It's over for restricteds

[rick_iles]

The arguments you made above, and that planes were not banned after 9/11 (Lauren Boebert), does not take into account the public's reaction to the victims which the current governing party will consider most.

Neither does does it accept responsibility as a member of a group whose intent is continued use of firearms.

If we don't control ourselves as a collective then we will be controlled by the government due to the actions of a few individuals, which do you want.

Law abiding, legal gun owners are not, nor have we ever been the”problem”, that you seem to think need “controlled”.

[Gun Nut]

The arguments you made above, and that planes were not banned after 9/11 (Lauren Boebert), does not take into account the public's reaction to the victims which the current governing party will consider most.

Neither does does it accept responsibility as a member of a group whose intent is continued use of firearms.

If we don't control ourselves as a collective then we will be controlled by the government due to the actions of a few individuals, which do you want.

I really think the idea of control was better:

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be crimes that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and the you cash in on quilt. Now that’s the system, ....., that the game, and once you understand the system you’ll become easer to deal with.
Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”

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

[Marker]

As a collective car owners are not held accountable for the individual actions and restrictions put on them in that regard. Alcohol for example causes more deaths, damage to familys, human abuse and as a partaker (I assume) do you suggest that all booze be watered down to 1%? As the owner of a vehicle or a kitchen knife do you want sanctions because of no personal fault.

The governments actions and those of the antifirearm advocates show no regard for the real problems but just an ideological disconnect from reality, bans on booze, governors on cars, 1" kitchen knives are not reality and shouldn't be.The idea that a law abiding person is the problem when stats can for example shows that firearms owners are far less likely to commit crimes than the general public but should be held responsible shows a logical disconnect. Maybe you should start with watching the Brian Lilley video earlier in this thread.

Based on the stats can evidence a better solution would be to require the general population to take the PAL course, buy a firearm and join those that already have their record checked by the police on a daily basis since a firearm owner is far less likely to be a criminal than a member of the general public. The criminals, smugglers and traffickers will continue to smuggle guns, drugs, people or whatever other criminal activity they choose regardless of the laws... just incase you missed the obvious reality, let me say it again... THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

The publics reaction is created and led by a media and politicians that lie, fear monger and have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, hence groups like the CCFR having a range day to try and get more people out to be educated. Truth, education... you know reality, is that the legislation we have now are far more than adequate, the ones coming in are nothing but the attempt to seize property belonging to the law abiding and the government having shown their hand by reducing sentences and spending less than 1/3 the promised amount to keep kids out of gangs has shown it isn't interested in solving the problem and peoples safety, only in using the problem to create fear and to their advantage.

I am not in disagreement with your comments above, in this information age gun ownership has been encased in the shadow of public opinion. However, we have seen, and as the OP said, we will most likely continue to see tighter restrictions in place. The NRA push-push approach has the weight of the US amendment granting rights, our ownership rules are based on a privilege not a right, and as such that privilege can be taken away. The Libs are taking the approach that we can't control ourselves and therefore they are stepping up the attack on the rules. While it is obviously true we cannot control the individual next to us we can control what we as an autonomous collective say through the voice(s) that represent us.

I would like to see the RPAL (only, not the PAL) be more expensive to obtain and renew, these extra funds could be funneled into the CBSA to finance more training, personnel, and technology driven assets. One thing I have experienced with government decisions as that they are business based, increased funding obtained from the RPAL would create a desire to increase that funding base (read more options for restricted gun owners).

[mosquito]

I am not in disagreement with your comments above, in this information age gun ownership has been encased in the shadow of public opinion. However, we have seen, and as the OP said, we will most likely continue to see tighter restrictions in place. The NRA push-push approach has the weight of the US amendment granting rights, our ownership rules are based on a privilege not a right, and as such that privilege can be taken away. The Libs are taking the approach that we can't control ourselves and therefore they are stepping up the attack on the rules. While it is obviously true we cannot control the individual next to us we can control what we as an autonomous collective say through the voice(s) that represent us.

The Libs are taking the idea that they can control all parts of life with higher carbon taxes, censorship laws, funding the media and restrictions is clearly evident and their disregard or even disdain for people like the water protester and the vet and ignoring of the elderly and disabled while putting punitive taxes is clear based on the evidence. They want power and to not be questions, clear reminders of 1930's Germany or the Russia you read about in Solzhenitsyn books. If you question or disagree you are to be disdained, mocked and laws imposed, hence Bill Maher saying Trudeau sounded like Hitler.

I would like to see the RPAL (only, not the PAL) be more expensive to obtain and renew, these extra funds could be funneled into the CBSA to finance more training, personnel, and technology driven assets. One thing I have experienced with government decisions as that they are business based, increased funding obtained from the RPAL would create a desire to increase that funding base (read more options for restricted gun owners).

So essentially the shooting and hunting become relegated to the wealthy and upper income class and the enjoyment of a day target shooting or competitive and Olympic shooting put out of financial reach of all but that group.

Truly one who feels the elites and entitled deserve the best and f*** the rest it seems. Ah for the days when a shop teacher would take a bunch of kids trap shooting after school and loan them his gun if they didn't have one and all those ranges under schools and firehalls and in Union Station in Toronto rang to the bang and "well done" of all classes.

[greatwhite]

Until all gun owners and gun clubs and hunting clubs come to a consensus to fight back we will continue to loose.

The firearm communities is it's own worse enemy.

I say there is a 85% chance this law goes through and almost all guns will be banned.

The only hope is if the Senate waters it down realizing that this law effectively stops hunting by banning the majority of guns.

[trimmer21]

Until all gun owners and gun clubs and hunting clubs come to a consensus to fight back we will continue to loose.

The firearm communities is it's own worse enemy.

I say there is a 85% chance this law goes through and almost all guns will be banned.

The only hope is if the Senate waters it down realizing that this law effectively stops hunting by banning the majority of guns.

Technically,all guns are already "banned" unless you have a license to ignore the "ban".

[fishfood]

Technically,all guns are already "banned" unless you have a license to ignore the "ban".

Ain't that the truth.


Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[Birdbuff]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/are-gu...ered-1.5927552

They don’t mention how many gun related crimes occur with illegally obtained firearms versus licensed owners firearms.

[johnjyb]

The gun regs are an attempt to regulate the rights of a quiet minority to satisfy the wishes of a loud minority. This is similiar to banning certain breeds of dogs as dangerous because some owners cannot control them. I don't like the mean looks of dobermans or shephards as well as a bunch of other dogs, but it is still the owner that is the issue, not the animal.
Today is the awakening of the right to tell everyone else what to do according to me instead of minding your own business.
Sticking noses in holes they don't belong in has become a global sport that has escalated into many of the issues rising up today and often ends up with that nose being twisted out of joint or cut off.
John

[73hunter]

While it is obviously true we cannot control the individual next to us we can control what we as an autonomous collective say through the voice(s) that represent us.

One thing I have experienced with government decisions as that they are business based, increased funding obtained from the RPAL would create a desire to increase that funding base (read more options for restricted gun owners).

So …WHO are the voices that represent us ? The 3 or 4 associations in place only represent a fraction of gun owners. Too many are afraid to spend 40 bucks a year.

government decisions are business-based ?? Not many…..ideology rules the roost