Trudeau explains why he's banning assault guns

[Lord of Planar]

Well yes, "assault rifle" in military terms means a rifle firing an intermediate round that's controllable on full auto and capable of selective fire.

They don't have to have a pistol grip but I'm not aware of any that don't.

There's also the commonly used term "battle rifle" that in many cases looks like an assault rifle but is chambered for a larger round on is not as controllable on full auto and may not even have that capability.

One point is when someone misuses the word "assault rifle" for example saying someone wants to ban it.... It's already illegal without a special permit to own one. People turn around and think, damn... That person is a total idiot. When that happens, do you think they will be listened to, or laughed at?

Words have meaning. To incorrectly use words portrays a poor image of the person doing so.

 

[COTO]

As you say it effects only a minority and not much of an effect at that as they are still free to collect guns if they choose. All that has been removed is one type that has no other function than to kill people.

"Still free to collect guns if they choose" is really pushing it for Canada. Technically we're free to collect guns, but there are so many punishing costs, regulations, usage restrictions, and outright bans that there can be nothing enjoyable or entertaining about it. It would be like comic collecting if you couldn't own anything except Marvel or DC, you had to keep your comics locked in a safe in the basement, you could never legally read them or show them to anybody, and you had to pay $100 per comic every two years for "re-certification".

And as you can see from turtledudes response it also makes canadians look less like a bunch of paranoid nutjobs intent on pushing their strongly held belief that it iis their right to answer violence with more violence and their right to kill.

Americans have always been more aggressive culturally. You guys were the ones who rebelled against the British. We just had tea and crumpets with them. :shrug:

Frankly, if we had your government, I'd be tempted to stock up guns and hide in a bunker somewhere too. On this basis alone, I don't fault many pro-2A zealots. America as envisioned by the Founding Fathers wasn't even supposed to have a national army, much less the all-consuming military behemoth the US government has become. Perhaps an armed populace won't prevail against worsening government tyranny, but it will at least give tyranny a run for its money.

 

[TurtleDude]

"Still free to collect guns if they choose" is really pushing it for Canada. Technically we're free to collect guns, but there are so many punishing costs, regulations, usage restrictions, and outright bans that there can be nothing enjoyable or entertaining about it. It would be like comic collecting if you couldn't own anything except Marvel or DC, you had to keep your comics locked in a safe in the basement, you could never legally read them or show them to anybody, and you had to pay $100 per comic every two years for "re-certification".


Americans have always been more aggressive culturally. You guys were the ones who rebelled against the British. We just had tea and crumpets with them. :shrug:

Frankly, if we had your government, I'd be tempted to stock up guns and hide in a bunker somewhere too. On this basis alone, I don't fault many pro-2A zealots. America as envisioned by the Founding Fathers wasn't even supposed to have a national army, much less the all-consuming military behemoth the US government has become. Perhaps an armed populace won't prevail against worsening government tyranny, but it will at least give tyranny a run for its money.

I call an armed citizenry a "rattlesnake". Suppose you are 6-4 and weigh 300 pounds and you are in a room with a 12 pound 6 foot Diamondback rattlesnake. Now if you go over to the snake and jump on it, you most likely will kill it. But there is a good chance it will bite you. You might not die, you might just suffer severe pain and some permanent damage. But you would "win".

are you better off stomping that snake, or leaving it be?

 

[swing_voter]

I call an armed citizenry a "rattlesnake". Suppose you are 6-4 and weigh 300 pounds and you are in a room with a 12 pound 6 foot Diamondback rattlesnake. Now if you go over to the snake and jump on it, you most likely will kill it. But there is a good chance it will bite you. You might not die, you might just suffer severe pain and some permanent damage. But you would "win".

are you better off stomping that snake, or leaving it be?

He gets a shovel and pounds that snake into a snakeburger patty.

 

[TurtleDude]

He gets a shovel and pounds that snake into a snakeburger patty.

the snake knows Gracie style jujitsu and makes the guy tap out and then bites him in the nuts several times.

 

[swing_voter]

the snake knows Gracie style jujitsu and makes the guy tap out and then bites him in the nuts several times.

*shrug* people kill rattlesnakes.

 

[TurtleDude]

*shrug* people kill rattlesnakes.

governments kill people-the idea of having a well armed citizenry is to make those who would order mass murder most likely to die as well

 

[swing_voter]

governments kill people-the idea of having a well armed citizenry is to make those who would order mass murder most likely to die as well

Not if the people support the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not if the people support the government.

I don't think most people would support the US government if it tried to murder thousands of its own citizens. Would you?

 

[CLAX1911]

He said, "they [the victims] deserve more than thoughts and prayers."

I think that's a poke at our evangelicals.

I don't know if the next prime minister can overturn this law.

He's not a very bright person. Taking away people's rights to own firearms will do exactly as much as thoughts and prayers.

Hopefully the next prime minister can undo a lot of things that this guy's done.

 

[swing_voter]

I don't think most people would support the US government if it tried to murder thousands of its own citizens. Would you?

If the government guns those idiots down, voters will assume the government had good reason.

Just like voters thought the National Guard at Kent State where in the right when they opened fire on demonstrators.

Your gun idiots present a poor image. Voters see them and disapprove.

 

[CLAX1911]

Canadians can inform me on this, but I don't believe Canada has a "constitutional" equivalent to our Second Amendment.

Thus there is no clear prohibition/limitation on what the Central government can do in this regard.

In any case, the reaction/response is up to Canadians. It's their nation, not ours. :shrug:

Legal or not I think the rights enumerated in the Constitution are self-evident. The government not recognizing those is a problem with the government. If something is self-evident here then it's self-evident everywhere.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, it is a freedom matter and different people view freedom differently. The ultimate form of freedom is self determination.

That's relativism human value is relative to where they live and what the government has the power to do. I disagree with this because a human living in Canada or human living in Tanzania is just as human as a human living in America. And they should be treated the same way. To think that people choose their government all over the world just because we get to in the United States is a bit short-sighted.

 

[CLAX1911]

Says the man who lives in a country where the nra can buy politicians.

it's funny when people talk about this. The NRA and its entire existence has spent a mere pittance on lobbying. When compared with something like the national Education. A couple of million dollar is over 50 years compared to several billion dollars a year seems to really get your attention and that's disingenuous. Unions buy politicians. Not the NRA they can't afford it.

At your next high school shooting be sure to send prayers and thoughts because that is all you will ever do.

making laws that regulate people who don't break laws does less good than thoughts and prayers.

At least people who give thoughts and parents aren't actively trying to steal rights from people that had nothing to do with it.

In the future try not being so easily manipulated.

 

[jonny5]

[video=youtube;lFrD5YVWDvs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFrD5YVWDvs[video]


He said, "they [the victims] deserve more than thoughts and prayers."

I think that's a poke at our evangelicals.

I don't know if the next prime minister can overturn this law.

Of course Canadians should do whatever they want so long as it doesnt harm other people. I support freedom of others to live in a consensual society. Luckily in the US, the states had the foresight to agree that the right to bear arms should never be infringed and make that the supreme law. And at least half the country knows that the type of gun isnt the cause of murder so they fight to preserve that right.

Even in Canada handguns are 3x as often used in homicide over "rifle or shotgun". And they only have a few hundred gun homicides at all. So homicide by "assault rifle" is almost zero. Trudeau is just pandering as politicians do, instead of trying to solve the hard problems.

 

[TurtleDude]

If the government guns those idiots down, voters will assume the government had good reason.

Just like voters thought the National Guard at Kent State where in the right when they opened fire on demonstrators.

Your gun idiots present a poor image. Voters see them and disapprove.

I don't find your anti freedom arguments very convincing. I don't support fascism either

 

[swing_voter]

I don't find your anti freedom arguments very convincing. I don't support fascism either

It doesn't matter. We voters are in the majority.

Maybe you should find a country where you can rule by intimidating the locals with your guns.

 

[prometeus]

That's relativism human value is relative to where they live and what the government has the power to do.

No,government only has the power that the people will allow or endure if they are too lazy or cowardly to change it. In the colonies it was what government allowed until the people had enough.

I disagree with this because a human living in Canada or human living in Tanzania is just as human as a human living in America.

Biology is not at issue, but what people are willing to do and that is not a function of humanity only of will.

To think that people choose their government all over the world just because we get to in the United States is a bit short-sighted.

No, in some places people chose not to choose their government but accept what they have.

 

[soylentgreen]

"Still free to collect guns if they choose" is really pushing it for Canada. Technically we're free to collect guns, but there are so many punishing costs, regulations, usage restrictions, and outright bans that there can be nothing enjoyable or entertaining about it. It would be like comic collecting if you couldn't own anything except Marvel or DC, you had to keep your comics locked in a safe in the basement, you could never legally read them or show them to anybody, and you had to pay $100 per comic every two years for "re-certification".


Americans have always been more aggressive culturally. You guys were the ones who rebelled against the British. We just had tea and crumpets with them. :shrug:

Frankly, if we had your government, I'd be tempted to stock up guns and hide in a bunker somewhere too. On this basis alone, I don't fault many pro-2A zealots. America as envisioned by the Founding Fathers wasn't even supposed to have a national army, much less the all-consuming military behemoth the US government has become. Perhaps an armed populace won't prevail against worsening government tyranny, but it will at least give tyranny a run for its money.

I agree. The articles i have read all say new zealand is just catching up with canadas gun laws.

And again agreed. American government is a joke. And currently its corruption is so bad that it needs not even be hidden any more. But the even bigger joke is the idea that gun ownership will ever be a problem to a tyranny that will just have to wave the flag to get the sheeple to follow.

 

[soylentgreen]

it's funny when people talk about this. The NRA and its entire existence has spent a mere pittance on lobbying. When compared with something like the national Education. A couple of million dollar is over 50 years compared to several billion dollars a year seems to really get your attention and that's disingenuous. Unions buy politicians. Not the NRA they can't afford it.

making laws that regulate people who don't break laws does less good than thoughts and prayers.

At least people who give thoughts and parents aren't actively trying to steal rights from people that had nothing to do with it.

In the future try not being so easily manipulated.

It's even more funny that you think money is used for lobbying. They have the propaganda of claiming millions of followers for that. Can you show me any article that claims the nra has little to no influence? Because i can point to quite a few articles that tell why the nra are such an influence.
The real reason the NRA’s money matters in elections - Vox

But the NRA spending ultimately leads to policies that run counter to the expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. A small group of extreme, sometimes profit-motivated donors funnels money to an (ostensibly grassroots) group. That group then blankets our electoral cycles in political ads meant to scare Americans into opposing laws that would actually protect them, laws most of them claim to want. Red-state legislators who might otherwise support commonsense gun restrictions instead live under the constant threat of NRA attack ads; all it takes is one small step toward gun reform.

America is a society bred to be violent. Americans have confused the right to own a gun with the right to kill with that gun. Making the point that that is not a right by regulating guns is sensible.

Your argument is a joke. It could be used to say why have speed limits for people who don't go fast. Why have laws against theft for people who do not steal. If you think laws are there to limit those who do not break them then you really have no idea how laws work.

In future try an educate yourself.

 

[CLAX1911]

No,government only has the power that the people will allow or endure if they are too lazy or cowardly to change it. In the colonies it was what government allowed until the people had enough.

but to say that people deserve to have their rights trampled because they don't want to lose their life or livelihood is to excuse oppressive regimes.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And this goes for government as well.

I can say a government is wrong for oppressing it's people even if the people don't stand up to the government.

Biology is not at issue, but what people are willing to do and that is not a function of humanity only of will.

again just because people are oppressed does not make oppression right.

No, in some places people chose not to choose their government but accept what they have.

In a lot of places you don't really get a choice. You accept what you have or you are punished, possibly even killed.

What your choices are between imprisonment and death or acceptance you tend to accept things.

It

 

[CLAX1911]

It's even more funny that you think money is used for lobbying. They have the propaganda of claiming millions of followers for that.

followers? This isn't an Instagram group it is a citizen coalition to preserve the Constitution. anything or anyone against that is anti Constitution.

Can you show me any article that claims the nra has little to no influence?

no they have influence, they should in a constitutional republic that's what the Constitution does. If citizens weren't allowed influence then it would be a dictatorship. I'm glad we don't live in that.

If citizens want to oppose the NRA they can form the empire gun version of the NRA. if such an idea was really popular they would have more influence than the NRA they don't because it's not.

Because i can point to quite a few articles that tell why the nra are such an influence.

great that's excellent I'm glad citizen coalition's have influence over politics that's called a constitutional republic.

If citizens did not have the ability to influence their government that would be a dictatorship I'm glad I don't live in that.

The real reason the NRA’s money matters in elections - Vox

Lol vox. I never have I seen that publication that's so anti Constitution as a vox.

I'm glad they have a problem with it.

America is a society bred to be violent.

According to pacifists which is great. Pacifist are for conquering.

Americans have confused the right to own a gun with the right to kill with that gun.

then why would we have laws against murder.

Making the point that that is not a right by regulating guns is sensible.

what are you talkin about? We have plenty of laws regulating guns. You can't legally buy one if you are a felon you're convicted of any kind of violent crime. You can't buy one if you're under a certain age. You can't leave them around in public. You have to go through certain background checks to get certain firearms.

I'm in agreement with most of these regulations.

Your argument is a joke. It could be used to say why have speed limits for people who don't go fast.

so people who speed even though they're not permitted to don't exist.

The laws exist to control people who obey the law and to punish people who don't. They do not exist to control people who don't that is moronic.

Why have laws against theft for people who do not steal.

you know we have laws against theft for people who would steal if they were not punished. Laws exist to control the controllable and to punish the uncontrollable never to control the uncontrollable they can't do that.

If you think laws are there to limit those who do not break them then you really have no idea how laws work.

well that's one of the primary functions of not just laws but any rules it is to setup a guideline of behavior that is acceptable by the society. Or to control the controllable.

There also exists the criminal justice system that is there to punish people who break the laws. There by punishing the uncontrollable.

if you think the laws are there to control the uncontrollable you flunk at English.

In future try an educate yourself.

by what you mean become brainwashed. no thank you I don't need such a worthless education I'm already too smart for it.

Laws and rules are not set up to control the uncontrollable. People who would break the laws are not bound by the laws. If it can be broken then it will be broken and the people who break it do not care.

 

[prometeus]

but to say that people deserve to have their rights trampled because they don't want to lose their life or livelihood is to excuse oppressive regimes.

Good thing that nobody said that.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And this goes for government as well.

This is irrelevant to the topic.

I can say a government is wrong for oppressing it's people even if the people don't stand up to the government.

Yes you can say that, but it does not alter the reality of the people who live it.

again just because people are oppressed does not make oppression right.

Nobody said it was.

In a lot of places you don't really get a choice.

There is always a choice, history is replete with examples.

You accept what you have or you are punished, possibly even killed.

Sometimes. Does that mean you should stop till someone else gives you your freedom? Freedom that is given is easily taken away.

What your choices are between imprisonment and death or acceptance you tend to accept things.

If you do not really want to be free.

 

[CLAX1911]

Good thing that nobody said that.

This is irrelevant to the topic.

Yes you can say that, but it does not alter the reality of the people who live it.

Nobody said it was.

Than what do you mean?

There is always a choice, history is replete with examples.

Sure imprisonment and Darth death or knuckle under. That's not much of a choice. If you were faced with it you'd probably squeal and cry about your rights being trampled.

Sometimes. Does that mean you should stop till someone else gives you your freedom? Freedom that is given is easily taken away.

If nobody else fought with me if simply be killed. I'm only a martyr if other people are inspired to fight because of my death or imprisonment. If not it's meaningless. So yes you're rights are dependant on other people.

If you do not really want to be free.

You can't be free if you are dead or in jail.

There is no such thing as a one man war

 

[prometeus]

Than what do you mean?

About / with what?

Sure imprisonment and Darth death or knuckle under. That's not much of a choice.

Wasn't that what the founding fathers did?

If you were faced with it you'd probably squeal and cry about your rights being trampled.

You don' know **** about me. Why make pu moronic drivel?

If nobody else fought with me if simply be killed.

?

I'm only a martyr if other people are inspired to fight because of my death or imprisonment.

Yea so?

So yes you're rights are dependant on other people.

Also but not only.

You can't be free if you are dead or in jail.

Some even say that freedom is in the mind and some people are freer in prison than those outside.

There is no such thing as a one man war

Never said there was.