AR 15 Reclassification

I case you're one of the 25,000 who signed the petition, this is the response from the Liberal Party of Canada.

in short...it ain't happening....and if your reading what is going on down south, it ain't ever going to happen.

Quote:

---

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says the federal government rejects the idea of allowing hunters to use the same type of military-style assault rifle involved in a mass shooting in Florida.

Last month, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of the Lawful Firearm Owners of Canada that calls for the classification of the AR-15 rifle to be changed from a restricted firearm to a non-restricted one.

The petition, launched by a man who says Canadian hunters want to be able to use the popular semi-automatic rifle, was signed by more than 25,000 people, mainly from Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.


Goodale says the Liberal government will present a formal written reply to the petition, but he made it clear there is no intention of changing the weapon's classification.



Goodale said the decision to classify the AR-15 as a restricted weapon was made by RCMP firearms experts.

That decision should not be second-guessed by politicians, he said.

"The argument, the professional judgment has been made by the RCMP, and I would not see any argument on the merits to change that."

People wanting to buy an AR-15 in Canada must have a firearms licence that includes restricted weapons and involves passing a safety course.

They must also have authorization from their province's chief firearms officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.

---

more info: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06..._10462254.html

Another informative article on the AR-15 published in the Huff....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06..._10444276.html

Apparently,Mr. Zimmer is taking a lot of flak for his position from the usual suspects. We owe him a debt of gratitude and support for his efforts.

RCMP say hunters are limited to 3 rounds...?????? I must have slept through that one !!

Must be a science based decision.............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

RCMP say hunters are limited to 3 rounds...?????? I must have slept through that one !!

---

must thinking about waterfowl hunting? Not that a LEO should know firearms legislation......

Goodale is a useful idiot. Letting police make law is insanity. It wasn't an AR 15 that was used at Orlando Pulse.

However letting facts into current Canadian politics is fruitless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Goodale is a useful idiot. Letting police make law is insanity. It wasn't an AR 15 that was used at Orlando Pulse.

However letting facts into current Canadian politics is fruitless.

---

We may be wise to just let them ramble on and not tell them the difference. They'll just want to ban that,too.

"the decision to classify the AR-15 as a restricted weapon was made by RCMP firearms experts. That decision should not be second-guessed by politicians, he said."

Yeah...good one. As stated already, how is it that the police are given the powers to make laws in the first place? Last I checked, their job is to enforce laws. So if the people who's job it is to ENFORCE laws are allowed to make them...and the people who's job it is to MAKE laws won't second-guess the people who have no business making laws....it's the type of climate where even a Liberal could end-up as Prime Minister. Wait..

Thanks to MP Bob Zimmer for speaking-up for our rights, and actually respecting the wishes of law-abiding voters.

Yup, sad... just sad. I don't imagine that anyone of us is surprised by the rhetoric and double speak. Clearly perception and reality will never meet given that emotion and politics trump fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

Yup, sad... just sad. I don't imagine that anyone of us is surprised by the rhetoric and double speak. Clearly perception and reality will never meet given that emotion and politics trump fact.

---

^Well said. I signed that petition, but in Canada...guns can go from non-restricted to prohibited having never even been involved in a crime. Hard to hope that "emotions and politics", in the same climate, will ever allow for reasonable conversation on the AR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrouseWhisperer

As stated already, how is it that the police are given the powers to make laws in the first place?

---

The RCMP are not empowered to make laws. The law establishes criteria by which firearms are classified. The RCMP has the responsibility to compare firearms against those criteria and determine their correct classification.

The RCMP does not have the power to change the criteria or to classify a firearm based on anything but those criteria. Orders-in-council must be passed by Cabinet.

I have no doubt that Trudough and his entourage of buffoons will eventually reclassify all AR type rifles as prohibited. He may wait until he needs a diversion but it will happen. Probably more people have been murdered with knives but the black rifles make better headlines. Tobacco companies contribute to the slow death of millions yet they are tolerated and exploited tax wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The RCMP are not empowered to make laws. The law establishes criteria by which firearms are classified. The RCMP has the responsibility to compare firearms against those criteria and determine their correct classification.

The RCMP does not have the power to change the criteria or to classify a firearm based on anything but those criteria. Orders-in-council must be passed by Cabinet.

---

One could argue that irrespective of whether or not the RCMP is empowered to make laws, their action to classify the the Blaze-47 as prohibited would tend to lend credence to the debate that they are not bound by the law wrt to criteria. I am suggesting that in the absense of clear direction from government the RCMP routinely acts outside of the law.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...r-banned-rifle

If this example doesn't suffice perhaps turning the lense toward High River is more damning!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

One could argue that irrespective of whether or not the RCMP is empowered to make laws, their action to classify the the Blaze-47 as prohibited would tend to lend credence to the debate that they are not bound by the law wrt to criteria.

---

Or that they are applying those criteria in a sloppy way, having apparently decided at first blush that this rifle was somehow an AK variant.

I never said they were doing this job well, only that it's not true that they get to make the law.

Philadelphia reporter Helen Ubinas has an interesting article in The Star,this morning,where she claims that she walked into a US gun store and bought an AR 15 M&P (?) for under $800. All she needed was her D/L,passed the background check and walked out of the store with the rifle in 7 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Philadelphia reporter Helen Ubinas has an interesting article in The Star,this morning,where she claims that she walked into a US gun store and bought an AR 15 M&P (?) for under $800. All she needed was her D/L,passed the background check and walked out of the store with the rifle in 7 minutes.

---

I saw that article. If you time it for the right time of the day your background check goes quickly. On the other hand I have been witness to people standing for hours in Florida (Gander Mountain Palm Beach Gardens) waiting for a background check. With that, I see this as another example of how the left-wing media actively promotes controversy and half-truths in the gun debate.

I don't think either side of the debate has a monopoly on half-truths or even flat-out lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Or that they are applying those criteria in a sloppy way, having apparently decided at first blush that this rifle was somehow an AK variant.

I never said they were doing this job well, only that it's not true that they get to make the law.

---

Sure, but at what point does sloppy turn into blatant disregard for the law? In recalling the facts, the RCMP attended the gun show in Vegas where they first saw the Blaze-47. Upon return to Canada, and without regard to the regulations for firearms classification, the RCMP placed a .22 LR rifle in the Prohibited category. This action was demonstrated to be based solely on esthetics.

So, in reviewing the current criteria for classification of firearms, I am unable to find any mention of "looks scary - it is banned". Notwithstanding this, I don't dispute your contention that the RCMP is making the law. I would like to point out that the government's actions to condone the arbitrary classification of a non-restricted firearm brings their credibility into question. The debate then becomes one of whether it is accurate to state that this can be interpreted as setting precedent within the law i.e. they made up a new rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Philadelphia reporter Helen Ubinas has an interesting article in The Star,this morning,where she claims that she walked into a US gun store and bought an AR 15 M&P (?) for under $800. All she needed was her D/L,passed the background check and walked out of the store with the rifle in 7 minutes.

---

What is wrong with that? Her DL proves and satisfies the residency criteria of the US and the State, She had to answer ATF form 4473 questions truthfully under penalty of Federal Law, the FBI background check established no Interstate Identification Index bridged with NCIC and she got a supper price on what is called in Canada a "Patrol Carbine"(if you are a cop) it's a totally, totally different firearm if you're a Canadian resident, or citizen and own it. Funny how that retardation works. It's still a semi auto action similar to every other semi auto on earth except it has "scarier" furniture surrounding it deemed so by the Wendy Cukiers and their club.

Regardless that is about the time it takes me at my local Canadian gun shop. Although last time the computer was glitchy and it took about 5 extra minutes.

What other background check are tolerable in a free society? You Canadians abhor the death penalty due to distrust and past false convictions by the Crown. Why do you expect Americans to accept less standards wrt the government than you?
A terror watch list is a POS, unreliable and strategically unusable by LE. Ted Kennedy was on it for years and had many issues as a US Senator while traveling because of it. Many innocent people can cycle on and off the list as the TRUTH is realized. It is not a list with enough integrity to take a right from a citizen without DUE PROCESS.

Almost anyone in LE can literally add your name to the terror list. The typical BS hype from Odumbo is exactly that, just more BS hype.

Not looking to get lambasted here, but simply looking for some sincere thought. Why do you want to hunt with that rifle? Don't get me wrong... I think they are cool as it gets. And I'd love to shoot one... but I don't feel the need to go and take down a deer with it. My mentality is different... I hunt so I can eat what I've taken. I don't really care if it was taken with a .303, a bow, or an AR-15. And because of that, it doesn't matter a whole lot what I hunt with - I am content to use my old British rifle - cause it gets the job done.
NOW... again, not looking to get roasted here, just wanting to hear the other side - the side that says, "I'm not content with that old .303 - I want to use the one the cops have!" Thoughts? (again... no hate, or judgement... just looking for some opinions.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frederickwreid

Not looking to get lambasted here, but simply looking for some sincere thought. Why do you want to hunt with that rifle? Don't get me wrong... I think they are cool as it gets. And I'd love to shoot one... but I don't feel the need to go and take down a deer with it. My mentality is different... I hunt so I can eat what I've taken. I don't really care if it was taken with a .303, a bow, or an AR-15. And because of that, it doesn't matter a whole lot what I hunt with - I am content to use my old British rifle - cause it gets the job done.
NOW... again, not looking to get roasted here, just wanting to hear the other side - the side that says, "I'm not content with that old .303 - I want to use the one the cops have!" Thoughts? (again... no hate, or judgement... just looking for some opinions.)

---

Maybe it's more about owning one, and transporting it without special permission?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frederickwreid

Not looking to get lambasted here, but simply looking for some sincere thought. Why do you want to hunt with that rifle? Don't get me wrong... I think they are cool as it gets. And I'd love to shoot one... but I don't feel the need to go and take down a deer with it. My mentality is different... I hunt so I can eat what I've taken. I don't really care if it was taken with a .303, a bow, or an AR-15. And because of that, it doesn't matter a whole lot what I hunt with - I am content to use my old British rifle - cause it gets the job done.
NOW... again, not looking to get roasted here, just wanting to hear the other side - the side that says, "I'm not content with that old .303 - I want to use the one the cops have!" Thoughts? (again... no hate, or judgement... just looking for some opinions.)

---

Fred
There are several issues at play on this one. I believe I am safe in stating that most Ontario hunters don't have any desire to go hunt deer with a semi-auto 5.56 mm/.223 Rem rifle. On the other hand the 5.56 mm/.223 Rem cartridge is great for small game. If I was looking to go tip ground hogs and I knew there would be many then I think an AR-15 chassis would be just fine. This is just but one example, the thing is that it comes down to choice and consistency in the law.

The issue of choice boils down to allowing the RCMP to classify one type of semi-auto as restricted based upon a criteria that is not defined in the law. As such, Canadians are denied this choice for no other reason than - it looks scary.

The issue of consistency is the more ominous part. If this ruling is allowed to persist what stops the RCMP for re-classifiying other firearms at a whim? The AR15 is but one example of many other such rulings that defy logic and pander to the left-wing emotional response to scary = banned

On the personal side, I don't see myself ever hunting with an AR-15. BUT, I am willing to do whatever it takes within the law to allow other Canadians to have a choice to use their property in the manner they see fit (within the law).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frederickwreid

Not looking to get lambasted here, but simply looking for some sincere thought. Why do you want to hunt with that rifle? Don't get me wrong... I think they are cool as it gets. And I'd love to shoot one... but I don't feel the need to go and take down a deer with it. My mentality is different... I hunt so I can eat what I've taken. I don't really care if it was taken with a .303, a bow, or an AR-15. And because of that, it doesn't matter a whole lot what I hunt with - I am content to use my old British rifle - cause it gets the job done.
NOW... again, not looking to get roasted here, just wanting to hear the other side - the side that says, "I'm not content with that old .303 - I want to use the one the cops have!" Thoughts? (again... no hate, or judgement... just looking for some opinions.)

---

Why do you want to hunt with a 303? You want to use it because it works and you enjoy that gun and shooting it. Remember, every sporter 303 Brit was an assault rifle for its time, just does not have a black stock.

The Remington 742 semi auto is no different than the AR15, one has wood and one has plastic, they are both semi auto and limited to 5rds in the magazine in Canada so why the difference in classification.

I think you need to find someone who shoots an AR at the range and go shoot one, you will find out why people would want one, it is similar to those people here who don't understand why anyone would want a handgun or even a fast car, motorcycle or boat for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frederickwreid

Not looking to get lambasted here, but simply looking for some sincere thought. Why do you want to hunt with that rifle? Don't get me wrong... I think they are cool as it gets. And I'd love to shoot one... but I don't feel the need to go and take down a deer with it. My mentality is different... I hunt so I can eat what I've taken. I don't really care if it was taken with a .303, a bow, or an AR-15. And because of that, it doesn't matter a whole lot what I hunt with - I am content to use my old British rifle - cause it gets the job done.
NOW... again, not looking to get roasted here, just wanting to hear the other side - the side that says, "I'm not content with that old .303 - I want to use the one the cops have!" Thoughts? (again... no hate, or judgement... just looking for some opinions.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frederickwreid

Maybe it's more about owning one, and transporting it without special permission?

---

I don't think you will be lambasted. I believe you asked an honest question. I believe most guys want to use one to hunt with because it would be another tool in the cabinet. Let's not forget the AR-15 platform can be chambered for rounds other than 5.56mm. So if those rounds are legal suitable for game and the AR-15 meets the criteria of a non-restricted firearm (semi-auto centrefire, magazine capacity of 5 rounds,etc) for hunting purposes, why shouldn't people who can legally use other semi-auto centrefire rifles with a 5 round magazine capacity for hunting purposes not be able to use the AR-15?

Dyth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frederickwreid

NOW... again, not looking to get roasted here, just wanting to hear the other side - the side that says, "I'm not content with that old .303 - I want to use the one the cops have!" Thoughts? (again... no hate, or judgement... just looking for some opinions.)

---

Back in the day, I used to have unlimited access to shooting the Armed Forces assault rifle, at the time the FNC1. I spent many hours and hundreds of boxes of ammo thru the old gal...great long distant shooter on the 300+ yd range.

Then the military switched to the Colt C7 ( Canada's version of the AR 15) and I once again had unlimited access to the range and all the ammo I could could shoot. It was 'fun' originally shooting a gun like the M16 that I saw in the movies etc, lots of rounds, rapid fire at the standing targets, made it seem more realistic as a gun to kill with...fill the air with lead..."oorah"

It wasn't even that bad as far as accuracy on the close range single shot but was no comparison to the FN when it came to shooting out to 300+.

It didn't take long before I craved the return to shouldering the cumbersome old wood of the FN and sit and 'snip' from the sand bag. I started passing on the opportunities to shoot the C7...the novelty had worn off and I wanted to return to what we had become calling the 'real' gun'.

The new 'Mattel' gun never really measured up a shooter for those that had trained on the older guns. It was a far better rifle for all our Military assault training; lighter to carry, easier to clean etc etc....what an AR is designed for....but few guys who shoot it regularly ever went on to own one personally for hunting, just not the best tool for the job.

But like the others have said it's the principle, the inability to have the choice if you wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Back in the day, I used to have unlimited access to shooting the Armed Forces assault rifle, at the time the FNC1. I spent many hours and hundreds of boxes of ammo thru the old gal...great long distant shooter on the 300+ yd range.

Then the military switched to the Colt C7 ( Canada's version of the AR 15) and I once again had unlimited access to the range and all the ammo I could could shoot. It was 'fun' originally shooting a gun like the M16 that I saw in the movies etc, lots of rounds, rapid fire at the standing targets, made it seem more realistic as a gun to kill with...fill the air with lead..."oorah"

It wasn't even that bad as far as accuracy on the close range single shot but was no comparison to the FN when it came to shooting out to 300+.

It didn't take long before I craved the return to shouldering the cumbersome old wood of the FN and sit and 'snip' from the sand bag. I started passing on the opportunities to shoot the C7...the novelty had worn off and I wanted to return to what we had become calling the 'real' gun'.

The new 'Mattel' gun never really measured up a shooter for those that had trained on the older guns. It was a far better rifle for all our Military assault training; lighter to carry, easier to clean etc etc....what an AR is designed for....but few guys who shoot it regularly ever went on to own one personally for hunting, just not the best tool for the job.

But like the others have said it's the principle, the inability to have the choice if you wanted to.

---

AR 15s are not the same in accuracy as they once were. Maybe the CF forces ones were 8"@100yds per the military specs for acceptance. The M16A1 spec from the GAO to go overseas was 8" mean radius at 100 yds.

Even the civilian run of the mil out of the box AR-15 does way better than that now. Custom barrels make them a precision firearm for use as a Military or Police Designated Marksman Rifle.

An AR 15 is simply a great accurate shoulder fired, magazine fed, air cooled, gas operated, semi auto(or select fire) firearm for numerous uses.

It isn't a big deal to qualify with it at 602 yds or 550 meters depending on Country with milspec M61 ammo, recruits do it routinely.

FN also makes it.

It why Canadian Police are now carrying it as the "Patrol Carbine."

Would MSR fans be ok with AR-15s becoming non restricted provided they had a non-detachable 5 round magazine? E.g SKS are non restricted. Or is having the option to attach different magazines really important? Just wondering......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinepointer

Would MSR fans be ok with AR-15s becoming non restricted provided they had a non-detachable 5 round magazine? E.g SKS are non restricted. Or is having the option to attach different magazines really important? Just wondering......

---

I don't see how a non-detachable mag could work with that design. I think it is likely that centrefire semi-auto rifles that take 30-round detachable mags will all end up on the restricted list sooner or later -- an unintended consequence of abolishing the LGR.

Since the one real benefit of registries is that they interfere with transfers to the black market, and since the only long guns that are a significant concern re said transfers are those that take larger detachable mags, I think the writing is on the wall. That's what a no-compromise position has earned us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

What is wrong with that? Her DL proves and satisfies the residency criteria of the US and the State, She had to answer ATF form 4473 questions truthfully under penalty of Federal Law, the FBI background check established no Interstate Identification Index bridged with NCIC and she got a supper price on what is called in Canada a "Patrol Carbine"(if you are a cop) it's a totally, totally different firearm if you're a Canadian resident, or citizen and own it. Funny how that retardation works. It's still a semi auto action similar to every other semi auto on earth except it has "scarier" furniture surrounding it deemed so by the Wendy Cukiers and their club.

Regardless that is about the time it takes me at my local Canadian gun shop. Although last time the computer was glitchy and it took about 5 extra minutes.

What other background check are tolerable in a free society? You Canadians abhor the death penalty due to distrust and past false convictions by the Crown. Why do you expect Americans to accept less standards wrt the government than you?
A terror watch list is a POS, unreliable and strategically unusable by LE. Ted Kennedy was on it for years and had many issues as a US Senator while traveling because of it. Many innocent people can cycle on and off the list as the TRUTH is realized. It is not a list with enough integrity to take a right from a citizen without DUE PROCESS.

Almost anyone in LE can literally add your name to the terror list. The typical BS hype from Odumbo is exactly that, just more BS hype.

---

W-h-o-o-a-a,boy. Nowhere did I say there was anything wrong it. If that's their system,then,legit is legit. I certainly don't have any issue with it. AAMOF,I wish we could do the same thing here with every AR platform rifle and handgun and take them to the range or service shop without playing "mommy may I" with some gawd dam bureaucrat,especially,after jumping through all the hoops and being licensed beforehand. That's OUR bullshyte system and it's beyond ferkin' stupid. So,now,here comes Obama,Biden et al and every left/liberal democrat having a "come to Jesus" moment with "keeping people who shouldn't have access to firearms from getting them" like they just stumbled onto a brilliant epiphany to sell their gun control agenda because what they've tried,so far,has fallen flatter than pee on a plate. Jysys H Christ ,is there no end to those people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

W-h-o-o-a-a,boy. Nowhere did I say there was anything wrong it. If that's their system,then,legit is legit. I certainly don't have any issue with it. AAMOF,I wish we could do the same thing here with every AR platform rifle and handgun and take them to the range or service shop without playing "mommy may I" with some gawd dam bureaucrat,especially,after jumping through all the hoops and being licensed beforehand. That's OUR bullshyte system and it's beyond ferkin' stupid. So,now,here comes Obama,Biden et al and every left/liberal democrat having a "come to Jesus" moment with "keeping people who shouldn't have access to firearms from getting them" like they just stumbled onto a brilliant epiphany to sell their gun control agenda because what they've tried,so far,has fallen flatter than pee on a plate. Jysys H Christ ,is there no end to those people?

---

Sorry Trimmer, the rest of my post wasn't directed at you. I should have said that in my post when I was speaking on the stupidity and hypocrisy of American and Canadian liberal gun politics.

Funny, the left cries out all Muslims are not terrorist, so don't treat them that way, yet all gun owners are potential mass shooters and should be treated that way.

Freedom is a unique concept. The same freedom that allows clubs like the Pulse and their clientele is the same freedom that allows a gun to be owned by a citizen/resident like the Orlando shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Why do you want to hunt with a 303? You want to use it because it works and you enjoy that gun and shooting it. Remember, every sporter 303 Brit was an assault rifle for its time, just does not have a black stock.

The Remington 742 semi auto is no different than the AR15, one has wood and one has plastic, they are both semi auto and limited to 5rds in the magazine in Canada so why the difference in classification.

I think you need to find someone who shoots an AR at the range and go shoot one, you will find out why people would want one, it is similar to those people here who don't understand why anyone would want a handgun or even a fast car, motorcycle or boat for that matter.

---

Appreciate the feedback gents. And what do you know? I didn't get my head taken off! Not that I was actually expecting it... my experience of these forums, and outdoorsmen in general is one of respect.

As DGeary has pointed out, the issue is consistency in the application of the law.

Fox, you made me think: I like to ride motorcycles. Some guys look at them and all they see is a suicide machine. But the law is applied equally, whether I'm riding a Harley Electra Glide, or a GSXR (for those who are bike illiterate, that a cruiser vs. a crotch rocket). As long as I operate the thing in accordance with the law, it doesn't matter how 'scary' it looks.

The same consistency should also be observed in the classification of firearms too. If the law lays out certain criteria indicating whether a firearm is restricted, prohibited, or non-restricted - then that law should be the constant that is applied to all guns. This is a great point that many of you have made well.

Heck, for pete's sake, I can head down to Canadian Tire right now and buy a semi-auto (I even think they are on sale!) - with it's beefy wooden stock. Whats the real difference, especially at the business end, between the common as dirt SKS and the AR-15? One is big and clunky, and the other is 'scary.'

I see the heart of this issue is not really concerning the classification of the AR-15, but the inconsistency of the classification in general.

I appreciate the clarity brought to me on this issue... now, what can i do about it?

I started shooting well before the FACS, took one of the first hunter safety course in Ontario, got my hunting license at 15 because of that course. Went on to get involved with handguns and had a carry permit for years, from the time when any cop could write one up for you until it took a complete police check to get one, but they were good 24/7 anyplace in Canada( except for a few spots) .
Back then it took an act of parliament to change our gun laws. Either you had been judged as competent to own a handgun, and use that gun, or you did not have the permit to do so. It didn't matter if your gun had a 4" barrel or a 4.5" tube. It might be a 22, 32, or 38. You were either competent and could be trusted or not. If a cop saw your carry permit he seemed to feel that you had been tested and could be trusted. Well, maybe a few Metro Toronto Cops had doubts......but the OPP and any COs felt that it was a privilege to have that permit and you were not going to screw it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The RCMP are not empowered to make laws. The law establishes criteria by which firearms are classified. The RCMP has the responsibility to compare firearms against those criteria and determine their correct classification.

The RCMP does not have the power to change the criteria or to classify a firearm based on anything but those criteria. Orders-in-council must be passed by Cabinet.

---

I respectfully disagree. At face value, you're correct. The words are...that is. The Blaze rifle is mentioned already (absolutely ridiculous) but take a slightly bigger step back~what about the Swiss Arms Classic Green? A rifle that went from non-restricted to prohibited (having never been used in a crime) and an uproar from the shooting community turned that around. Was that the RCMP protecting all of us..because the rifle itself didn't actually change overnight.

Listen~I don't actually disagree with you...but as a hunter/shooting enthusiast we really all ought to be concerned when we have the right to own/use a given rifle one day (that the RCMP had classified AS non-restricted) and with no concrete proof of any change, they flipped a switch and that $4000+ rifle you enjoyed in the field yesterday has made you into a criminal for just owning it today. Yes...I'm being just a tad dramatic maybe, but it's no joke. I don't own, and have never owned a S/A rifle...and I'm not even 100% sure I'd buy an AR if they became non-restricted~but I personally think the laws are too limiting here in Canada and I hate the idea of losing any ground. Even if you have no desire to own an AR or hunt with one, NO gun owner in Canada should be content seeing the RCMP treat law-abiding gun owners like "criminals-to-be".

Ask people in High River AB about the RCMP and guns. I have.

• 
  
  http://www.oodmag.com/community/clear.gif
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• http://www.oodmag.com/community/clear.gifReply http://www.oodmag.com/community/clear.gifReply With Quote http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...iquote_40b.png
  
  
• rick_iles, RCMP think hunting firearms are limited to 3 rounds.

[COLOR=#3E3E3E]

There's a lot misinformation flooding round about the 3 round limit and hunting in Ontario. One of the latest things I've heard is that the 3 round limit, which is clear stated in the hunting regulation, and which only applies to manually repeating shotgun, NOT RIFLES, is that the limit only applies when you are waterfowl hunting. No true, of course, manually repeating shotguns, are required to be limited to three shots for all manner of hunting. I believe the idea behind it was that a fleeing animals after the third round would be a sufficient distance from the shooter, that any additional rounds would only contribute to wounding, rather than producing or ensuring a clean kill. This owing to the short range nature of a shotgun and the its limited range of its accuracy. I suspect if you are working with a rifled slug barrel you might have an argument for increasing the round limit, but I would suspect it would end up in an enforcement nightmare, so its not likely to happen. What I don't like about these so called RCMP firearm experts is the limit extent of their expertise, of which their understanding of the 3 round limit for hunting firearms (rifles) in Ontario clearly demonstrates.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

As far as I'm concerned once a person is authorized to have a PAL then that person is deemed safe and what Color his rifles are shouldn't be an issue. This conversation is driven by ill informed anti gun groups and politicians. What could go wrong?

The media is going out of it's way to be ignorant it seems.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/wo...ate-in-the-u-s

In this article it seems to want to tie the AR-15 to the Orlando shootings.
She is too dense to realize the reasons it is popular include easy to use and accuracy and makes them sound like bad things.... I mean she is 15 feet... yes 15 feet away and amazed she can hit something the size of a head with a rifle.... the DUH factor on firearms is off the chart here!

She atleast did get some facts right that 2/3 of violence deaths in the US are handguns and conveniently leaves out facts like the majority are gang related.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/1715...iel-greenfield

So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell ahead of Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.


I guess the Liberal media and gov't won't talk about the hard parts of crime control like gangs, which in Canada I have heard is as much or more than 50% of the murders. We won't see the AR-15 allowed in Canada... maybe just because it is associated with the great terror... America :silly: or maybe it is too scary and let's remember we have Liberals in power, fear and fear mongering is their bread and butter.

This is a bit of an eye opener...holy crap talk about concealed carry !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTRkd0p50o

Not very practical if he needs to move or retreive it quickly but entertaining and real entertaing if it cycles while in the nether region.

How did they know he was unmarried? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

How did they know he was unmarried? lol

---

A 'lone' gunman in a short sleeve shirt carrying that much firepower should be a real concern for any security team organizing an event...

Guy doesn't smile much. Maybe he ripped out some short and curlys when he pulled it out ? :scream:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

A 'lone' gunman in a short sleeve shirt carrying that much firepower should be a real concern for any security team organizing an event...

---

Gee Mikey, how's he get there? Transporter and just appear? Get serious, can you walk with anywhere near a normal enough gait to even fool Ray Charles with that technique?

Mikey..seriously ??

He moves rather well in the opening of the video, no awkward gate, wouldn't draw too much attention to himself in a crowd.

It wasn't posted to be critiqued; just shows how much can be hidden under very little clothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Mikey..seriously ??

He moves rather well in the opening of the video, no awkward gate, wouldn't draw too much attention to himself in a crowd.

It wasn't posted to be critiqued; just shows how much can be hidden under very little clothing.

---

I agree a large amount can be hidden beneath clothing.

Imagine what you can hide under a Niqab and robe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Imagine what you can hide under a Niqab and robe?

---

Exactly, one might could walk up to the event mike mentioned in his post without any awkward gait to be discovered by a security detail dressed in a paranja or burka, not so easy in a short sleeve shirt with a 40" AR shoved down one's denim pants like in the video.

Seems like an excellent argument to ban the AR-15. :)

Be careful what you ask for.

It (AR 15) has been legal, what 3 different times in Canada? No legal reason to be restricted just another RCMP over reach due to its distant military geneology and Ryerson kooks like Wendy Cukier and Co.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

It (AR 15) has been legal, what 3 different times in Canada? No legal reason to be restricted just another RCMP over reach ....

---

The RCMP is not responsible for the fact it's restricted. It was restricted by order-in-council by Kim Campbell.

This is, for greater clarity, exactly what the CSSA lobbied for and got under C-42: a system in which guns are classified by cabinet, by order-in-council.

Now, perhaps someone could please explain why that provision of C-42 was such a good idea.

We tried to fight it at the time but it was only going to be "housekeeping" so the whole parliament didn't have to get involved learning about guns...
Pretty well marked the end of my carry permit but some were still in use until after 2000.

I would be OK with banning the AR-15. Useless gun anyways. I would be OK with banning all semi auto rifles as well. Shotguns too. But there chocked to only 3 rounds so that's fine. I would ban any semi auto that is magazine feed. But that's just my opinion. Really there is no need for them. And for hunting a bolt is more accurate anyways.

Deplore that "no need for them".
heck, no need for BLRs, or Bolt action either. All we really need are muzzle loaders, or bows.

hunter I admire has a number of sayings. The most basic and honest is. "I hunt to kill". Meaning, he will use the most efficient weapon the law allows. Still recall the time he took a Sow. First shot was lethal, it dropped. Started to rise, the 2nd round followed. Bear died then and there, 5 yards from the barrel.

recall the day I shot a smaller bear ( little over 200) with my BLR in .308. When I pulled the trigger it jumped straight up like a cat might, spun 180 degrees and was gone. Before I'd chambered a follow up. Recovered him about 40 yards into the bush.

End result was the same I guess. Two tagged Bears. But...if given the chance I'd have put a second into it. One to make sure it didnt suffer, two to make recovery easier/more certain and three who knows.......

If we don't "need" semis, we'll do we really need anything more than muzzle loaders, or bows, and side by side for waterfowl?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

I would be OK with banning the AR-15. Useless gun anyways. I would be OK with banning all semi auto rifles as well. Shotguns too. But there chocked to only 3 rounds so that's fine. I would ban any semi auto that is magazine feed. But that's just my opinion. Really there is no need for them. And for hunting a bolt is more accurate anyways.

---

So, would you expect the AR owners out there to stand up for you when your trusty bolt action rifle ends up on the ban list as well? After all, isn't it a "high powered sniper rifle"?

That post by biggun was such a troll I am surprized anyone bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

That post by biggun was such a troll I am surprized anyone bit.

---

Lol that wasn't a troll at all. Just my opinion. Your right about the muzzle loader being really all you need. But with the advances in technology with the guns of today, they are much more effective and accurate. But a semi automatic machine gun? What the hell does that have to do with hunting.
Shooting at targets maybe. But blasting 100 rounds at a target as fast as I can half accurately doesn't really do anything for me. I love target shooting don't get me wrong, it's just for me target shooting and hunting with guns is more of a finesse thing. There's more involved then just hurtling tons of lead down range or out in the field as fast as you can.

Again that is just my opinion.
I don't know maybe it because I'm a double barrel guy (mind you I have a couple of semi's, they don't get used very often. But they have there purpose) or maybe it's because it the gun of choice these sick pigs are picking to massacre all these innocent people with, But that gun has put a really bad taste in my mouth.

BG in truth or in a way, I agree with you. I own four "firearms" one of which is an air rifle (1100 fps). I own what I need to hunt what I hunt or want to hunt. The only semi, is my SG. That said, I have thought about a semi rifle, for no other reason than watching a bear jump straight up in the air 3 feet, doing a 180 and bolting, even though it was dead, just didn't know it yet......Before I could chamber a followup with my BLR. And my good friend who didn't let a nice Sow get up off the ground even though she to was done....He made sure she was done and wasn't going 5 yards further....."I hunt to kill".

Where I don't "agree", is as I mentioned the term "we don't need them".
The fact is, we don't need to hunt........I can buy all the meat I actually do need and save money doing so
Food for thought.

Personally suspect the inability for the US to accept change is going to bite us. Politics. It gets in the way of common sense down there (see the Senate yesterday nixing two extremely minor changes that would do some good) let alone magazine capacity and more, and the same lack of common sense we have to deal with here, will I suspect see the oh so image conscious Liberals wanting to appear as leaders where the US isn't.

Every mass shooting down there is brewing up a storm on social media and more and more Canadians are chiming in, calling the US nuts and why do they need these machine guns, etc. Guns should be banned blah blah blah. Great opportunity for JT to score political points, to appear to be proactive to Canadians, where the US won't act on GC even though there no need here. The problems down there, don't exist here.

Politics
And while this next is totally un-related as it deal more with the realities of politics. Sometime ago in a thread that got a bit testy, I made some points about the future of hunting, kids today, who are tomorrows voters, and the power of social media. How parties analyze trends, in fact micro analyze things, they see on FB, Twitter and how they use them for their stratgeys and platforms, including JTs obvious "image"...the selfie king. I was scoffed at by some usuals .No need to to go into that, however.

This just out.
Digital advertising key as Liberals outspent Tories in 2015 vote: Elections Canada reports

As it relates, imo the oh so image conscious Liberals and frankly savvy to todays realities and the net,and who the biggest users are (youth today) and who turned out in droves to vote for the glamour boy????? See above link.

And the USs utter inability to address real problems and the utter storm being set off on social media over GC...Don't be surprised if they ( JTs liberals) don't see an opportunity to score some points, and as a result we get bitten, thanks to the US and politics which often has little to do with common sense, or whats needed/not....and lots to do with scoring points and votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

I would be OK with banning the AR-15. Useless gun anyways. I would be OK with banning all semi auto rifles as well. Shotguns too. But there chocked to only 3 rounds so that's fine. I would ban any semi auto that is magazine feed. But that's just my opinion. Really there is no need for them. And for hunting a bolt is more accurate anyways.

---

Obviously you are ill informed. I would be ok banning all like you from ever owning a modern firearm as your "needs" are not like the freedom of choice "needs" of others. Simply water and bread for you every 3 days will suffice eh? Becaused none need" anything else eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

BG in truth or in a way, I agree with you. I own four "firearms" one of which is an air rifle (1100 fps). I own what I need to hunt what I hunt or want to hunt. The only semi, is my SG. That said, I have thought about a semi rifle, for no other reason than watching a bear jump straight up in the air 3 feet, doing a 180 and bolting, even though it was dead, just didn't know it yet......Before I could chamber a followup with my BLR. And my good friend who didn't let a nice Sow get up off the ground even though she to was done....He made sure she was done and wasn't going 5 yards further....."I hunt to kill".


Where I don't "agree", is as I mentioned the term "we don't need them".
The fact is, we don't need to hunt........I can buy all the meat I actually do need and save money doing so
Food for thought.

Personally suspect the inability for the US to accept change is going to bite us. Politics. It gets in the way of common sense down there (see the Senate yesterday nixing two extremely minor changes that would do some good) let alone magazine capacity and more, and the same lack of common sense we have to deal with here, will I suspect see the oh so image conscious Liberals wanting to appear as leaders where the US isn't.

Every mass shooting down there is brewing up a storm on social media and more and more Canadians are chiming in, calling the US nuts and why do they need these machine guns, etc. Guns should be banned blah blah blah. Great opportunity for JT to score political points, to appear to be proactive to Canadians, where the US won't act on GC even though there no need here. The problems down there, don't exist here.

Politics
And while this next is totally un-related as it deal more with the realities of politics. Sometime ago in a thread that got a bit testy, I made some points about the future of hunting, kids today, who are tomorrows voters, and the power of social media. How parties analyze trends, in fact micro analyze things, they see on FB, Twitter and how they use them for their stratgeys and platforms, including JTs obvious "image"...the selfie king. I was scoffed at by some usuals .No need to to go into that, however.

This just out.
Digital advertising key as Liberals outspent Tories in 2015 vote: Elections Canada reports

As it relates, imo the oh so image conscious Liberals and frankly savvy to todays realities and the net,and who the biggest users are (youth today) and who turned out in droves to vote for the glamour boy????? See above link.

And the USs utter inability to address real problems and the utter storm being set off on social media over GC...Don't be surprised if they ( JTs liberals) don't see an opportunity to score some points, and as a result we get bitten, thanks to the US and politics which often has little to do with common sense, or whats needed/not....and lots to do with scoring points and votes.

---

The so called minor changes were totally unacceptable. Being on the no fly list is not due process. Almost any cop can get your name on that list. Being drunk on a plane gets you on that list. If an investigator wishes to talk to you about an acquaintance that may be tied to terrorism you can be added to the list. It has no integrity to be a benchmark to take away a US Constitutional RIGHT.

Last I saw, it had over 1 million people on it and about 5000 American citizens and /or residents. Heck Ted Kennedy was on it for about 2-3 years, a US senator for no reason as he wasn't the "Ted Kennedy". It simply is useless for any gun control.

None of which would have stopped the Pulse shooting. So it's obvious the liberal agenda isn't to prevent those type shootings although they claim that is their goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The RCMP is not responsible for the fact it's restricted. It was restricted by order-in-council by Kim Campbell.

This is, for greater clarity, exactly what the CSSA lobbied for and got under C-42: a system in which guns are classified by cabinet, by order-in-council.

Now, perhaps someone could please explain why that provision of C-42 was such a good idea.

---

I know it happened under Mulrooney but wasn't it non restricted several times until around c68?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

It has no integrity to be a benchmark to take away a US Constitutional RIGHT.

---

Anyone who wants a good grounding on this topic ought to read Adam Winkler. Winkler, a constitutional scholar, has made several suggestions as to how to deal with these problems in a way that both protects the public and respects the constitutional rights of the small number of people (200) who find themselves on the terrorist watch list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

I know it happened under Mulrooney but wasn't it non restricted several times until around c68?

---

You are correct, the AR-15 has bounced back and forth several times. The last change was Kim Campbell moving it to the restricted list, which was a couple of years before C-68.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Anyone who wants a good grounding on this topic ought to read Adam Winkler. Winkler, a constitutional scholar, has made several suggestions as to how to deal with these problems in a way that both protects the public and respects the constitutional rights of the small number of people (200) who find themselves on the terrorist watch list.



You are correct, the AR-15 has bounced back and forth several times. The last change was Kim Campbell moving it to the restricted list, which was a couple of years before C-68.

---

Thank you. I thought it was non restricted several times.

About the "terror list"

Actually there are 3 lists.... Terror watch(Terrorist Screening Database), no fly, and selectee. The last two are subsets of the Terror Watch List. There were almost 500 US people(citizens, residents) on the no fly for numerous reasons and not allowed in US Airspace.

The selectee list is used to further screen individuals. It had about 20000 names.

100% of people agree(except terrorist)no terrorist should be able to buy a gun in the US, but many do not understand the severity of denying Constiututional Rights without due process AND based on an inaccurate list.

The FBI control the Terrorist Screening Center with ALL the lists, Terror Watch, No Fly, Selectee AND they(FBI) conduct Gun Background checks thru NCIC bridged to Interstate Identfication Index.

It is a liberal red herring to drum on about the "list(s)." They are what they are and no one, that is a known terrorist, is going to go buy a gun from a dealer and get thru a background check under present checks now.

In addition, none can yet predict a self radicalized lone wolf. The Pulse shooter would not have been stopped by any of the new legislation proposed. It would simply take RIGHTS away from all Americans with no pre emptive benefits.

He was checked by the State of Florida State Police for CCW, bond check, G4S employment check, ATF Form 4473 AND FBI NCIC bridged to III AND two personal interviews by FBI agents because he had ties to a suicide bomber, and "threats" against others.

He literally had more quality checks than most anywhere else in North America.

IT ISN"T THE GUN. NOR HOW HE GOT THE GUN. It won't be when it happens in Canada either. It will be the same pestilence and ideology of the 6th century that is ISIS.

R. That may be true, but the fact remains, I hate to say. The U.S. Is off the charts and until the pro gun side sits down and gets some changes, it's inly going to get worse. For all our similarities, that stats are inarguable.

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times.
they have the means and willpower to move mountains when foreigners kill 3,000 of their own on 9/11. But for the 30,000 killed every year by their own.........."by my dead cold hands"

the 2nd was written during a time when only the best of the best could manage 3 rounds a minute. Anyone with a semi and a 30 round mag, can empty it's in less time than it takes to pee or say Yankee Doodle dandy. And if they have 6 or 8 mags ready to go. It's a slaughter. How many times has Joe PA said, well if there was someone there carrying? Well guess what, there was and he changed nothing.

your country has been on a slow burn for decades, you can watch it implode or "get er done"
i don't know what to say, it nuts. And you know me, I am far from a bleeding heart liberal. :)

One last "rebuttal" R.
Dont the 49 recent dead,,the children at Sandy Hook, the 20,000 killed every year have rights to? The right to freedom, some safeties and more? How many RIGHTS do dead people have? Why is it, the NRA always forgets their rights?

The problem is that gun regulations target and affect only those who are law abiding and not a concern. You can you can round up all the legally owned guns you can track down but the criminals don't shop at Basspro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

R. That may be true, but the fact remains, I hate to say. The U.S. Is off the charts and until the pro gun side sits down and gets some changes, it's inly going to get worse. For all our similarities, that stats are inarguable.

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times.
they have the means and willpower to move mountains when foreigners kill 3,000 of their own on 9/11. But for the 30,000 killed every year by their own.........."by my dead cold hands"

the 2nd was written during a time when only the best of the best could manage 3 rounds a minute. Anyone with a semi and a 30 round mag, can empty it's in less time than it takes to pee or say Yankee Doodle dandy. And if they have 6 or 8 mags ready to go. It's a slaughter. How many times has Joe PA said, well if there was someone there carrying? Well guess what, there was and he changed nothing.

your country has been on a slow burn for decades, you can watch it implode or "get er done"
i don't know what to say, it nuts. And you know me, I am far from a bleeding heart liberal. :)

---

30k is inaccurate by half at least.
Big difference if I'm the one on offensive and I see you in uniform vs you shooting at me from behind cover or concealment when I start my "plan."

The true freedom of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that gives rights to the Pulse clientele and Westboro Baptist are the same rights that allow gun purchase ownership and "bearing of arms."

Just like with the right of free speech, you get the bad and the good.

The US Constitution is an evergreen document. It means now what it did then and will mean that same thing in 500 years.

How do you suggest we stop the terrorist involved in the Pulse event?

Do you seriously believe or even CARE what was used rather than how to stop the evil? I don't. The ONLY way to insure it never happens is to exterminate that ideology or it will be something else they use. We stopped the easy purchase of TNT and they went to ANFO. We pretty much stopped that and they went to TATP and/or black powder like Boston.

The terrorist weapon is between their ears not between their hands........Same can be said of the mentally ill mass murderers.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-

2013: just under 25,000 gun deaths.
Last time I checked GD per capita was between 11 and 12. In Canada its under 3 and we own a lot of guns to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

One last "rebuttal" R.
Dont the 49 recent dead,,the children at Sandy Hook, the 20,000 killed every year have rights to? The right to freedom, some safeties and more? How many RIGHTS do dead people have? Why is it, the NRA always forgets their rights?

---

Gun murder is likely less than 10,000, mostly black on black, gang, male, under 30 years old in 250k or up population areas and is a very low percentage of the popuulation. We know who, where and what but we do nothing because it isn't politically correct.

We'd rather punish the rights of gun owners.

If you EVER take away one RIGHT none are safe.

All people in the US have the rights you mention, even the gun owners. There is no moral equivalency in removing gun rights from lawful owners v terrorist or mentally ill killing within the population. It's not even the proper subject or topic.

We have a right to bear arms. There are PLENTY of hoops to jump thru NOW.

Let me ask you... How many must die while people like you address the wrong symptom? Why not put the salve where the sore is? Why? Because we have a spineless chicken chit leader that won't even say radical islamist and has his cronies redacts the 911 call transcript of the actual terrorist spewing his ideology, claiming his kinship, and taking sole responsibility.

Hard to fix a terrorist problem you won't even speak out loud or commit to with the resolve to eradicate it from the face of the earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-

2013: just under 25,000 gun deaths.
Last time I checked GD per capita was between 11 and 12. In Canada its under 3 and we own a lot of guns to

---

LOOK at the FBI UCR gun murders since we are talking about that and not suicides, etc. I haven't looked in a while but gun murders were about 8500 out of about 320 million.

So you think taking guns away from people like me or you will make any statistical or even any conversational change in those numbers?

PS......we even know the type firearm and it isn't AR 15 which is the thread topic...........

Sucides can be reduced by storage laws? This year alone to date. 23 children have shot people. This guy? Just one sick puppy imo...with a history of domestic violence did he not? Yet he still acquired....

No matter how it's sliced or diced, statistically (GD per capita) the U.S. is off the charts, dirty bath water, useless for comparative purposes to other civilized nations because it's so far off, an "outrider".

How many mass shootings since columbine? The theatre? sandy Hook.
As I said R, the means and willpower to move mountains, literally when foreigners killed 3,000 on 9/11. But for the 25,000 or 30,000 that die each year.....

no will at all.

"Right to bear arms"
"right to life and liberty". For thousands, each year that right is buried and then forgotten. See the same old same since Columbine. No doubt, nothing will change after this one either....

i might think in a civilized society, the right to life, scuz the pun. Trumps the right to bear arms.

and that "right" was given when people used muskets, could get 2 shots a minute....
dont see how limiting magazines, clamping down on storage laws, and more infringes on the right to bear arms.

the States is a great country. But messed up and we'll in its way to imploding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Obviously you are ill informed. I would be ok banning all like you from ever owning a modern firearm as your "needs" are not like the freedom of choice "needs" of others. Simply water and bread for you every 3 days will suffice eh? Becaused none need" anything else eh?

---

Wow I feel like Dixie chick's lol well I'm "not ready to make nice" lol

Like I said just my opinion, I just don't see the need for that kind of fire power.
I shoot to hunt primarily. And I target shoot to get better at my shoot to kill. The hunting we do in ontario, if you can't knock down what ever you are shooting at in 2, ok 3 shots that you need a semi auto machine gun (AR-15) then maybe more time at the range is needed!!! Just saying

But hey to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Gun murder is likely less than 10,000, mostly black on black, gang, male, under 30 years old in 250k or up population areas and is a very low percentage of the popuulation. We know who, where and what but we do nothing because it isn't politically correct.

We'd rather punish the rights of gun owners.

If you EVER take away one RIGHT none are safe.

All people in the US have the rights you mention, even the gun owners. There is no moral equivalency in removing gun rights from lawful owners v terrorist or mentally ill killing within the population. It's not even the proper subject or topic.

We have a right to bear arms. There are PLENTY of hoops to jump thru NOW.

Let me ask you... How many must die while people like you address the wrong symptom? Why not put the salve where the sore is? Why? Because we have a spineless chicken chit leader that won't even say radical islamist and has his cronies redacts the 911 call transcript of the actual terrorist spewing his ideology, claiming his kinship, and taking sole responsibility.

Hard to fix a terrorist problem you won't even speak out loud or commit to with the resolve to eradicate it from the face of the earth.

---

OK we are in Canada right. I think your talking about the wrong country's problems.

The US has some serious issues it needs to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Sucides can be reduced by storage laws? This year alone to date. 23 children have shot people. This guy? Just one sick puppy imo...with a history of domestic violence did he not? Yet he still acquired....

No matter how it's sliced or diced, statistically (GD per capita) the U.S. is off the charts, dirty bath water, useless for comparative purposes to other civilized nations because it's so far off, an "outrider".

How many mass shootings since columbine? The theatre? sandy Hook.
As I said R, the means and willpower to move mountains, literally when foreigners killed 3,000 on 9/11. But for the 25,000 or 30,000 that die each year.....

no will at all.

"Right to bear arms"
"right to life and liberty". For thousands, each year that right is buried and then forgotten. See the same old same since Columbine. No doubt, nothing will change after this one either....

i might think in a civilized society, the right to life, scuz the pun. Trumps the right to bear arms.

and that "right" was given when people used muskets, could get 2 shots a minute....
dont see how limiting magazines, clamping down on storage laws, and more infringes on the right to bear arms.

the States is a great country. But messed up and we'll in its way to imploding.

---

Root cause,JBen and it's NOT guns. It's nuts that shouldn't have access and who were known to be problem children beforehand that nobody dropped a dime on when they should have. It's the common denominator with every one of the mass shootings. Somebody knew something and chose to do nothing,except in this case where the gun shop owner quickly advised the FBI about the irregularities of the purchase by the customer. Even then,he was still checked and cleared. Citizens can't be arrested and charged for what you think they might do in the US,unlike here in Canada where a PAL can be immediately suspended and all an individuals firearms seized without warrant for the social media comments alone.
Oh,BTW,the rights given by The Second Amendment had nothing to do with which weapons could be used because it made NO distinction on weapons restrictions. It had everything to do with the right of the people to bear arms to prevent a take over by a totalitarian or rogue government. The difference between the two principles is clear and distinct,but,always seems to get confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Oh,BTW,the rights given by The Second Amendment had nothing to do with which weapons could be used because it made NO distinction on weapons restrictions. It had everything to do with the right of the people to bear arms to prevent a take over by a totalitarian or rogue government. The difference between the two principles is clear and distinct,but,always seems to get confused.

---

Yup....it's rarely read in it's entirety and the true meaning often misunderstood..

Quote:

---

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Quote:

---

The Second Amendment, after all, doesn’t recognize our right to hunt deer or protect ourselves from criminals. Owning guns certainly makes doing those things easier, but it’s not why the Founders bothered to codify gun rights. They were getting at something else—the right of revolution.

Simply put, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the means to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical.

---

You think I don't know that Trimmer?

Point being GC works. While there's more to it, our two countries are very similar, yet the GD per capita..not even in the stratosphere ...and that's with our revolving door soft on crime, justice system thats A) infinitely softer on criminals than the US is and B) gets blamed for the problems here (mostly rightly)....just saying. And with respect to sick people who snap.

/looks around Canada for events like Columbine or SandyHook
/looks harder
/looks harder
yeah we've had a couple but nowhere near, the same number or the same scope, so what gives?

Is the only explantation that the US for some magical inexplicable reason breeds infinitely more people with serious mental health problems?


And the simple fact of the matter is gun owners apparently don't care much about people being shot and or killed in droves much, because nothing gets done, and no matter what's mentioned, it's worse than pulling teeth. (But for 9/11 Oorah lots of willpower and stepping up to the plate there). See how I point the rate of fire for Muskets, versus Semis with 30 round mags, and it's deflected. Or storage laws and children getting a hold of loaded guns and shooting their parents, other children, themselves...that to is deflected. Each time, all the time. Since Columbine, each event since and there have been lots, more than just the theatre, Sandy hook and now this one, and likely going forward. Same old, same old, round and round and round and round it will go.......

There comes a time when responsible people need to step to the plate and simply see things for what they are and get some things done. Period, no more "excuses"



reality check re the 2nd. Not sure what world people live on but...
if the U.S. ever becomes tyrannical, it won't matter how well armed citizens are.They won't be as well armed as the Iraqi army, and how long did they last? It about as ludicrous as us Canadians thinking we'd last a week if the US ever decides to invade here, especially if they don't hold back much. They could have levelled Iraq in a day or two but still held back concerned about...a "tyrannical US govt say a little more gung ho than Putin who doesn't care about public backlash"...lol

.......Other point on that, should be obvious, muskets rate of fire and mass shootings and mag capacity with Semi's , where guys like this unload

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

Wow I feel like Dixie chick's lol well I'm "not ready to make nice" lol

Like I said just my opinion, I just don't see the need for that kind of fire power.
I shoot to hunt primarily. And I target shoot to get better at my shoot to kill. The hunting we do in ontario, if you can't knock down what ever you are shooting at in 2, ok 3 shots that you need a semi auto machine gun (AR-15) then maybe more time at the range is needed!!! Just saying

But hey to each his own.

---

An AR 15 isn't, by even the most ridiculous stretch, a machine gun.

Your "needs" may not be the same as other's needs and needs are of no bearing here. Freedom isn't about minimum needs. It's about the free ability to drive a VW beetle or a Lamborghini Gallardo. To drink no alcohol or to drink beer or wine to own an island or a swamp,..........PLUS it is a RIGHT granted by the US Constitution and if one RIGHT that is granted under the Constitution falls, no other rights are safe from an over reaching government.

On Semi Auto ARs...

I have had on several occassion had a "pack" or several separate individual coyotes come in to a call and an AR is well suited as a hunting rifle for that situation, gopher hunting and or target shooting.

My AR 15 when left alone has hurt no one.

It is borderline psychotic to blame an object for or add some type of personification or anthromorphism to an inanimate object.

Pulse was an islamist terrorist attack. The forensics say so, the LE say so, the victims say so, heck the shooter said so.

No one needs a pressure cooker, an airplane, nails, blackpowder, boxcutters, cars, motorcycles or any of the things they have used to further their 7th century harmful beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

You think I don't know that Trimmer?

Point being GC works. While there's more to it, our two countries are very similar, yet the GD per capita..not even in the stratosphere ...and that's with our revolving door soft on crime, justice system thats A) infinitely softer on criminals than the US is and B) gets blamed for the problems here (mostly rightly)....just saying. And with respect to sick people who snap.

/looks around Canada for events like Columbine or SandyHook
/looks harder
/looks harder
yeah we've had a couple but nowhere near, the same number or the same scope, so what gives?

Is the only explantation that the US for some magical inexplicable reason breeds infinitely more people with serious mental health problems?


And the simple fact of the matter is gun owners apparently don't care much about people being shot and or killed in droves much, because nothing gets done, and no matter what's mentioned, it's worse than pulling teeth. (But for 9/11 Oorah lots of willpower and stepping up to the plate there). See how I point the rate of fire for Muskets, versus Semis with 30 round mags, and it's deflected. Or storage laws and children getting a hold of loaded guns and shooting their parents, other children, themselves...that to is deflected. Each time, all the time. Since Columbine, each event since and there have been lots, more than just the theatre, Sandy hook and now this one, and likely going forward. Same old, same old, round and round and round and round it will go.......

There comes a time when responsible people need to step to the plate and simply see things for what they are and get some things done. Period, no more "excuses"



reality check re the 2nd. Not sure what world people live on but...
if the U.S. ever becomes tyrannical, it won't matter how well armed citizens are.They won't be as well armed as the Iraqi army, and how long did they last? It about as ludicrous as us Canadians thinking we'd last a week if the US ever decides to invade here, especially if they don't hold back much. They could have levelled Iraq in a day or two but still held back concerned about...a "tyrannical US govt say a little more gung ho than Putin who doesn't care about public backlash"...lol

.......Other point on that, should be obvious, muskets rate of fire and mass shootings and mag capacity with Semi's , where guys like this unload

---

Kids shouldn't get car keys and kill Constables, like officer Styles. Or get into toxic laundry pods, or poisons under the sink, or into gorilla cages, etc., etc. either. However all of those are a failure of diligence by the parent or an extraordinary attempt by the child.
Sadly that is also a price of individual RIGHTS and freedoms.

Suicide deaths are a non issue apparently on one hand as Canada is trying to help GET ER DONE now.

People whine on one hand about suicide numbers yet try to create, thru Canadian law, an express lane to increase the kill rate.

Constitution = Evergreen. My Musket = Governments's musket, My M4 M16= their M4 M 16.....Be hard to overthrow a governement of today with a musket unless they want to go back to flint and steel too.

I took an oath as LE to protect the US and my resdent State Constitutions from all threats foreign and domestic. So did millions of other LE. That includes standing agains Feinstein(who hypocritically carries CCW)and her elitist, socialist anti gun agenda.

However I am all for assisting the terrorist to reach their martydom, the mentally ill to find their institution and the criminals to find their jail in order to rid society of gun murders.

exactly why the US will continue to go to pot R, it's all or nothing, no middle ground. And has been forever and will continue to be forever. As an aside look at the current political division in the US. So polarized, and its getting worse. Your ( loose, broad term) going to blow up, destroy that which your swore to protect and love.

Re "overthrow" the govt..Good luck R, if that day ever comes. You'd don't stand a hope, likely less chance than the Iraqi army. Again, your completely missing the "point". Reducing magazine capacity, does not confiscate your guns, or infringe on your 2nd. Yet it's like pulling teeth.
An obvious easy possible thing the US could do (see the vid Mike linked)..How many magazines did he pull out, each filled with 30 rounds.......



[quote][COLOR=#333333]Kids shouldn't get car keys and kill Constables, like officer Styles. Or get into toxic laundry pods, or poisons under the sink, or into gorilla cages, etc., etc. either. However all of those are a failure of diligence by the parent or an extraordinary attempt by the child.[/quote}

all examples, where currently there are more safeguards and "controls" than leaving a loaded firearm around. People should also be intelligent enough to know that drinking and driving is a really bad idea. And like that, people had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting some laws, changes. Even speed limits as cars evolved....

See also texting and driving.

PS R, statistically your more likely to get shot in the US than end up in a car wreck. But Im assuming your ok with drinking driving, or texting driving laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

However I am all for assisting the terrorist to reach their martydom, the mentally ill to find their institution and the criminals to find their jail in order to rid society of gun murders.

---

I like that...well phrased !!

Lol, me to.

Ps R, heading out onto the water, you around for coffee this am?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

An AR 15 isn't, by even the most ridiculous stretch, a machine gun.

Your "needs" may not be the same as other's needs and needs are of no bearing here. Freedom isn't about minimum needs. It's about the free ability to drive a VW beetle or a Lamborghini Gallardo. To drink no alcohol or to drink beer or wine to own an island or a swamp,..........PLUS it is a RIGHT granted by the US Constitution and if one RIGHT that is granted under the Constitution falls, no other rights are safe from an over reaching government.

On Semi Auto ARs...

I have had on several occassion had a "pack" or several separate individual coyotes come in to a call and an AR is well suited as a hunting rifle for that situation, gopher hunting and or target shooting.

My AR 15 when left alone has hurt no one.

It is borderline psychotic to blame an object for or add some type of personification or anthromorphism to an inanimate object.

Pulse was an islamist terrorist attack. The forensics say so, the LE say so, the victims say so, heck the shooter said so.

No one needs a pressure cooker, an airplane, nails, blackpowder, boxcutters, cars, motorcycles or any of the things they have used to further their 7th century harmful beliefs.

---

^Thank you. Boy do I get tired of hearing guns being blamed for atrocities. When lives are lost to gun violence, guns take the blame. I can't remember ever hearing breweries or distilleries being blamed for lives lost to drinking and driving/liver failure, etc. What about vehicle manufacturers for car accidents? Baseball bats or golf clubs used in beatings? Knives in stabbings? In all of those cases~it's the behavior of the person committing the crime drawn into question (rightfully so!) not the tool/device that made it happen so easily. Why is that? Because law makers can't see past the nose on their face, and PAL/RPAL holders are the low-hanging fruit when they want to look tough to the voting public. It's disgusting.

Anybody who calls an AR15 a "machine gun" should have their own PAL revoked. lol You are aware it's a self-loading (=semi-auto), .223/556 rifle with a magazine capacity limit of 5...right? Is Canada a safer place because this 1 self-loading .223 is restricted? Give your head a shake. You can walk into Bass Pro and buy a self-loading .223 right now. Does hearing that make you feel less safe? Please remove the words "do we need?" from any gun discussion if you're a PAL/RPAL holder if you value what rights we have left. By saying that, you're undermining your own rights because if you think law makers will stop with the AR issue, you're out to lunch. You're also deciding that the interest of others matters less than your own. Just because you may not want/feel the need for an AR, don't work against those who would love to have one for sporting purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

On the personal side, I don't see myself ever hunting with an AR-15. BUT, I am willing to do whatever it takes within the law to allow other Canadians to have a choice to use their property in the manner they see fit (within the law).

---

I also don't see myself hunting with an AR-15 BUT, I am willing to do whatever it takes within the law to prevent Canadians from getting shoot in a school,public mall,university campus,by a nut job who has been allowed to own a AR-15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrouseWhisperer

^Thank you. Boy do I get tired of hearing guns being blamed for atrocities.

---

This is the oldest, tiredest straw man in the whole debate.

Proposing to put controls on firearms is not "blaming guns" any more than imposing speed limits is "blaming cars."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrouseWhisperer

^Thank you. Boy do I get tired of hearing guns being blamed for atrocities. When lives are lost to gun violence, guns take the blame. I can't remember ever hearing breweries or distilleries being blamed for lives lost to drinking and driving/liver failure, etc. What about vehicle manufacturers for car accidents? Baseball bats or golf clubs used in beatings? Knives in stabbings? In all of those cases~it's the behavior of the person committing the crime drawn into question (rightfully so!) not the tool/device that made it happen so easily. Why is that? Because law makers can't see past the nose on their face, and PAL/RPAL holders are the low-hanging fruit when they want to look tough to the voting public. It's disgusting.

Anybody who calls an AR15 a "machine gun" should have their own PAL revoked. lol You are aware it's a self-loading (=semi-auto), .223/556 rifle with a magazine capacity limit of 5...right? Is Canada a safer place because this 1 self-loading .223 is restricted? Give your head a shake. You can walk into Bass Pro and buy a self-loading .223 right now. Does hearing that make you feel less safe? Please remove the words "do we need?" from any gun discussion if you're a PAL/RPAL holder if you value what rights we have left. By saying that, you're undermining your own rights because if you think law makers will stop with the AR issue, you're out to lunch. You're also deciding that the interest of others matters less than your own. Just because you may not want/feel the need for an AR, don't work against those who would love to have one for sporting purposes.

---

Here's a little reading.

wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Just on the history of the AR-15


"""Anybody who calls an AR15 a "machine gun" should have their own PAL revoked"""

LOLOLOL So then I am sure you know the AR-15 comes in 2 models, 1 fully automatic with selector switch(making it a "Machine Gun" and 1 civilian model semi auto.

• Various magazine capacities, ranging from 5 to 100-round(which can also be used in the semi auto models), And I should get my PAL revoked. humm

Speeding and gun capabilities are a good comparison. Increased speed and a higher gun capability only add to the level of carnage. By themselves, they're not really responsible for the accident.
There'll always be lots of people that'll say speeding kills just like they say guns kill, but in reality, irresponsible behavior by individuals will always be the root cause.
When the right to own trumps the right to have screening, you're going to have problems.

It may be onelessarrow. A "direct" comparison? No, but with regards to "society" or people realizing the carnage is adding up, and then subsequently accepting "limits" or change to reduce (not eliminate because we never will) the road toll.

speeding, drunk driving, and these days texting. All things that evolved as time went by. And all things that people have been dragged "kicking and screaming". . The problems in the U.S. are complex, and imo extend to and include socio economic. That shouldn't prevent starting somewhere. First steps to reduce....see if hopefully they have some small impacts.

i I hopefully will be worn food before the U.S. blows. We are seeing more and more signs. Whether it's cops being executed and anarchy in the streets, whether it's current boiling tensions with the current elections as the rifts grow wider and wider, more polarized, gun deaths and two sides so entrenched, and even the house, where getting anything passed, etc. If Trump wins, and he could very well throw fuel on the fire. At home and abroad.

As for us, Canada. Well we are limited with respect to magazine capacity, and have some other "controls". Are semis the same "problem" here? Don't think so. We also have a history either over regulation (registry) or high handed RCMP (high river, reclassification) or people getting jacked by trumped up charges, that end up in bankruptcy or worse.

shame Utopia will never exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I also don't see myself hunting with an AR-15 BUT, I am willing to do whatever it takes within the law to prevent Canadians from getting shoot in a school,public mall,university campus,by a nut job who has been allowed to own a AR-15.

---

Perfect logic~the AR15 does nothing, shoots nothing, in no way differently than non-restricted rifles like the Ruger Mini 14, Robinson Arms XCR-L, Tavor, T97, SU-16, AR180b, Swiss Arms, Benelli MR1 etc. etc. All non-restricted, all the same caliber, all semi-auto...and yet the sky hasn't fallen in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This is the oldest, tiredest straw man in the whole debate.

Proposing to put controls on firearms is not "blaming guns" any more than imposing speed limits is "blaming cars."

---

Sure it is. If you think it's not, I'd question your grasp on the controls currently in place in Canada. Or are you even talking about Canada at this point? The "controls" are there now, perhaps you'd care to see more. If you can tell me what the AR15 does (other than look ominous) that the other, aforementioned rifles don't do~I'm all ears. This is political, and nothing more. I'd suggest you take-up archery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

Here's a little reading.

wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Just on the history of the AR-15


"""Anybody who calls an AR15 a "machine gun" should have their own PAL revoked"""

LOLOLOL So then I am sure you know the AR-15 comes in 2 models, 1 fully automatic with selector switch(making it a "Machine Gun" and 1 civilian model semi auto.

• Various magazine capacities, ranging from 5 to 100-round(which can also be used in the semi auto models), And I should get my PAL revoked. humm

---

Rather than posting a link the the first hit you found on Google, why don't you take another 15 seconds and figure-out what version of this rifle is even being discussed for re-classification in Canada. Are you suggesting that any of the over 25,000 people who signed that petition are hoping for a select-fire version for hunting, or sporting purposes? lol Good one.

Listen guys~I don't own a black gun of any kind, nor have I any desire to get an RPAL so that I'm forced to join a club just to shoot a very specific model of semi-auto at paper targets. The same caliber, same action, in several other makes~I can hunt, or target shoot with where legal. If the AR ever becomes non-restricted, I may consider getting one..but probably not. However, it's remarkable to me that it's restricted when nearly identical firearms are not~for political reasons alone. Several of the rifles I mentioned also accept AR magazines~in case any Google aficionados want to run that up the flag pole. In other words, you can't cite magazine capacity as part of your anti-AR argument when loads of AR mags are sold for non-restricted rifles every day in this country. What IS loud and clear to me...having read all the comments in this thread...is that plenty of you (hopefully, PAL holders) see no issue with inconsistencies in regulation surrounding this issue. Give your semi-auto rifles and shotguns a hug~especially if they have blued steel and walnut. They're not nearly as dangerous, so no chance that they're on the RCMP's radar...right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

It may be onelessarrow. A "direct" comparison? No, but with regards to "society" or people realizing the carnage is adding up, and then subsequently accepting "limits" or change to reduce (not eliminate because we never will) the road toll.

speeding, drunk driving, and these days texting. All things that evolved as time went by. And all things that people have been dragged "kicking and screaming". . The problems in the U.S. are complex, and imo extend to and include socio economic. That shouldn't prevent starting somewhere. First steps to reduce....see if hopefully they have some small impacts.

i I hopefully will be worn food before the U.S. blows. We are seeing more and more signs. Whether it's cops being executed and anarchy in the streets, whether it's current boiling tensions with the current elections as the rifts grow wider and wider, more polarized, gun deaths and two sides so entrenched, and even the house, where getting anything passed, etc. If Trump wins, and he could very well throw fuel on the fire. At home and abroad.

As for us, Canada. Well we are limited with respect to magazine capacity, and have some other "controls". Are semis the same "problem" here? Don't think so. We also have a history either over regulation (registry) or high handed RCMP (high river, reclassification) or people getting jacked by trumped up charges, that end up in bankruptcy or worse.

shame Utopia will never exist.

---

Well said JBen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrouseWhisperer

Sure it is. If you think it's not, I'd question your grasp on the controls currently in place in Canada. Or are you even talking about Canada at this point? The "controls" are there now, perhaps you'd care to see more. If you can tell me what the AR15 does (other than look ominous) that the other, aforementioned rifles don't do~I'm all ears.

---

The AR-15 was classified as restricted by order-in-council at a time when the Federal Asssault Weapons ban was being debated in the United States. There were far fewer black rifles on the market at that time, and they tended to be civilian variants of a small number of military firearms. Canada chose to classify those rifles specifically, by order-in-council, rather than to try to control the market more broadly by creating classification criteria that would separate the "assault weapon" class from other semi-automatic firearms, which was the approach taken in the United States.

When the AWB expired in 2004, the market for black rifles exploded and many more rifles entered the marketplace. But with the CPC in power from 2006 on, and unwilling to alienate gun owners (who complained throughout the CPC's tenure that the CPC was not living up to its promises), no action was taken to update firearms classifications in Canada or to change the classification criteria.

Consequently, classifications are now a mess. But the lack of any rhyme or reason in the classification of semi-autos is a consequence of changes in the market, and government failure to react to those changes, rather than of "blaming the gun." Had the black rifle market in 1992 been what it was today, likely our government would have created criteria similar to the AWB criteria, which would have had the effect of making your list of other semi-autos restricted today.

There is a simple explanation for the mess. It is not a matter of "blaming the gun."

Can we just combine the "Black gun" and "Dangerous dog breeds" debates into one and pin it to the top of all of the relevant forums? Seems like the same argument over and over again... :whacked:

Perhaps we can allow "dangerous breeds" provided they are only allowed to have 5 teeth left in their mouths.... :moose: lol

The media beat you to it (sorta) Rugger. From 2 days ago
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...service=mobile

shame there's no stats for how many chidldren are mauled, disfigured for life, as there are how many are accidentally shot.
Accordig to the article 500,000 bites, 75% of which are children under 10 (or roughly 400,000). Somehow I don't think even 500 kids are wounded and in need of stitches or plastic surgery by stray shots each year....

lol
;)<./wink

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rugger

Can we just combine the "Black gun" and "Dangerous dog breeds" debates into one and pin it to the top of all of the relevant forums? Seems like the same argument over and over again... :whacked:

Perhaps we can allow "dangerous breeds" provided they are only allowed to have 5 teeth left in their mouths.... :moose: lol

---

ROFLMAO! Now,that's funny,right there.

Pretty good comparison Rugger. However our rights to guns are a little different.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and those inalienable rights were codified in the 10 amendments to the US Constitution, the US was wedded into the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from a God given humanity. This was recognized by the SCOTUS as a FUNDAMENTAL personal right, not a gift of our government in DC v Heller. It held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right and NOT a gift from government.
A Fundamental personal right is the self evident natural ability of individuals to make choices WITHOUT government PERMISSION.

The only way government can interfere with that is if it can demonstrate a COMPELLING governmental interest that is also the LEAST restrictive means AND ONLY WITH DUE PROCESS.

As Americans, we dont NEED to defend the law nor show a compelling need to bear arms; the government must show a compelling need to prevent us from doing so. It's called BLACK LETTER LAW, meaning it's VERY WELL accepted and established throughout the land.

Funny, this past week the liberal, socialist and communist liberal democrats sought to tie the 2nd amendment right to arms to a No Fly list/Watch list, preventing any on that list from buying a gun. YET NOT A SINGLE SENATOR COULD STATE THE CRITERIA FOR PUTTING A NAME ON THAT LIST AND NONE COULD IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE OR PEOPLES WHO PREPARE THAT LIST.

That's because these are well guarded secret lists. If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret, well guarded list on the bureaucrat's own whim, YOU have lost a FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY and RIGHT and now the government has turned a fundamental right/liberty into a government GIFT.

One idiot of a Senator even stated "due process" is killing us. Due process is spelled out in the Constitution. Due process is the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to FORCE any and all violations to be PROVED by the government to a jury of our peers before the government can take LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY.

It is the essence of the RIGHTS of FREE people.

Gun control, as one can see, is ONLY about Control of a FREE People. Their real agenda of CONTROL and Government dependence is becoming more and more obvious as their demands become less and less about substance.

I'm not clear on how absolutist arguments concerning the US constitution apply to the reclassification of the AR-15 in Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I'm not clear on how absolutist arguments concerning the US constitution apply to the reclassification of the AR-15 in Canada.

---

I am and they don't,IMO. There's a tremendous difference between laws and philosophies of a social democracy-constitutional monarchy (Canada) and a republic (US). In a republic,laws govern the state. Individuals are on their own to live their lives by whatever means they deem appropriate and legal with all rights to the individual. In our system,all authority lies with The Crown that bestows certain rights to the individual as "privileges" which can be withdrawn on a whim.

There a few steps that have to be taken before that 'whim', ever comes to fruition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I am and they don't,IMO. There's a tremendous difference between laws and philosophies of a social democracy-constitutional monarchy (Canada) and a republic (US).

---

"Democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive definitions. The US is both a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic. Canada is both a liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Canada and the US share a common law background, both have bills of rights, and both operate under the constitutional principle that the state is bound by laws.

The Crown cannot withdraw rights on a whim.

Times change and so should the laws that govern a nations citizens. I do not believe those very smart men of three hundred years ago were able to see the future. You make laws that are the best for your citizens living NOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Times change and so should the laws that govern a nations citizens. I do not believe those very smart men of three hundred years ago were able to see the future. You make laws that are the best for your citizens living NOW.

---

While this mostly makes sense, those men 300 years ago enshrined the "right" to bear arms. A right is different from a law. Laws are often written to protect rights but don't confuse the two. Much more significant to revise the rights of your citizens than change laws.

I may be mistaken, but before it was changed , was it not a 'right' to own another human being? And even if I am wrong about the first statement, why for the good of all, cannot 'rights' change over time? ie. jus primae noctis, known as Law of the first night or Lord's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

I may be mistaken, but before it was changed , was it not a 'right' to own another human being? And even if I am wrong about the first statement, why for the good of all, cannot 'rights' change over time?

---

They can - it is just much more significant to change the rights of the individual than it is to revise laws. This is particularly true when one is reducing rights as opposed to increasing them.

As far as owning people goes the right was to own property and it just so happens certain people were considered property. The right still exists to own property but people are no longer considered property (at least in the developed world).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Pretty good comparison Rugger. However our rights to guns are a little different.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and those inalienable rights were codified in the 10 amendments to the US Constitution, the US was wedded into the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from a God given humanity. This was recognized by the SCOTUS as a FUNDAMENTAL personal right, not a gift of our government in DC v Heller. It held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right and NOT a gift from government.
A Fundamental personal right is the self evident natural ability of individuals to make choices WITHOUT government PERMISSION.

The only way government can interfere with that is if it can demonstrate a COMPELLING governmental interest that is also the LEAST restrictive means AND ONLY WITH DUE PROCESS.

As Americans, we dont NEED to defend the law nor show a compelling need to bear arms; the government must show a compelling need to prevent us from doing so. It's called BLACK LETTER LAW, meaning it's VERY WELL accepted and established throughout the land.

Funny, this past week the liberal, socialist and communist liberal democrats sought to tie the 2nd amendment right to arms to a No Fly list/Watch list, preventing any on that list from buying a gun. YET NOT A SINGLE SENATOR COULD STATE THE CRITERIA FOR PUTTING A NAME ON THAT LIST AND NONE COULD IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE OR PEOPLES WHO PREPARE THAT LIST.

That's because these are well guarded secret lists. If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret, well guarded list on the bureaucrat's own whim, YOU have lost a FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY and RIGHT and now the government has turned a fundamental right/liberty into a government GIFT.

One idiot of a Senator even stated "due process" is killing us. Due process is spelled out in the Constitution. Due process is the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to FORCE any and all violations to be PROVED by the government to a jury of our peers before the government can take LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY.

It is the essence of the RIGHTS of FREE people.

Gun control, as one can see, is ONLY about Control of a FREE People. Their real agenda of CONTROL and Government dependence is becoming more and more obvious as their demands become less and less about substance.

---

The laws of natural selection will prevail in the USA,the nuts will either kill off the citizens or vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I'm not clear on how absolutist arguments concerning the US constitution apply to the reclassification of the AR-15 in Canada.

---

My post was mainly for consumption in response to this thread's previos posts on US/politics/no fly list/terrorist watch/oh the horror/Pulse shooting/gun rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

The laws of natural selection will prevail in the USA,the nuts will either kill off the citizens or vice versa.

---

I'm betting on the citizens.
The Democrats are just upset because the Pulse shooter was one of their card carrying hillary supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

While this mostly makes sense, those men 300 years ago enshrined the "right" to bear arms. A right is different from a law. Laws are often written to protect rights but don't confuse the two. Much more significant to revise the rights of your citizens than change laws.

---

The constitution is a law made by men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The constitution is a law made by men.

---

I never said otherwise. What I said was is that a right is not the same as a law. Laws (like the constitution) are enacted to protect rights. The right to vote, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc.. These are rights not laws. Similar (and also determined by men) but not the same.

Enacting a law that infringes on any fundamental right would have to stand up to a constitutional challenge. Not like passing a no texting while you drive law or no backyard campfires in town law.

Enacting a law that infringes a right only has to withstand a constitutional challenge to the extent that the right is protected by the constitution, a law.

I understand your point, but it remains a fact that in a legal sense rights exist only in law. No court can throw out a law on the basis that it violates a philisophical idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I understand your point, but it remains a fact that in a legal sense rights exist only in law. No court can throw out a law on the basis that it violates a philisophical idea.

---

They are defined in law but are different than the law itself. My point to FM was essentially once a right is defined (I called it enshrined) in a law like the constitution it becomes very difficult to meddle with down the road. As I said in the previous post it's not like passing a no-texting while driving law that does not infringe on any constitutional rights. Guaranteed any law passed regarding firearms control will have to withstand the "right to bear arms" constitutional challenge that will inevitably follow - nothing philosophical about it.

What the states needs is a clear definition of what constitutes "arms," or they need to amend the constitution. Neither of these things will come easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

They are defined in law but are different than the law itself. My point to FM was essentially once a right is defined (I called it enshrined) in a law like the constitution it becomes very difficult to meddle with down the road. As I said in the previous post it's not like passing a no-texting while driving law that does not infringe on any constitutional rights. Guaranteed any law passed regarding firearms control will have to withstand the "right to bear arms" constitutional challenge that will inevitably follow - nothing philosophical about it.

What the states needs is a clear definition of what constitutes "arms," or they need to amend the constitution. Neither of these things will come easily.

---

Judge Antonin Scalia did. Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried..
He will me sorely missed.

The argument of the forefathers didn't know there would be high capacity assault weapons so the amendment needs to be changed always irks me, especially when you read the amendment in its entirety. The Americans had just completed a very bloody war for their independence, a war they won against a tyrannical government because they had the means to fight them. They did not consider advancements in firearm technology and if they did it would not have restricted what firearms they could have in the event they found themselves having to fight another war for freedom and independence. So changing that part of the constitution just because it doesn't suit a certain sects agenda is foolish at best.
Did the American founding fathers know there was going to be Internet, Facebook, cellphones,Skype etc when they wrote the amendment for free speech, the same formats that allow vermin like ISIS to recruit the weak minded and spew their rhetoric?maybe the Americans should repeal that part of the constitution as well? Maybe they didn't intend for speech to be just that free?
What level of freedom and civil liberties do you feel comfortable sacrificing hmmm? Whatever that amount is, it will never be enough for others who feel they know what's in our best interests, all done under the favorite guise of public safety.

Restricting licensed and legal gun owners has no effect on the criminal element. Manpower and money wasted in this should be diverted to law enforcement and target the illegal gun trade.

The US Charter Documents were written based on Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Rights are God given and only penned by man. Man understood the laws of nature and nature's God as revealed to man.

Furthermore, Law is God given not man invented as STATED in the Declaration of Independence...all men are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights. Rights are God given not govermment created. Man only puts pen to paper.

Canadian reclassification of the AR 15 would have no practical affect on crime on way or another. Most gun crime is likely handgun and access to handguns was thru smuggling or theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

The US Charter Documents were written based on Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Rights are God given and only penned by man. Man understood the laws of nature and nature's God as revealed to man.

Furthermore, Law is God given not man invented as STATED in the Declaration of Independence...all men are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights. Rights are God given not govermment created. Man only puts pen to paper.

Canadian reclassification of the AR 15 would have no practical affect on crime on way or another. Most gun crime is likely handgun and access to handguns was thru smuggling or theft.

---

Yep....and heavy on the smuggling. The number of restricted's that are stolen from Canadian homes is very small because there aren't that many Canadians that own them.

[COLOR=#333333]"Canadian reclassification of the AR 15 would have no practical affect on crime on way or another. Most gun crime is likely handgun and access to handguns was thru smuggling or theft"


[COLOR=#333333]I agree with this statement and yes I would think that most gun crime in Canada is smuggled in handguns.
I think when it comes to the AR-15 it's more to do with it being the gun of choice for mass shootings. No matter how you dress it up that is a serious piece of fire power, which can unload a lot of heavy lead fast.
With the capability of up to 100 round magazines, you preload a couple of those and wow you can take on a small army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

I think when it comes to the AR-15 it's more to do with the being the gun of choice mass shootings. No matter how you dress it up that is a serious piece of fire power, which can unload a lot of heavy lead fast.
With the capability of up to 100 round magazines, you preload a couple of those and wow you can take on a small army.

---

You'd be a fool to go to a massacre without one ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

You'd be a fool to go to a massacre without one ...

---

The Orlando Pulse shooter did.

However I do agree he was deceived fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

The Orlando Pulse shooter did.

However I do agree he was deceived fool.

---

sorry your right he used the Sig Sauer MCX accepts the AR-15 magazine. Same S hit different pile

I think the MCX looks scarier....might become the AR of choice in the future :)

Huh..interesting factoid;

The initial AR-15 (AR standing for Armalite Rifle), was designed by Eugene Stoner in the late 1950s.

Great last name for a guy of the 60's :)

Lots of talk from Americans about their rights.They have basically rolled over on having rights mostly in a voluntary manner and by allowing government controls.We are the same in Canada,they know where we go,what we do,where we spend,its all a big shell game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I think the MCX looks scarier....might become the AR of choice in the future :)

---

http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...ICIiAiIgf/2Q==http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...iIgIiICIiB/9k=

hell ya thats a scary gun. But great for hunting lololololololol

Crap it wont let insert image

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Lots of talk from Americans about their rights.They have basically rolled over on having rights mostly in a voluntary manner and by allowing government controls.We are the same in Canada,they know where we go,what we do,where we spend,its all a big shell game.

---

Ha..worse, corp America knows even more and we gladly tell them ; how many people carry 'points' cards...better than any tracking chip, the complied info tells big business more about you you know yourself..started year ago with Gas stations offering trinkets to find out when you bought gas and where to traveled.

And now it's even worse...they track everything you do digitally with cookies...just like the big bad wolf !!

We give up our privacy rights every day we sit down at the computer, turn on our phone or drive our car.

No one seems to care...but then again, you have ask ask yourself, does it matter ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

sorry your right he used the Sig Sauer MCX accepts the AR-15 magazine. Same S hit different pile

---

Not really. One is gas operated the other piston operated, one is DI the other isn't, one has a stock mounted buffer spring the other doesn't, etc, etc.

Both use STANAG magazines, both have a trigger and a barrel. Other than that they are quite different. In fact that piston design is legal and non restricted in Canada and anyone with a PAL can purchase one. I hunt coyotes with one designed like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Not really. One is gas operated the other piston operated, one is DI the other isn't, one has a stock mounted buffer spring the other doesn't, etc, etc.

Both use STANAG magazines, both have a trigger and a barrel. Other than that they are quite different. In fact that piston design is legal and non restricted in Canada and anyone with a PAL can purchase one. I hunt coyotes with one designed like that.

---

may not be able to say that forever. When JT decides it's gone, it's gone. If the guy thinks he can completely stack the deck and rig the way we vote without a referendum do you think he cares about your rights to own a black gun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

When JT decides it's gone, it's gone.

---

That's his Feminist side :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

may not be able to say that forever. When JT decides it's gone, it's gone. If the guy thinks he can completely stack the deck and rig the way we vote without a referendum do you think he cares about your rights to own a black gun?

---

Some possibility for that. He shoots so we'll see how much control the puppet masters have or if he will go rogue.

I do have options........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

That's his Feminist side :)

---

hey be careful or he is going to get the boxing gloves out again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Not really. One is gas operated the other piston operated, one is DI the other isn't, one has a stock mounted buffer spring the other doesn't, etc, etc.

Both use STANAG magazines, both have a trigger and a barrel. Other than that they are quite different. In fact that piston design is legal and non restricted in Canada and anyone with a PAL can purchase one. I hunt coyotes with one designed like that.

---

You can put an MCX upper on any AR-15 lower. Yes, the bolt and recoil mechanism is entirely different, but these two rifles have much more in common than you pretend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

You can put an MCX upper on any AR-15 lower. Yes, the bolt and recoil mechanism is entirely different, but these two rifles have much more in common than you pretend.

---

I don't pretend. I stated facts and stand by them. You got anything to refute them or you just going to deflect and attempt to switch my post to an upper lower debate?

Here I was smugly thinking I was safe from government scrutiny with my Muzzleloaders, then some guy had to go make them black :)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...psv1u5dmab.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

I don't pretend. I stated facts and stand by them. You got anything to refute them or you just going to deflect and attempt to switch my post to an upper lower debate?

---

LOL. So pointing out how misleading your statement was is "deflecting?"

Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

LOL. So pointing out how misleading your statement was is "deflecting?"

Okay.

---

The guns are simply different and that's not misleading.

Changing to an AR lower on a MCX upper doesn't change the operation, it is still the same gun design as it was originally(although using a different lower with different Serial #, OEM and City changes things WRT database info) and you now need a stock kit from Sig to plug the missing buffer tube hole on the AR lower.

Drop a loaded/chambered AR 15 in the water, immediately pull it out and shoot it. Do the same with the MCX. Then tell me they are not vastly different guns, if your able.

ROFL.

Your claim was that all these guns had in common was the STANAG magazine, and the fact they had triggers and barrels. I countered with the fact that they are designed so that the lower receiver is interoperable, so clearly they have more in common than you pretend. You accused me of "deflecting."

And this is your response? That they are "simply different?" Well, no kidding. I wasn't arguing they are the same. I was arguing that you had made a misleading statement: based on SIG's deliberate decision to make their rifle work on an AR-15 lower, not to mention their use of AR-15 ergonomics, these rifles clearly share more design features than the existence of a trigger and a barrel.

I'm not sure why anyone even thinks this matters. Perhaps you could explain what you think the MCX has to do with the topic of AR-15 classification. Just like your Second Amendment red herring, nothing to do with the topic. Are you off your meds, or are you simply making repeated attempts to derail the thread?

The 2nd amendment was to explain and educate on the FACTS, especially to seditious, idealogical chameleons.
If you would read and comprehend the threads previous posts and the conversational flow, you would see the relativity of the 2nd Amend posts.

Nothing like having an enemy inside the wire Welsh. Some of the laughable BS interviews and comments you have made here and elswhere is telling. You my ad hominem little friend are the one whom is sick, and in need of meds, could it be shell shock? Tinnitus?

Didn't you previously already publicly admit dishonesty with regards to specific firearm research?

Now, is the trigger not part of an operable lower? Oh wait, yes. But you chose to try and argue a point with me that you failed to fully comprehend. When you get a AR lower to use on an upper it is a complete lower meaning the trigger assembly is include unless you ORDER a 80% lower to be privately machined to completion or ORDER a lower with nothing else, but it won't shoot.

You have a habit of trying to pick flychit out of pepper attempting to change the meaning of a previous factual post.

The Sig is piston operated vs DI AR 15. They are not similar as you admitted.

No matter what you do with the AR lower the Sig is still a piston operated semi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

The 2nd amendment was to explain and educate on the FACTS, especially to seditious, idealogical chameleons.

---

Seditious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Didn't you previously already publicly admit dishonesty with regards to specific firearm research?

---

Huh?

Anyway ... still waiting for the explanation of what the MCX has to do with this.

Another thread destroyed.