Feds say these banned firearms are for battlefields, and may go to Ukraine
By: By Jim Bronskill The Canadian Press
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Feds say these banned firearms are for battlefields, and may go to Ukraine
The move follows the May 2020 ban of 1,500 makes and models of firearms, a number that grew to more than 2,000 by November of this year as new variants were identified.
The Liberal government has outlawed another 324 firearm varieties — guns it says belong on the battlefield, not in the hands of hunters or sport shooters.
The move follows the May 2020 ban of 1,500 makes and models of firearms , a number that grew to more than 2,000 by November of this year as new variants were identified.
The latest prohibition of hundreds more, announced today at a news conference, follows expressions of concern from gun-control advocates that many assault-style firearms were not covered by the 2020 ban.
The newly announced measures come on the eve of the 35th anniversary of a gunman’s murder of 19 women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal.
For this particular seed the usual RED BOX RULES are amended to say that only civil commentary about guns and gun violence no matter where are permitted, and any comment that the group administrator deems to be offensive, or off topic, or of no value will be deleted and the ToS and CoC will be enforced.
Tags
Who is online
246 visitors
This is an example of how a civilized nation deals with guns.
Makes me wonder what characteristics would make a gun be put on the list.
I know, right? When you’re hunting game you need to be ready to mow down an entire herd of it at once. And at home you don’t need to be ready for one intruder, you need to be armed enough to take down a whole gang(s). These guns accomplish all that. Bravo.
Nice rant but it in no way answers the question unless it is because they have been tested on herds
I wasn’t trying to answer your question, I was agreeing with you. American society somehow lacks the will to agree that any gun that is designed to kill numerous things at once is a weapon of war. You never know if you’re around the corner from a herd of violent elephants, so apparently it is you’re right to protect yourself from that possibility.
Ah. You've been studying home invasions.
Well.....you should get on the phone to your congressman and Senator to ban all handguns and every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun as well.
The topic is not about pistols and shotguns and ordinary rifles, perhaps even semi-automatics. It's about weapons that can fire bullets like a machine gun (even if it requires pumping your finger) with magazines that hold a lot of bullets, not just six.
Just what we need on this site, yet another comment that insults another member. Isn't this your first day here?
Riiiight.
So I was down at the gun shop getting the belt feeder repaired for my .30 caliber gatling gun when I stumbled across the mortar section, so I did some quick Christmas shopping.
I guess such weapons are needed if the intention is to mow down a whole classroom of kids. It just took one example of that happening for Canada to say: "None is too many".
Has that government banned Peterbilts form Toronto? Or, is just waiting helplessly for the next slaughter?
Or buy dynamite. Let's not forget the classroom massacre in Bath MI that killed 38 children and 5 adults.
Bath school disaster (1927) | Description, Aftermath, & Facts | Britannica
Let' also not forget that just banning guns doesn't mean someone won't find a way around the ban. Automatic weapons are banned in France but that didn't stop the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks that killed 130 people.
But banning guns does allow politicians to proudly announce how they are preventing future deaths all while allowing them to ignore the underlying problems.
Nice try, squiggy, but sarcasm requires a bit of class.
How many classrooms have been blown up with dynamite in the past half a century?
When it comes to gun violence, the statistics don't mislead. If there are such underlying problems in the USA to cause the vast amount of carnage, then why isn't something done about the underlying problems? Any civilized nation would do something effective, and damn fast.
Does it matter? The underlying problem is still the person who performs the act, not the tool used. The basic problem is that the US has a terrible mental health crisis ongoing and the political body prefers to just brush it under a rug and ignore it. It gives them a soapbox to stand on when they feel the need to drum up support for another of their costly ideas but doesn't do much to solve the issue.
As far as statistics for gun violence, it would be helpful to drill down into the actual incidents. The majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal. The simple truth is that most people are not in immediate danger of being shot. Had prosecution and courts not gone easy on crimes where guns were involved in years past perhaps we would not be in this situation now. It took years to get here, it will take just as long to get out of the problem but the first step is for leadership to actually work on the issue rather than use it as a cudgel to batter the other side with.
Yep, I agree with you that it's time to deal with cause instead of being victimized by the effect. But the first step is to admit what the problem is. Hasn't it been known for quite a few years? When do you predict that America will do something about the problem?
The mental health issue? Don't see it happening any time soon. Our politicians (like many others around the world) lack the will to expend political capital on such an issue as there will always be those who will loudly spout about the taking away of rights for the mentally ill. They will continue to use "gun control" as a weapon to beat the other side up because that's the easiest way to gain a soapbox without having to do anything too difficult. Get their name in print, get another 15 minutes on the evening news and for them it's a good day.
Toronto must be loaded with one-way streets, from the way you look at things.
LOL. The only time I got caught going the wrong way on a one-way street was in Palm Beach when I was 16 years old. Figures, doesn't it, that it was in Americal. Yes, I do have some pretty strong feelings about things as should be clear from many of the articles and comments I post. Glad you noticed it.
[✘]
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Few, if any, responsible and law-abiding gun owners commit mass murder and lesser crimes. Common criminals and psycho's do
An ordinary rifle, even a .22, can cause considerable damage. The Texas Tower Shooter probably didn't have any sophisticated weapons
Limiting magazine size is pointless, a determined killer will bring several.
Background checks are also of little value, since what goes on in the parking outside the gun store or show can't be monitored. Criminals don't bother obeying gun laws or going through background checks.
It's not very likely that banning certain types of guns will somehow stop gun violence.
Canada's population is about 1/10th that of the USA, so for a comparison multiply 289 by 10 to indicate a fair comparison with the USA. 289 X 10 = 2,890 compared with around 10,000 in the USA, i.e. around FOUR times the occurrences. Can you explain why, when the people in both nations are not that different?
Which is the reason Canada can't even defend itself and bas a military you can drown in a bathtub.
Invade the US and you will be fighting civilians as well as the military.
Who do you figure is going to invade Canada, other than the USA when it runs out of water?
There are so many guns in this country we are fighting each other more than other countries. Jesus, can you imagine if all the gun violence in the US was caused by ISIS? Boy you would be screaming for some gun control then wouldn't ya?
Morning...and how many of your mass shootings are done by known criminals?
Hell of alot are school kids there and not known to the police..but managed to get hold of guns in the family home and take them to school and open fire..
The mentality, supposed arguments and lack of trying to change, it really is a lost cause..
Who is saying banning certain types will some how stop gun violence? Of cause it won't, we have shootings daily here..but we don't thank goodness have mass shootings..once was enough for us...
Don't you grasp it?? It's the numbers that are mown down in one shooting..why on earth do you need guns of that calibre out in public hands?
If you can't kill something within 2 to 3 shots you shouldn't own a gun full stop even if you are a hunter..and yes I come from a hunting family..
Just thought the other day you mob are due for another mass shooting..just a matter of time I am afraid..and that unfortunately really is extremely sad for your country...
The vast majority of mass shootings are gang related.
Because the GOP media has been selling nothing but fear for the last 50 years, their viewers/readers are convinced that guns will protect them from all these "bad people". It's a culture for sure, driven by fear and hate.
Don't get me wrong, I love guns as much as the next guy, I have several, but you are correct, some guns simply do not belong in the hands of the public. It's sad, honestly, that the RWNJ's see the 2A as an absolute. Some of these fuckers would have a .50 machine gun mounted on their cars if they could get away with it, (then of course when they go ape shit and mow down a crowd of people because mommy didn't hold them enough as a child, they just scream that it had to be a liberal, and, "more guns would have prevented the shooting").
There are roughly 2 guns in the hands of the public for every man woman and child...if guns keep us so safe, why is our crime rate so high? They can't answer that one without deflecting, blaming and pointing fingers.
True, but how many gang shootings would there be if they didn't have easy and almost unlimited access to guns?
Let's don't act like that's fixable.
Could be a reason why I've said in the past that the only solution left is to distribute guns and ammo to every person aged 12 and over in the USA in order, as the argument has been made so many times, to "defend themselves". In fact allow everyone to wear a gun on their hip everywhere, even in places of worship and schools, because, after all, why not? It will even become easier to film western movies when the whole country is "The Wild West".
You're doing that thing where you're condemning something when you have no idea what it's actually like. Kinda like when people criticize life in China when they've never actually been. Not a good look.
We have more guns than people here, and the right to ownership is codified in our founding document. People talk all the time about controlling access to guns, in the same way they talk about controlling the flow of illegal drugs. It is literally easier to catch rockets. So let's talk about something that we might actually be able to do.
I don't consider comments about China by anyone who has never set foot here to be reliable. However I may have been through more of America than even you have from the time I was an infant to 16 years ago I have been in America many hundreds of times and even inherited from our parents a golf condo in Florida with my brother that I've spent a lot of time at, and I've been reading relatively unbiased news about America on npr and Canadian news sites ever since. You should realize that the comment you replied to is an obvious exaggeration, but with what is happening and is getting even worse just could end up happening.
Sorry but NPR is definitely not unbiased. There are no American news sites that are not biased anymore. I would suggest you use a wider range of sites to try to get the biases from both sides to try to find a bit of truth in the middle.
The problem with American news sites is the increase in opinion pieces masquerading as news. If you just listen to the news segments on NPR, Fox, or the networks, they are pretty standard unbiased news fair. Then directly after are the talking heads with their biased opinions trying to unpack those news nuggets for an audience that is getting what they expect to hear, but not necessary what they need to make informed decisions.
I would say that I agree 100%, but that seems an insufficient number.
Does this seem like a fair summary of the Penny trial from the AP?
“Does this seem like a fair summary of the Penny trial from the AP?”
It is factually correct, no?
So wait for the commentary from your preferred ‘news’ outlet to confirm what you choose to believe if you are somehow dissatisfied.
This is where we find comfort nowadays.
"Subway rider" is the most accurate and relevant way to describe Neely? Don't you think "why" he was placed in a chokehold is the most relevant fact of all?
That's how bias works. It's reporting that is technically "factually" correct that completely omits relevant information in order to sway the reader.
“..,in order to sway the reader.”
At some point the ‘reader’ must intentionally use multiple sources of information to decide for themselves to dismiss the intent to sway.
I agree with the acquittal, by the way.
They are not the only sites I read. I read Canada's National Post, Global News, CBS, ABC and a lot of small specifically focused ones like Rolling Stone, Jerusalem Post, and the complete variety I get from what the NT members post. Besides that, I have a comprehension of journalistic bias because I was the Editor-in-Chief of my University weekly student newspaper. I've used this example here many times but here I go again, with an actual example., I don't recall which site it was but back when Hamas was organizing Gazans at the border to hold demonstrations to cover the nasty things they were doing, the headline was something like "Three Gazans Killed at Israel's Border". Now what does that make you think? Of course, it makes you think that the big bad Israelis shot a few of the demonstrators, right? However, wnen you got down to the third paragraph of the story it said that the three "Gazans" were Hamas terrorists who broke through the fence and were throwing grenades at the Israeli soldiers who were guarding the fence. Not everybody bothers to read down that far, they just read the headlines, and think "those fucking Jews, no wonder the Gazans are demonstrating" and so witness one of the reasons for antisemitism. Back when I was editor The Christian Science Monitor won the annual award for being the least biased news site, but for obvious reasons that award is no longer given to anyone. So Snuffy, I'm not a brainless idiot, I can actually think critically when it comes to reading the news. These days the news is all about how many women and children Israel is killing in Gaza, with no mention of how many Hamas terrorist militants were killed, or that they were hiding among the civilians and using them as human shields. So Israel is accused of genocide and the Hamas terrorists and their UNRWA helpers are given a free pass. So everybody can hate the Jews and love and demonstrate in support of the poor oppressed Palestinians.
Given that birth control, abortions and gay marriage are not banned anywhere...it makes your whole post moot.
I never said they were.
4.3 says differently.
No it doesn't, Jeremy. It's an example of hypocrisy.
No, it doesn't. Are you saying that saying banning something means that it's banned? So if someone says that guns should be banned, that means they are banned? No, didn't think so.
Ok. I misread it. The only calls for banning anything are items that ARE guaranteed by the constitution - Firearms.
If it were not so fucking sick I would have to laugh at the justifications for having and using weapons of war. Arlo's words in Alice's Restaurant are hardly an exaggeration. At one time I had a theory in that it was necessary for Americans to love and want guns and shooting because it makes it easier to recruit to maintain a military force. The statistics don't seem to mean anything, anything at all. But don't worry, baby, nobody is going to take your favourite toy and savior away, the SCofUS won't let them. You're all safe. After all, happiness is a warm gun, isn't it?
Although when it comes to a topic like this controversy is expected, at least the comments so far haven't been as nasty as I expected, but just to be safe so I can have a little sleep, I'm going to lock this seed for about 5 or 6 hours and then I will unlock it again.
Now open for civil commentary.
I like my AR-15 and I am not giving it up
I Njoy them as well, but it doesn't mean I am not open to some common sense measures to reduce the ridiculous needless shootings in this country
It's a step in the right direction to be open to such commonsense measures. The problem in America is that too many of those who love their guns don't give enough of a shit to do something about it. For example, too many, including some here, would rather argue the benefits that guns provide to them and ignore the detriments that exist.
Believe part of that is that the NRA for decades had some sort of saying how it's such a slippery slope, one step in regulatory direction, and guns are now outlawed. like I said, Common Sense laws are needed, as it's a real bad joke, how school shootings don't faze too many too much.
What kind of "common sense laws" do you have in mind?
give them an inch and they will take a mile.
How about the laws already on the books are followed and then we decide what, if any, new laws are needed? Adding more laws that won't be followed seems like a waste of time.
My father liked that saying, and I always knew he was a very wise man.
Bravo!!! That is an excellent common-sense comment. Most gun-lovers would rather quote Charleton Heston.
Yep, just like taking away a persons right to choose what medical procedures they can have done on their own bodies.
I strongly support both Second Amendment and choice rights and have said that many times.
It wasn't an accusation. Just making a point.
A very good point that I agree with
Why do you need it?
1 To fully, proudly and openly exercise my American Second Amendment Rights
2 To preserve what was won by my blood ancestors by force of arms in the Revolutionary War which started the USA
3 For protection and self defense
4 As an investment
5 Cause I can
6 because some people don't want me to have one
6 as a collector
you forgot the final 666
OK I might need it for that, too.
Also, as long as a lot us good Citizens have them nobody is going to take our other rights away
"you forgot the final 666"
Also to prevent somebody from trying to have a Final Solution or execute an Order 66
What's a 666?
I think it is a biblical predication about the "Number of the Beast" . Igknorantzuls brought it up
I was curious about it so I looked it up on Microsoft Bing and found this:
LINK -> The History Of 666 In Chinese Slang - Ancient Past
I'm going to post that article.
the DEVIL is in the D tail
what i have tattoed on my farhead
You mean like in the movie Inglourious Basterds?
And an AR-15 is the only way to do that?? I own one myself, just asking you to qualify that statement.
Because I know someone is going to bleat out, "Chicago", at some point.
It is a good and conspicuous way but not the only way
Based on 2024 elections those are nearly all in Red States!
I have no plans on giving up ANY of my firearms.
In Afghanistan I used a Mossberg 590 for building clearing operations. LOVED IT. Come home and bought one at Academy Sports.
Kind of like my Mom who is in her tenth decade has no intention of giving up her car or to quit driving. What can go wrong? Those who now take pain and anxiety meds or antidepressants or who smoke weed or drink to excess are guilty of the same type federal gun crime as Hunter Biden. The same for those with a depression or dementia diagnosis. Millions who legally should not have any access to firearms still do. Trump should enforce those laws...
And what does ANY of that have to do with my comment? Oh, I see it now.
Yes he should, also every state that has collected tax dollars from the sale of weed, trump should size that also, you agree that trump should enforce all the laws right? even the immigration ones.
Well, when it comes to Americans, My articles are a lot more popular here if I post an article about guns or politics that if it's one about trees or literature. It doesn't take much to figure that out.