All guns seized from this blockade were also being used to disrupt international trade.
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
65 points (97.1% liked)
Canada
7280 readers
296 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Who doesn't wear plate armor to hunt small game?
I legitimately do because of other hunters.
Smart!
I wouldn't give much credit to kevlar vs. a hunting round like a .300WSM.
He shot a guy in the face...
What would a vest have done?
Stop it!
I know I do.
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. Thatβs 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.
Way to gatekeep gun ownership. Everyone needs to choose guns based on your criteria, let's ban everything else, huh?
82% of Canadians supported the changes to the firearms regulations. 66% currently want stronger gun control. I'm not, "gatekeeping" anything. I'm discussing the reasons for what's going on. Labeling anyone who says anything you don't like a, "gatekeeper" or a Fudd diminishes the value of anything you have to say.
Why don't you instead try to explain why you need the prohibited version of a firearm instead of the functionally identical non-restricted version?
Or try to explain why you don't want to use the exact same prohibited firearm if it's coated hot pink?
The gun lobby makes such a big deal about banning firearms based on their looks. Explain why looks are your criteria for selecting a firearm.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next βΊ