We need the tools of freedom

[rustled]

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting we shouldn't examine current laws which may or may not be unjust, because that could result in a bigger problem. If that's what you're suggesting (and please forgive me for misinterpreting, if I am) I'm not sure that's a good way to run a country.

For example, I found this rather disturbing:

Bernardo said there is also concern over a recent decision to turn a particular type of magazine for .22 rifles into a prohibited device.

"They took a magazine for a .22, just a regular .22 – as a matter of fact, the most popular .22 rifle ever made — and they have made 1.25 million magazines for this rifle that are in Canada now — into prohibited devices. And these prohibited devices, if you're caught with them, can carry a jail term of up to 10 years in jail."

What's happening here? Is it reasonable? Do we, as ordinary Canadian citizens, care whether or not it's reasonable, or would we rather just ignore it because for the most part, we really don't like guns anyway?

It seems to me all ordinary Canadians who feel there should be reasonable and fair laws in place should be actually looking at this sort of thing and deciding whether or not these laws align with their expectations. While most posters on this forum seem happy with the laws we have, I'd suggest most of us don't actually know what those laws are, how they're determined, or whether or not they are reasonable. If fear of a Pandora's box stops us from doing what's right, that (to me) is a bad thing to be governed by.

At any rate, with no skin in the game other than my concerns about living in a fair and just society, I guess it's time for me to bow out. Again, correct me if I misinterpreted, and I do apologize in advance if that's the case, and I'll leave you to it.

[sooperphreek]

canadians should make a deal with right wingers. you stop creating laws that stomp on real constitutional and charter rights forever - and we will consider repealing laws for machine guns.

[fluffy]

So you are one of the misguided that think a wooden stock is more dangerous than a plastic stock.

So you are one of the blind who can't see the lunacy in encouraging a marketing strategy designed to appeal to wannabe vigilantes.

[Rwede]

So you are one of the blind who can't see the lunacy in encouraging a marketing strategy designed to appeal to wannabe vigilantes.

Obviously, you have zero clue about the function, design, and motivation for owning certain firearms.

What I've found is that those most ignorant about the topic tend to be the most vocal in their opposition.

Left-leaners tend to fear that which they don't understand, and want it banned because of that lack of understanding.

Sadly, law abiding people who are well-versed on a subject end up paying a needless price because of someone else's refusal to become informed.

[fluffy]

Well then tell me, what motivates someone toward owning a mock assault weapon like an AR15 ?

[dontrump]

If you're that freaked out about Muslims, I think we have put our foot down and say "No guns for you". Guns are tools for acquiring food, not for killing people even if they are really effective at it.

Ignorance breeds fear and the left are always doing so.(fear of guns) No one suggested anyone shoot a Muslim.
The suggestion is we all should be armed to fight terrorists no matter whom they are
one only has to remember back to the FLQ days. Funny how that was the worst tragedy in Canada amd no one ever speaks of such. A terrible crime perpetrated by French Canadians on all of us

[fluffy]

Ignorance breeds fear and the left are always doing so.(fear of guns) No one suggested anyone shoot a Muslim. The suggestion is we all should be armed to fight terrorists no matter whom they are one only has to remember back to the FLQ days. Funny how that was the worst tragedy in Canada amd no one ever speaks of such. A terrible crime perpetrated by French Canadians on all of us

The problem is that many, I won't say most, but many are simply not emotionally balanced enough to be armed, and it's next to imposible to weed these people out until after the damage is done. If you're advocating a move toward American style gun freedom then you have to be ready for people getting shot over road rage or petty property crime. I'd like to think Canada is better than that.

[Donald G]

Reasons to limit and secure firearms;

Accidental death of both children and adults.
Mental Health Patient access.
Anger leads to shooting if weapon available.
Stolen Guns used to arm firearm prohibited criminals, criminal gangs and terrorists.
Firearms used in situations where a lesser form of defense would be appropriate.

To name a few. Freedom to cause the death of another person is not justified in the above examples. Death occurs as a result of the weapon originally simply being available in society.

In a society like Canada the real world police and often theoretical courts are adequate to guarantee a person's rights. The weapons needed to guarantee freedom from outside forces are in the hands of the Canadian Armed Forces. Although the Criminal Courts have let the people down regarding the rights of people in society at large they have identified a position that society must accept under the rule of law.

[slootman]

The suggestion is we all should be armed to fight terrorists no matter whom they are

People fantasizing about forming a militia to fight terrorists is a perfect example of why laws should remain as is. We have highly trained specialists to do that - we don't need joe redneck to show up in camo pants guns a blazing to save the day. Guns in Canada have always been for hunting and safety in the wilderness. Those wishing to shoot military-purpose weapons should enlist or move to America.

[Rwede]

Those wishing to shoot military-purpose weapons should enlist or move to America.

Why? It's perfectly safe for people to own a black gun that functions identically to a brown gun. The AR is just a brown gun in a black package, no more, no less.

That's the crux of this issue: people unfamiliar with lingo and firearms function fear the scary looking gun, even though it's identical to the one they envision grandpa using to get a couple of grouse or rabbits to feed the family.

[slootman]

Why should citizens be allowed to own firearms that were designed and built for the sole purpose of killing people? Which people do they expect to need to kill? I don't care if its brown, black or pink - if its designed purpose is to kill people it should be restricted.

[Rwede]

Why should citizens be allowed to own firearms that were designed and built for the sole purpose of killing people? Which people do they expect to need to kill? I don't care if its brown, black or pink - if its designed purpose is to kill people it should be restricted.

So you're telling me a 10/22 with a wood stock was designed not to kill people, but a 10/22 with a black plastic stock was?

No firearm was designed to kill people, any more than the knife in your kitchen was.

It's an inanimate piece of metal and plastic..ooops, wood.

[slootman]

No, I'm telling you a winchester 1894 was designed for hunters to hunt game and an ar15 was designed for the military soldiers to kill enemy combatants. I get it that guns are fun and playing soldier is fun too. i want to fly an apache but i dont expect the government to let me own one.

[fluffy]

Why? It's perfectly safe for people to own a black gun that functions identically to a brown gun. The AR is just a brown gun in a black package, no more, no less.

Shouldn't be a big issue for them to buy the brown gun then, right? I mean if there's no difference...

That's the crux of this issue: people unfamiliar with lingo and firearms function fear the scary looking gun, even though it's identical to the one they envision grandpa using to get a couple of grouse or rabbits to feed the family.

Close. People familiar with the military background of the weapon want it because it's scary looking. Let them buy a grandpa gun and everybody will be happy.

[sooperphreek]

freedom costs a buck owe five