Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Just look at this in the document:Coop D'etat wrote: ↑2020-05-01 05:59pmIncreasing the banned weapons list isn't likely to do anything meaningful for public safety and Shep is pretty much correct that this is political theater.
What specific vulnerabilities are being closed by banning TOW missile launchers? What rational relationship does this have to this tragedy? What's the costs of this regulation? Can we spend the money used for enforcement in a more useful manner?The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-01 07:28am1. Nobody is saying "more regulation is always the answer"- that's a strawman. However, if there are specific vulnerabilities that more regulation can close, then yes, more regulation will help reduce gun violence.Beowulf wrote: ↑2020-05-01 12:33amI'm really sick of this argument with gun control:
"Oh, the regulations we have didn't stop this, so obviously we need to make them more strict! Nevermind that the way we're making them more strict won't actually affect how this happened." The pro-rights side sees that the pro-control side never lets a tragedy go to waste.
Blah blah name calling, you fucking bloody shirt waver.2. Spare me your copy-paste Reich-wing whinging about the Left exploiting tragedies. Maybe you think we'd be better off offering some thoughts and prayers? We wouldn't want to disrespect shooting victims by trying to prevent their being more of them.
I'm so glad that you don't see any need to protect your right to life. That cops are always right there when you need them and can be trusted to do the right thing.3. There is no "right" to bear arms in Canada the way there is in the US. For which I am deeply thankful. There are property rights, of course, but the government can and should strictly regulate products which are particularly dangerous or require particular skill to use, the same way we would cars, or drugs, or industrial chemicals no radioactive material.
Because your point was missing the point. These regulations have nothing to do with the actual tragedy, but are just a power grab while disrepecting the shooting victims by using them as a prop for pushing forward authoritarianism.4. You never actually addressed my point, which is that the impossibility of totally preventing crime is not, in itself, an argument against the presence of laws.
Alberta is considering appointing its own chief firearms officer to replace Ottawa’s appointee after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a ban on 1,500 military-style assault weapons Friday.
The federal government order, which goes into effect immediately, does not outlaw owning the guns, but it has halted their use and sale. In some cases, they can be used for hunting. Following deadly mass shootings in Canada, including the recent killings in Nova Scotia, Trudeau said “Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers.”
Owners of legally purchased firearms that fall under the ban will be compensated in a buyback program that will require a bill to be passed in Parliament.
Premier Jason Kenney, in a joint statement with Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer Friday, said while the Alberta government is concerned about crime and the illegal use of firearms, Ottawa’s order does little to target criminals or the “overwhelming majority” of firearms that are smuggled in from the United States.
“Instead, Ottawa is singling out law-abiding Canadians who purchased their property legally, have owned these items safely for years, and who have committed no crimes,” he said.
Schweitzer said that violent criminals who use guns are often released with “surprisingly soft” sentences.
“Rather than focus on law-abiding Canadians, we’d call on Parliament to bring back tough, mandatory sentences for the criminals who flagrantly endanger Canadians with their use of illegal guns,” he said.
Alberta will scrutinize Ottawa’s move and explore potential responses, Schweitzer said.
In November 2019, the UCP government passed a motion supporting the ability of Albertans to lawfully own firearms for legal activities such as hunting and sport shooting.
Ah, I get it: you're another paranoid delusional lolbertarian who thinks any regulation of guns is part of a vast Left-wing conspiracy that will inevitably end with a total ban on all guns and dictatorship.Beowulf wrote: ↑2020-05-02 01:04amWhat specific vulnerabilities are being closed by banning TOW missile launchers? What rational relationship does this have to this tragedy? What's the costs of this regulation? Can we spend the money used for enforcement in a more useful manner?The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-01 07:28am1. Nobody is saying "more regulation is always the answer"- that's a strawman. However, if there are specific vulnerabilities that more regulation can close, then yes, more regulation will help reduce gun violence.Beowulf wrote: ↑2020-05-01 12:33amI'm really sick of this argument with gun control:
"Oh, the regulations we have didn't stop this, so obviously we need to make them more strict! Nevermind that the way we're making them more strict won't actually affect how this happened." The pro-rights side sees that the pro-control side never lets a tragedy go to waste.
AFAICT, the only thinking used was: this will be inconvenient for gun owners, so fuck them while we have a tragedy.
Blah blah name calling, you fucking bloody shirt waver.2. Spare me your copy-paste Reich-wing whinging about the Left exploiting tragedies. Maybe you think we'd be better off offering some thoughts and prayers? We wouldn't want to disrespect shooting victims by trying to prevent their being more of them.
I'm so glad that you don't see any need to protect your right to life. That cops are always right there when you need them and can be trusted to do the right thing.3. There is no "right" to bear arms in Canada the way there is in the US. For which I am deeply thankful. There are property rights, of course, but the government can and should strictly regulate products which are particularly dangerous or require particular skill to use, the same way we would cars, or drugs, or industrial chemicals no radioactive material.
Because your point was missing the point. These regulations have nothing to do with the actual tragedy, but are just a power grab while disrepecting the shooting victims by using them as a prop for pushing forward authoritarianism.4. You never actually addressed my point, which is that the impossibility of totally preventing crime is not, in itself, an argument against the presence of laws.
'Cause your guns matter more than human life.But you have not even attempted to show that these regulations would save one human life. Until you defend that claim the argument continues to fail.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-02 11:22am Yeah, guess you would rather we just stuck to thoughts and prayers.
Basically, you can't even take them to the range anymore!Starting today, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sort of weapons in this country.
So basically, indigs can continue to hunt with Mini-14s because of reasons, but everyone else in Canada can't do shit about their Mini-14's as "they're weapons of war, and overkill for hunting"Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation
The Amnesty Order permits the use of any of the newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, to hunt for the purposes of sustenance or to exercise a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution. From fall 2018 to spring 2019, the Government held extensive engagement with Indigenous groups, provinces and territories, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, academics, victim groups and other key stakeholders on limiting access to assault-style firearms and handguns.
Recognizing that some Indigenous and sustenance hunters could be using previously non-restricted firearms for their hunting and may be unable to replace these firearms immediately, the Amnesty Order includes provisions for the limited use of these firearms for such purposes. Following the publication of the Regulations, the Government will continue to engage with Indigenous groups to assess whether the prohibition of these firearms has a continued impact on the right to hunt affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution.
Take your McCarthyism and shove it up your ass, Mussolini Jr.
Basically, you can't even take them to the range anymore!Starting today, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sort of weapons in this country.
Doubling down on scapegoating Natives, and whinging about double-standards. Yes, truly, gun owners are the REAL victims, not the people who have been subjected to systematic theft, rape and genocide for centuries.but in the regulations:
So basically, indigs can continue to hunt with Mini-14s because of reasons, but everyone else in Canada can't do shit about their Mini-14's as "they're weapons of war, and overkill for hunting"Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation
The Amnesty Order permits the use of any of the newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, to hunt for the purposes of sustenance or to exercise a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution. From fall 2018 to spring 2019, the Government held extensive engagement with Indigenous groups, provinces and territories, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, academics, victim groups and other key stakeholders on limiting access to assault-style firearms and handguns.
Recognizing that some Indigenous and sustenance hunters could be using previously non-restricted firearms for their hunting and may be unable to replace these firearms immediately, the Amnesty Order includes provisions for the limited use of these firearms for such purposes. Following the publication of the Regulations, the Government will continue to engage with Indigenous groups to assess whether the prohibition of these firearms has a continued impact on the right to hunt affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution.
This doublespeak/think will not go unnoticed.
It's a fact jack, that Trudeau Jr. looks like the spitting resemblance of Comrade Fidel.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-03 08:45pmTake your McCarthyism and shove it up your ass, Mussolini Jr.
I'm pointing out that this hypocrisy will not go unnoticed. If these weapons are SO DANGEROUS that they must be immediately made illegal to do anything but take out of the safe and wank to, why do the Indigs get exceptions to continue to subsistence hunt with them?Doubling down on scapegoating Natives, and whinging about double-standards.
Do you have a reading problem?Anyway, you aren't even Canadian. This has literally zero effect on you, or your precious Second Amendment which is also not in Canada.
You're ignoring that there may not be a legal framework by which the federal government can restrict weapons on indigenous land. Can you please provide a quote from either the treaties themselves or some bit of Canadian law that does affect these groups through the treaties which would allow the government to impose such a law on First Nation's governments?MKSheppard wrote: ↑2020-05-03 10:36pmI'm pointing out that this hypocrisy will not go unnoticed. If these weapons are SO DANGEROUS that they must be immediately made illegal to do anything but take out of the safe and wank to, why do the Indigs get exceptions to continue to subsistence hunt with them?
It raises the point of:
A.) Maybe they're not so dangerous that they need to be banned instantly if indigs can keep using them.
B.) Maybe they actually have legit hunting purposes if the whole rationale for indigs keeping them is for subsistence hunting "until they can be replaced".
And the very valid point that allowing certain Canadians to continue using these supposedly unacceptably lethal weapons that are far beyond what anyone needs for hunting...because they need them for hunting...does undermine the justification given.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-03 11:14pm
As to the rest of Shep's post, it appears to be mostly just restating what he said before, plus some insults and the usual slippery slope bullshit gun wankers love, wherein any restriction whatsoever inevitably leads to a total ban on all guns and tyranny.
Haven't seen him declare it an attack on his rights. He said pretty clearly that it concerns him because it could give rhetorical ammunition to anti-gun people in the US. Seems like a fairly cogent point to me. Could you specify where he claims that this is an attack on his rights as an American? Because that sounds like a step beyond hyperbole.Except he actually has the audacity to apply that fallacy not only in the US but across national borders, and claim that an act taken by the Canadian government, on Canadian soil, under Canadian law is an attack on his rights as an American.
What next, calling for war against Canada for violating Americans' rights by enforcing our own laws?
First Nations have certain rights that are protected by treated. I'm not sure to what extent that applies here, but it may be that the Feds legally can't take those guns from First Nations communities.
He may not have used those exact words, but he did clearly portray the passage of these laws in Canada as a threat to the Second Amendment in America, due to some slippery slope "other countries will jump on the bandwagon and cite Canada's example" argument, as you just acknowledged.Haven't seen him declare it an attack on his rights. He said pretty clearly that it concerns him because it could give rhetorical ammunition to anti-gun people in the US. Seems like a fairly cogent point to me. Could you specify where he claims that this is an attack on his rights as an American? Because that sounds like a step beyond hyperbole.
What you're dismissing as 'semantics' is a very plausible scenario. Anti-gun ownership people in the US routinely cite the examples of countries like Australia as proof that banning most gun ownership is both feasible and beneficial.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-04 02:15am
He may not have used those exact words, but he did clearly portray the passage of these laws in Canada as a threat to the Second Amendment in America, due to some slippery slope "other countries will jump on the bandwagon and cite Canada's example" argument, as you just acknowledged.
In short, its a difference of semantics, which you will doubtless cling to desperately so you can scream "TRR LIAR/HYSTERIA" and derail the thread, as per usual.
'Certain rights' which apparently trump other Canadians' rights to not be brutally gunned down on a whim. Which is supposedly a very real and significant threat this gun ban is intended to prevent. Or alternately private citizens owning and using these guns isn't actually the threat to public safety it's being made out to be.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-04 02:15am
First Nations have certain rights that are protected by treated. I'm not sure to what extent that applies here, but it may be that the Feds legally can't take those guns from First Nations communities.
So... you're saying that Canada's laws are a threat to the rights of Americans? Ie exactly the argument that I accused you Shep of making?
Again, the question here is whether those rights are protected by treaty. If they are, then it doesn't matter whether I or the government think that they need the guns or the guns are a threat. This isn't a contradiction, hypocrisy, or dishonesty in the government's/my position which you and Shep have cleverly exposed. Its simply a case of something we cannot restrict, regardless of our feelings on the matter.'Certain rights' which apparently trump other Canadians' rights to not be brutally gunned down on a whim. Which is supposedly a very real and significant threat this gun ban is intended to prevent. Or alternately private citizens owning and using these guns isn't actually the threat to public safety it's being made out to be.
So...which is it?
I think that's a melodramatic way of putting it, but yeah in a sense. In the same way that American gun laws are a threat to the safety of Canadians.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-04 02:46am So... you're saying that Canada's laws are a threat to the rights of Americans? Ie exactly the argument that I accused you Shep of making?
So, which is it? No these weapons do not pose enough of a threat to Canadian public safety to override these treaties and implement the gun ban universally?Again, the question here is whether those rights are protected by treaty. If they are, then it doesn't matter whether I or the government think that they need the guns or the guns are a threat. This isn't a contradiction, hypocrisy, or dishonesty in the government's/my position which you and Shep have cleverly exposed. Its simply a case of something we cannot restrict, regardless of our feelings on the matter.
Also, don't think I don't see what you're doing: you are trying to force me into a trap where I either must disavow my support of gun control, or disavow my support of indigenous rights. At which point you will no doubt do an about face and call me a racist. You think I haven't seen how you operate? You first accuse me of hypocrisy, try to force me into false dilemmas and catch-22s, then attack me whichever side I take.
You're quite possibly the slimiest little fuck on this board, and that's saying something.
The term doesn't seem to be very widespread, but from a quick Google search it seems like it is almost exclusively used in a pejorative context (and seems to be pretty popular on the far right - and I got a couple of Stormfront hits on the term, too). I agree that we should get a mod ruling here. It's definitely problematic.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-03 11:14pm Can we get a ruling on whether calling First Nations people "indigs" is a racial slur? I'm not familiar with the term, but it (or at least Shep's use of it) sure feels slur-y.
Dude, stop being a twat. There is no contradiction here. First Nations are SOVEREIGN. It is literally equivalent for you to say, "Well, TRR, you're not advocating that Canada overturn America's Second Amendment and ban all guns in the United States, SO WHICH IS IT?!?!!?" If we were talking about a supranational treaty organization, you might have a point. If you could actually find some stipulation in the existing treaties that does explicitly allow Canada to extend such regulations over the First Nations, you might also have a point. Unless you attempt to do so, you are literally just shouting gibberish. Canada can't pass laws in a sovereign nation without existing provisions for doing so, whether it be the First Nations, the US, or freaking Azerbaijan.
Is there any Canadian law that would allow a treaty to be unilaterally changed without the consent of one of the signatory groups? Also, if the Canadian government can override the treaty for this, what's stopping them from rolling back the entire treaty system and stripping groups of their last remaining rights?
This is what's coming next
I work for the LPC, and I'm also a gun owner who is not only affected by the recent ban, but is disgusted by it. I do not want to give more details to what extent I work for the party other than to say there are quite a few of us, and we were the ones responsible for leaking the list of firearms to the media before the official announcement. We've been keeping our ear to the ground since, and this is what we've heard from the public safety office on recommendations for future legislation;
The next tag line the party will push is women and domestic violence, as well as suicide. The point the government will be pushing is that women are victim of gun violence at home, and suicide by gun are happening because the gun is readily accessible at home.
They know that a ban on hunting rifles and shotguns will have very bad optics, but they feel they will be able to get away with central storage. The argument will be made that if the gun isn't readily available, it can save the lives of women and those who might re-think their suicide if they don't have their firearm handy, while not infringing on the rights of hunters by banning their firearms.
The idea is that the government will be offering subsidies to gun businesses (either ranges or commercial stores) to adapt their establishments to allow for on site storage. I don't have any further details on what form the subsidies would be in.
This is getting out of hand. Internal polling has shown huge support for the recent ban, so they feel they can get away with their next phase of legislation.
I have no idea when this will be put forward, but I haven't heard it will be done by order in council. They look like they're going to allow democracy to play out this time, but word is that 2 parties currently support such a move, and will be able to provide enough seats. I'll let you guess which parties those are.
I've also heard some rumblings about modifying the requirements for a PAL or RPAL. They will want you to prove that you are either a hunter or a sport shooter. The hunting license in most provinces does not expire, so the talk has been about proving you're holding firearms for hunting by showing yearly proof in the form of hunting tags. For sport shooters, they want to require membership to a range. These were just ideas thrown around by a few people. There is no talk of putting any such requirements in future legislation.
I'll post more as more information becomes available.
Good luck all.
