Trudeau Puts Freeze On Handguns

[longbow51]

All I ask is to have a president who understands that the First Amendment means free speech for everyone, and the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

 

[SaskHunter]

@SaskHunter clearly I'm not up on Canadian gun stuff, I thought handguns were mostly illegal?

No, some are prohibs based on calibers (.32 special is evil) or barrel length <4.2 inches.

All you need is to pasa your "Basic" firearms course then your "Restricted" course. You need to pass a background check and provide references for your licence. After that, everytime you ourchase a restricted firearm/handgun, it needs to be approved by your Provincial Chief Firearms officer ans they issue an Authorization to Transport. Restricted firearms are all registered. Everytime you want to take your pistol other than to a gunsmith or an approved range, you need a separate Authorization to Transport.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

No, some are prohibs based on calibers (.32 special is evil) or barrel length <4.2 inches.

All you need is to pasa your "Basic" firearms course then your "Restricted" course. You need to pass a background check and provide references for your licence. After that, everytime you ourchase a restricted firearm/handgun, it needs to be approved by your Provincial Chief Firearms officer ans they issue an Authorization to Transport. Restricted firearms are all registered. Everytime you want to take your pistol other than to a gunsmith or an approved range, you need a separate Authorization to Transport.

So you'd need a Provincial Authorization to Transport to use it as a sidearm for bears? For instance.

Kinda seems like attacking a non-existent problem.

 

[Stocker]

No, some are prohibs based on calibers (.32 special is evil) or barrel length <4.2 inches.

All you need is to pasa your "Basic" firearms course then your "Restricted" course. You need to pass a background check and provide references for your licence. After that, everytime you ourchase a restricted firearm/handgun, it needs to be approved by your Provincial Chief Firearms officer ans they issue an Authorization to Transport. Restricted firearms are all registered. Everytime you want to take your pistol other than to a gunsmith or an approved range, you need a separate Authorization to Transport.

 

[Hammsolo]

What does this mean for the US? In my humble and fairly moronic opinion, this should be a wake up call to come together, analyze and make informed compromises.

Dividing and distancing further keeps the this train of pain going and it is looming in the distance. We are not solving the problem currently. We are blaming and avoiding. We can choose to come together, or in the words of Johnny Cash “I hear the train a comin’… comin’… ‘round the bend…”

What’s the problem is always the first step. Mental health, addiction, degradation of the nuclear family, guns??? This is our first hang up because our society is unwilling to accept it is a complex interconnected problem.

The Uvalde masa shooting was committed by an 18 year old with a history of mental illness, with assault weapons, at an elementary schools. Hmmm… Stop. Don’t think about your “team.” What are the variables and what should we do?

 

[Randi]

So you'd need a Provincial Authorization to Transport to use it as a sidearm for bears? For instance.

Kinda seems like attacking a non-existent problem.

If I understand correctly. I was told that your question above requires still a different permit and I think it is called a wilderness permit . You can not get one if you live in the city and are going into the wilderness to hunt, even hunt bears. Only people who live and work in the wilderness can get one--if--they are approved after they apply

 

[KB_]

Two days ago at a birthday dinner for my in laws I learned it is acceptable for kids to now be open and classify themselves as an animal. Whatever they choose to be. They EVEN HAVE A NAME AND GROUP. THE FURRIES.... WHAT IN THE ACTUAL HELL IS THAT. My niece who is in 6th grade has two in her class ones a cat and the other is a dog. This is no shit, they have special bathroom times and the kid whose a dog wears a collar and a leash. His mom walks him in..... forgive me but, kids in my class would've gotten their ass kicked.

This must be a joke....

I'm not gonna lie. This seems like child abuse to allow this to go on in the home. Do they not care enough about their child to prepare them for the real world.

What is the usecase for a "furrie" in the real world. In what what does a "Furrie" contribute to society.

The last thought on that, is what does the family dog think about the intruder in the house pissing on his tree?

 

[DouglasR]

 

[Stocker]

View attachment 224647

 

[EYJONAS!]

This must be a joke....

I'm usually good for a few laughs but, no unfortunately this isn't.

 

[Stocker]

With the argument of “if you’re old enough to serve in the military…” It’s important that we don’t over look the reasons we allow people to serve in the military so young.

At 17-18, these men and women are still highly impressionable and mentally immature, but their bodies are still strong and getting stronger. The perfect combination for fighting a war. The human mind isn’t fully developed until 26-27 years of age. That’s part of why young adults often act irrationally, or as if they’re invincible. They literally can’t think on a more rational level yet. There’s plenty of research out there on how how the brain develops and how ways of thinking develop with it. It’s pretty fascinating stuff.

Once that brain is developed, they’re harder to manipulate. Also, by time you’re nearly 30 your body is more likely to have sustained injuries. Neither of which are helpful for forming into soldiers that you need to charge into enemy fire with 100lbs on your shoulders.

Bottom line being, just because you’re old enough to serve in the military does not mean you’re old enough for anything and everything.

I’m against sending the 18-24 year olds to war. They have things to live for. Send us in our 30’s and 40s. We’ve got wives and kids that drive us nuts, a mortgage, vehicle payment and we’re stuck in a daily grind. Hell, we’d bayonet charge a line of tanks in our New Balance tennis shoes.

 

[KB_]

I’m against sending the 18-24 year olds to war. They have things to live for. Send us in our 30’s and 40s. We’ve got wives and kids that drive us nuts, a mortgage, vehicle payment and we’re stuck in a daily grind. Hell, we’d bayonet charge a line of tanks in our New Balance tennis shoes.

people under the age of 25 can be influenced pretty easily most of the time. 30s and 40s we are way set in our ways.

As far as bayonet charge a line of tanks in New Balance shoes? no I'm at least wearing my Solomon's.

I'm also liable to go out in a much more spectacular blaze of glory just because I'm much more creative in my old age. I'm thinking of riding in on a CR500 dirtbike with bayonet tipped with a nuclear warhead. Going out in a true blaze of glory an taking them all out with ya.

Also make sure you have a hell of a life insurance policy.

 

[LWC55]

What does this mean for the US? In my humble and fairly moronic opinion, this should be a wake up call to come together, analyze and make informed compromises.

Dividing and distancing further keeps the this train of pain going and it is looming in the distance. We are not solving the problem currently. We are blaming and avoiding. We can choose to come together, or in the words of Johnny Cash “I hear the train a comin’… comin’… ‘round the bend…”

I don't understand this thinking. If we 2A supporters don't "compromise a little" first, then the gun grabbers will ban more of the guns. Do you honestly believe that if they were able to get an AR ban, they would not also try to ban handguns next, and on and on? How does being the first to compromise keep 2A intact longer? Explain to me the steps you see happening.

 

[antlerradar]

I don't understand this thinking. If we 2A supporters don't "compromise a little" first, then the gun grabbers will ban more of the guns. Do you honestly believe that if they were able to get an AR ban, they would not also try to ban handguns next, and on and on? How does being the first to compromise keep 2A intact longer? Explain to me the steps you see happening.

I wonder how may would be willing to compromise with Mike Lee and sell off all the small pieces of public land to the highest bidder.
"I guess if it doesn't effect you and what you like to do with firearms it's not a problem. And, there is the problem" @mtmuley

 

[LWC55]

I wonder how may would be willing to compromise with Mike Lee and sell off all the small pieces of public land to the highest bidder.
"I guess if it doesn't effect you and what you like to do with firearms it's not a problem. And, there is the problem" @mtmuley

Exactly. If they were to compromise and sell off the small pieces of public land, would it be easier or harder to hang on to the rest?

 

[antlerradar]

Exactly. If they were to compromise and sell off the small pieces of public land, would it be easier or harder to hang on to the rest?

Maybe Mike Lee would be satisfied with just selling the small pieces. I am sure we could trust him.

 

[Muleyhunter78]

So you'd need a Provincial Authorization to Transport to use it as a sidearm for bears? For instance.

Kinda seems like attacking a non-existent problem.

Pack for bears? Not unless a very few small circumstances like being a miner and getting a permit to carry while mining. Other than that no handguns except for targets at the range. No bueno anywhere else.

 

[mtmuley]

Your implying that I have a closed mind and a problematic attitude says more about your attitude than mine, sad to say.

Yeah. Sure. mtmuley

 

[Hammsolo]

I don't understand this thinking. If we 2A supporters don't "compromise a little" first, then the gun grabbers will ban more of the guns. Do you honestly believe that if they were able to get an AR ban, they would not also try to ban handguns next, and on and on? How does being the first to compromise keep 2A intact longer? Explain to me the steps you see happening.

Are you saying you don’t understand my thinking or the videos?

I think his energy and core statement is pretty inspiring, “we will do whatever it takes to end gun violence.” I have not read the bill, so I don’t have an opinion on if I would like to see it passed. If there WAS deep research that led to a need to end the sale of AR’s I would support ending the sales.

I believe we must start deep non-partisan research to identify the problem and identify solutions. Why aren’t we funding this like an epidemic?

I believe we need GUN OWNER reform, and I believe we need to heavily fund youth mental health services in and out of school. Why? We see over and over again the same old story. Mentally ill young man kills.

I am starting to lean into every gun owner having to take a class where the focus is safety and shaping gun culture. Yes, I know you’ll train your kid, but the Uvalde murderer didn’t have a family that was capable of raising a safe gun owner.

Maybe people could test out? This is a move in highly effective schools, don’t waste peoples time if they can prove they already have the skills and knowledge.

Maybe firearm safety should be an elective in high school? I took drivers education at my high school. If we had an armed teacher/trained guard it may be a useful role. I am thinking as I type….

I am striving to be open to ideas and questions.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

I don't understand this thinking. If we 2A supporters don't "compromise a little" first, then the gun grabbers will ban more of the guns. Do you honestly believe that if they were able to get an AR ban, they would not also try to ban handguns next, and on and on? How does being the first to compromise keep 2A intact longer? Explain to me the steps you see happening.

They don't want compromise, they want it all. If they get it a little at a time, it doesn't matter, they want it all. No point in making it easy for them.

A snippet you commonly hear on the news is that the US sits 3rd in the world for murders.

What they dont tell you is that if you remove 3 cities we fall down to below the 100th spot on the list.

Those cities are Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC.

You know what those cities have in common? They all have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and have been controlled for decades by the political machine that wants gun control.

Examine life in those cities and you can see without getting the corruption and social ills under control, all the gun control anyone can muster solves nothing.