Gun ownership poll

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Surely the gangs will stop and give up their guns now that is illegal. Surely the law-abiding people losing effective ability to defend themselves won't become victims. Surely!

I've heard Canada is also redrawing the so-called and ever fluid 'assault weapon' rules, though most of the articles don't seem to give any specifics on what they actually are proposing specifically (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...earm-1.6661936). Presuming the typical ban-aesthetic-features-and-anything-that-looks-like-it-may-have-been-invented-after-1900?

Canadian firearms ownership will be dealt its most massive blow in history.

The amendment not only proposes to prohibit a vast array of rifles and shotguns (with no mention of compensation for current owners), it also includes changing the definition of a prohibited firearm in the criminal code to include: "a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging center-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed."

We're not sliding down the slippery slope, were skiing down it.


People really need to wake up! You guys are a lot more lucky than us for sure as you actually have a constitution that isn't written on toilet paper and judges in place to ensure, for the most part, it is upheld.

People also need to wake up the fact that despite your constitution, your Democratic party is trying to blow it up and do the same things as our Liberals up here and around the world before it is too late.
https://youtu.be/WcnETSsSLOQ

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

Canadian firearms ownership will be dealt its most massive blow in history.

The amendment not only proposes to prohibit a vast array of rifles and shotguns (with no mention of compensation for current owners), it also includes changing the definition of a prohibited firearm in the criminal code to include: "a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging center-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed."

We're not sliding down the slippery slope, were skiing down it.


People really need to wake up! You guys are a lot more lucky than us for sure as you actually have a constitution that isn't written on toilet paper and judges in place to ensure, for the most part, it is upheld.

People also need to wake up the fact that despite your constitution, your Democratic party is trying to blow it up and do the same things as our Liberals up here and around the world before it is too late.
https://youtu.be/WcnETSsSLOQ

This phrasing is so weird. If a firearm can accept a 1 round detachable magazine, it can accept a hypothetical thousand round detachable magazine. The round limiter here does nothing and bans essentially any detachable magazine gun. The provisions specifically naming a host of firearms include even more extreme examples, there are literal single shot guns and bolt action manually operated arms on it. This includes some even pre-US civil war technology. Looks like you’ll be allowed some single shots or manual arms based on a 100% undefined and arbitrary nature of the name stamped on the receiver. The “cartridges of the type” seems to be learning from the recent California drama where a magazine ban’s poor verbiage has led to some putting a small magazine of a different caliber in a non functional place and using a standard capacity mag in the mag well to run the gun as normal, which DOJ insists is illegal but meets the law as actually written.

Amusingly, this verbiage would not ban belt feeds by feature, only if naked specifically in the list. So it would be okay to have a few hundred rounds through a semi auto belt fed support weapon that is not specifically named in the ban list BUT you can’t have an old Mauser bolt action or a Ruger single shot. The banners not knowing anything about the subject (we had as many demonstrably false mechanical claims in this very thread as we did banner posts) usually makes these laws bizarrely phrased and inconsistent like this.

The Constitution has stopped a lot of the worst infringements in the US; but we are just a couple justices away from a court that will rule to completely ignore the parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like and invent completely fictional clauses that do not exist in said document. The lack of any enforcement power already allows the banner states to pass one unconstitutional and illegal law after another, just a little less extreme. I’m allowed to keep my detachable mag semi autos, but you can’t buy a new one here unless you remove tons of other parts to sneak around the rules, and my ability to keep mine comes with a host of legal traps that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to make us political criminals. It is even technically illegal under these political punishment laws for me to stop for lunch on my way to or from the range. Thankfully people are made safe by this law. Yes, that’s what we’re doing. It’s about the children. And safety. Yep.

[irv]

"Getting real weird with how financial institutions are starting to say how you can and cant use your money legally"

https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/s...Ut-dvP5S50XJjg

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

"Getting real weird with how financial institutions are starting to say how you can and cant use your money legally"

https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/s...Ut-dvP5S50XJjg

If only that bank allowed its patrons to acquire something like paper money that folds, this could have been avoided. We can only dream. Just a hunch that there’s more to the denial than the fact it was for a gun. Either way, Twitter and YouTube are poor sources for news. Parlor probably worse. Seems like a basic fact that is forgotten by many.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Carter08

If only that bank allowed its patrons to acquire something like paper money that folds, this could have been avoided. We can only dream. Just a hunch that there’s more to the denial than the fact it was for a gun. Either way, Twitter and YouTube are poor sources for news. Parlor probably worse. Seems like a basic fact that is forgotten by many.

I’d like to actually see something that shows this transaction was even for a gun. I also have a hard time believing that there is an automated message that says “this type of merchant.”

Bank claims it’s photoshopped and looking at the monitor and the background, I’d be inclined to believe the bank.

Customer went to the bank and closed the account? How does that store clerk know this info?

Pretty convenient that the store, customer, or any info that could be used to verify if this is true is nowhere to be found.

Anyway, agree 100% with you. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc are awful “sources” of news.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[irv]

Could be fake/untrue but its not like this isn't in the works.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/11230...erican-exrpess
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...munition-sales
https://www.newsweek.com/credit-card...pinion-1742160
https://wamu.org/story/22/09/11/majo...ack-gun-sales/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/11/busin...ode/index.html

And with Liberal countries around the world and already being a thing in China, digital currency will definitely makes things even worse once cash is completely removed.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news...ing%20a%20CBDC.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

If only that bank allowed its patrons to acquire something like paper money that folds, this could have been avoided. We can only dream. Just a hunch that there’s more to the denial than the fact it was for a gun. Either way, Twitter and YouTube are poor sources for news. Parlor probably worse. Seems like a basic fact that is forgotten by many.

I suppose, and it's not too hard to figure out coming from you, that MSM is still your preferred source for what you think is factual unbiased news?

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

This phrasing is so weird. If a firearm can accept a 1 round detachable magazine, it can accept a hypothetical thousand round detachable magazine. The round limiter here does nothing and bans essentially any detachable magazine gun. The provisions specifically naming a host of firearms include even more extreme examples, there are literal single shot guns and bolt action manually operated arms on it. This includes some even pre-US civil war technology. Looks like you’ll be allowed some single shots or manual arms based on a 100% undefined and arbitrary nature of the name stamped on the receiver. The “cartridges of the type” seems to be learning from the recent California drama where a magazine ban’s poor verbiage has led to some putting a small magazine of a different caliber in a non functional place and using a standard capacity mag in the mag well to run the gun as normal, which DOJ insists is illegal but meets the law as actually written.

Amusingly, this verbiage would not ban belt feeds by feature, only if naked specifically in the list. So it would be okay to have a few hundred rounds through a semi auto belt fed support weapon that is not specifically named in the ban list BUT you can’t have an old Mauser bolt action or a Ruger single shot. The banners not knowing anything about the subject (we had as many demonstrably false mechanical claims in this very thread as we did banner posts) usually makes these laws bizarrely phrased and inconsistent like this.

The Constitution has stopped a lot of the worst infringements in the US; but we are just a couple justices away from a court that will rule to completely ignore the parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like and invent completely fictional clauses that do not exist in said document. The lack of any enforcement power already allows the banner states to pass one unconstitutional and illegal law after another, just a little less extreme. I’m allowed to keep my detachable mag semi autos, but you can’t buy a new one here unless you remove tons of other parts to sneak around the rules, and my ability to keep mine comes with a host of legal traps that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to make us political criminals. It is even technically illegal under these political punishment laws for me to stop for lunch on my way to or from the range. Thankfully people are made safe by this law. Yes, that’s what we’re doing. It’s about the children. And safety. Yep.

Things "look like" they might be changing for the better up here thanks to Carey Price and the Natives?
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...l-gun-controls