owning forearms in Canada. Selling or repairing any firearm or anything associated with a firearm that is supposed to be hot pink means you instantly and permanently lose you license to sell or repair firearms in Canada. Allowing any firearm or anything associated with a firearm that is supposed to be hot pink but isn’t onto your range means that you instantly and permanently lose you licence to operate a range in Canada.
The only difference between the firearm now and in my proposal is the colour.
I don’t give the first fuck what color the gun is that I’m shooting at the range. I’m prefectly happy to shoot a hot pink or neon green or day glow orange gun.
Imagine you own the “restricted” gun or a similar family of guns. Then they suddenly get banned and you need to get rid of your actually worthless guns, because nobody will buy them now. A collector could be down thousands.
You are saying “hot pink” like that’s not an insane approach to it. You are still doing the exact same thing that the people who want to ban guns are doing. You are mandating a change of form of how the firearm looks. How about not doing that and letting people own the guns they want to own, if they are using them for hunting, sport, etc? How about not banning the “scary” guns for their looks only?
Gun ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be modified at any time. Automatic firearms were made illegal. High capacity magazines were made illegal. The government responds to the will of the people and most Canadians support the banning of handguns and military style weapons.
The guns aren’t being banned for the way they look but because of the type of people who buy them for the way that they look and the fantasies that they have about using them like the assholes who took a trailer load of military style weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition to a “peaceful” protest because the UN and/or China were going to invade Canada.
If you want to have fantasies of rising up against the gubment or shooting Liberals just substitute an oak stocked hunting rifle into that fantasy.
If there is an equivalent gun with identical performance, then banning a gun because it is “assault” (which is an idiotic term anyway) is plain stupid. If you think those people you mention won’t do the same thing with a wooden stock, and all the problems of irresponsible gun owners go away, then I can’t really get through to you.
…assault…
Did I say the word, “assault”?
… do the same thing with a wooden stock…
And yet they don’t. That’s because responsible, non delusional gun owners don’t load a bunch of guns and thousands of rounds of ammo into a trailer and take it to a “peaceful” protest.
If you’re buying a gun for how it makes you feel then you shouldn’t be buying a gun. I’ve owned guns continuously for 40 years. My 15 year old son just completed his CFSC with an overall score of 98 out of 100. We are gun people. I’m not anti gun by any stretch of the imagination. I’m very much anti the wrong people owning guns and people who stockpile military style weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition are the wrong people.
It does make one wonder why, when the police lay out the range of firearms that a bunch of Gravy Seal terrorists bring to the beginning of their war against the government, it is never a table of Smith and Wesson oak stocked hunting rifles. It’s because they watch too many movies made in the US and play too many shoot-em-up video games and want to play soldier. THAT is the reason that this type of firearm is being banned. It’s not because of how they look but because of the type of people who want to own them and why they want to own them. I have absolutely zero concern that the government is ever going to come for my guns because I didn’t buy them to feed into my part of the collective murder fantasies of the anti-government nutjobs.
Why am I not surprised that these terrible people could only obtain counsel from an equally terrible attorney?
If these were seized from vehicles, neither of those considerations are relevant. You don’t need a firearm lock or locked ammo box in a vehicle. The firearm just can’t be loaded when in the vehicle.
What are the rules for the handgun and pipe bomb?
It does say hunting/defense. Some of those are self-defense weapons, and some are hunting weapons. It’s not difficult to see which is which.
If you think you need a gun for self-defense in Canada you shouldn’t have a gun. You’re more likely to choke to death on a hotdog, to drown in your own bathtub, to die from entanglement in your own bedsheets, from being stung by a bee, or by being trampled by a cow than you are to be killed with a gun by someone you don’t know if you’re not involved in the drug trade or organized crime. In fact, you’re FAR more likely to be killed by or to kill someone you love if you have a gun than you are to be killed by a stranger.
In fact, you’re FAR more likely to be killed by or to kill someone you love if you have a gun than you are to be killed by a stranger.
I’m pretty sure that’s the case everywhere that has guns. Statistically, there’s way more occurrences where there’s a potential for death with people you’re around all the time. Plus, there are a lot of boneheaded people in the world.
But to your original point, a burglar, or intruder, or stalker, or whatever, doesn’t need to have a gun to make it a good idea for you to have a gun. Why would you want to meet someone who’s invading your house on equal footing? The idea is to have overwhelming odds on your side so that you can come out of the situation unscathed. Nobody’s going to see an intruder with a knife and go “oops, he only has a knife, so I better put my baseball bat down and grab my pocket knife!”. That’s just silly movie machismo stuff. You want as much advantage as you can get.
It’s highly unlikely that most people will ever encounter any scenario like that. That’s true. But that doesn’t make it a bad idea to be prepared. As unlikely as it is, I know someone who suffered a home invasion in her 2nd floor apartment in a gated community, in the nice part of town. The burglars climbed her balcony, and threw her BBQ through the sliding glass door while she was sitting on the couch. Then they forced her onto the ground and made her sit cross-legged with her face between her knees while they stole everything of value that she owned. Would a gun have helped her? Maybe not. Idk. But the point of owning a gun for self defense, or home defense, or whatever, is to be prepared for the times when it would help you. Not everyone who owns a gun is a crazy gun person who makes it their whole identity. Some people just want to be prepared, and some people just enjoy the sport of marksmanship.
It’s highly unlikely that most people will ever encounter any scenario like that. That’s true. But that doesn’t make it a bad idea to be prepared.
It is an EXTREMELY bad idea. The chances that you’re going to kill someone you love goes up dramatically when you have a gun in your home. You’re not making yourself and your family safer you’re making it FAR more likely that they will be a victim of gun violence.
Do you grind up your hotdogs so that you won’t choke on them? Do you wear a life jacket in the bathtub? Have you stripped your bed of bedsheets? Do you wear a bee suit when you go outside? It’s highly unlikely that any of those things are going to happen to you, too.
This is a riduclous argument. Literally worthy of ridicule.
K
Why would you want to meet someone who’s invading your house on equal footing? The idea is to have overwhelming odds on your side so that you can come out of the situation unscathed
That’s cute how you have a gun ready to go when you hear a strange noise. In your fantasy land, did you forget a responsible and legal gun owner will have the guns and ammo locked separately?
“Wait a sec. When I get these unlocked, you’re in for it”
But no, pitch that mixture of FUD and FOMO harder.
I know that there are more absurdities that prove your point. However, a handgun can be a great addition to hunting
It is illegal in Canada.
That is a good point I was not aware of. Sorry about that
They are restricted, not illegal.
In Canada it is only legal to hunt with non-restricted firearms. It is illegal to hunt with handguns.
Ok, ignoring the fact that handguns are illegal in Canada…how is a handgun a great addition to hunting? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.
Handguns are not illegal in Canada. I’ve got 3 all properly licensed and stored in a safe.
You can’t use them for hunting, but that’s not what you said.
Trappers and other wilderness types can apply for a license to carry them for self defence from predators while in the wild from what I recall, but you need to actually get the license not just decide to tote it around, which is very much how it should be.
I own firearms but appreciate the Canadian training and regulations. The way it should be, at least before liberal fuckery with gun legislation to get cheap votes and not actually fix the problem.
Trappers and other wilderness types can apply for a license to carry them for self defence from predators while in the wild from what I recall, but you need to actually get the license not just decide to tote it around, which is very much how it should be.
Not just any wilderness type.
You must also:
- be a licensed professional trapper or
- need protection from wild animals while working at your lawful occupation, most often in a remote wilderness location
Ya. Basically what I said.
You said, “wilderness types” which suggests that anyone who is in the wilderness can get an ATC. That is absolutely untrue. Your being in the wilderness must be a requirement of your job for you to even apply for an ATC.
Firearms “experts” are always so “helpful”.
I’m not an expert but I can Google and I can read and it’s important to be accurate when you’re taking about firearms. Stop moaning and move on.
