Trudeau Puts Freeze On Handguns

[KB_]

The police let the shooting in Uvalde happen. The school police are no longer cooperating with the investigation and the school district police chief, who made the order not to go in, lied about it then stopped talking, was just sworn in as a city council member yesterday. You couldn't make this up if you tried.

If the government won't protect it's people, in particular, the children, why should the citizens subject themselves to any type of gun control?

Its truly gross honestly. They swore an oath to serve and protect law abiding citizens. Regardless if its life threatening, They should of made a tactically sound plan to enter immediately an secure the problem.

If they truly had good training, maneuver under fire should be like brushing their teeth.

Honestly I'm glad the border patrol was in the area, but it should have never come to that.

I dont know if its lack of training or cowards. Regardless, that PD should be ashamed of themselves. Do better.

 

[Rainer]

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

Well in order to a restricted license for a handgun you have to do a separate firearms course, pass the exams, then go through the back round and mental health checks. Then, once that's done you can purchase your gun. If your local gun store even sells them(they aren't that popular at all). You also can only use it at specific ranges also

 

[jtm307]

Its truly gross honestly. They swore an oath to serve and protect law abiding citizens. Regardless if its life threatening, They should of made a tactically sound plan to enter immediately an secure the problem.

If they truly had good training, maneuver under fire should be like brushing their teeth.

Honestly I'm glad the border patrol was in the area, but it should have never come to that.

I dont know if its lack of training or cowards. Regardless, that PD should be ashamed of themselves. Do better.

Police Have No Duty to Protect the Public

Though often unsaid in police reform debates, numerous court precedents have established that cops aren’t obligated to act in the interests of citizens.

prospect.org

 

[KB_]

Police Have No Duty to Protect the Public

Though often unsaid in police reform debates, numerous court precedents have established that cops aren’t obligated to act in the interests of citizens.

prospect.org

Let us go back eleven years to February 2011, in the very same place, New York City. As he told in a Cracked.com video some four years ago, Joseph Lozito was on his morning commute through New York City when he hopped on the subway, blissfully unaware of a brutal stabbing spree—perpetuated by Maksim Gelman—that had been going on for over 24 hours at that point.

Lozito would be the final victim in the stint. After Gelman boarded the train and confronted the police officers that were in a secure area, he turned to Lozito and said, “You’re going to die.”

What transpired afterwards was what Lozito described as what “every man thinks about at least twice a day.” Lozito tackled Gelman and they struggled physically, with Gelman stabbing Lozito in the head until they both hit the ground and Lozito disarmed Gelman. Only then did the NYPD officers intervene to apprehend Gelman.

In this case, one of the cops allegedly admitted that he did not intervene in the altercation because he thought Gelman had a gun, instead hiding from the attacker. This prompted Lozito to sue the city of New York. He lost the case in 2013, but not because the Manhattan Supreme Court judge didn’t believe him, or because he lacked evidence, or because the cops had a good reason for not intervening. Lozito lost because of a precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court: the cops do not have a duty to protect you, or anyone.





That is unbelievable

 

[Stocker]

Let us go back eleven years to February 2011, in the very same place, New York City. As he told in a Cracked.com video some four years ago, Joseph Lozito was on his morning commute through New York City when he hopped on the subway, blissfully unaware of a brutal stabbing spree—perpetuated by Maksim Gelman—that had been going on for over 24 hours at that point.

Lozito would be the final victim in the stint. After Gelman boarded the train and confronted the police officers that were in a secure area, he turned to Lozito and said, “You’re going to die.”

What transpired afterwards was what Lozito described as what “every man thinks about at least twice a day.” Lozito tackled Gelman and they struggled physically, with Gelman stabbing Lozito in the head until they both hit the ground and Lozito disarmed Gelman. Only then did the NYPD officers intervene to apprehend Gelman.

In this case, one of the cops allegedly admitted that he did not intervene in the altercation because he thought Gelman had a gun, instead hiding from the attacker. This prompted Lozito to sue the city of New York. He lost the case in 2013, but not because the Manhattan Supreme Court judge didn’t believe him, or because he lacked evidence, or because the cops had a good reason for not intervening. Lozito lost because of a precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court: the cops do not have a duty to protect you, or anyone.





That is unbelievable

I think that pretty much wins the case for citizens being able to arm themselves for defense.

 

[88man]

I seldom see good leadership in those that are reactive. Trudeau is a plant and a poor actor.

 

[KB_]

I seldom see good leadership in those that are reactive. Trudeau is a plant and a poor actor.

like planted by a bigger entity or like a dandy lion.

 

[Sask hunter]

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

They kinda are can only take them to a range and home. But we could at least get them before now they are calling the market waiting for it to slowly die out. I don’t have a handgun and don’t have the license for one but frick it makes me mad to know he’s trying or planning that away from me.

 

[Randi]

They kinda are can only take them to a range and home. But we could at least get them before now they are calling the market waiting for it to slowly die out. I don’t have a handgun and don’t have the license for one but frick it makes me mad to know he’s trying or planning that away from me.

I remember Panda Bear once saying she had a ( I thought she said ) "wilderness permit or trapping permit" or something like that. She was able to carry a handgun into the wilderness but I dont know any other details. If you know what she was referring to, would those people still be able to still carry their handguns ?

 

[Shangobango]

Good fracking start

 

[Sask hunter]

I remember Panda Bear once saying she had a ( I thought she said ) "wilderness permit or trapping permit" or something like that. She was able to carry a handgun into the wilderness but I dont know any other details. If you know what she was referring to, would those people still be able to still carry their handguns ?

I would imagine so. It’s a freeze no new licenses issued so they are just slowly killing the market. Once you die the gun can’t be passed down to anything

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Handguns are pretty worthless if you cant use em to protect yourself.

 

[LWC55]

Tighter gun control = tighter citizen control. Or at least the same politicians are pushing for both. I know it is only a correlation but worth pondering.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532097402332749825

 

[OntarioHunter]

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

No. Handguns are restricted weapons that require a different test and license. Handguns must be specially and securely stored in the home (locked and unloaded like all guns) and can only be fired at a registered range at targets.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Handguns are pretty worthless if you cant use em to protect yourself.

I've got dogs and police for that. I own a very nice .357 Smith but left it with my brother in Montana when I moved to Canada. Though I can still shoot the lights out with it, I have no interest in shooting paper. It was formerly my saddlebag gun when I packed horses. Horses also stayed behind. That gun was never intended for home defense. Martians and zombies are just too hard to kill with conventional firearms. I have participated in many government overthrows without needing that handgun or any other firearm. Just a sharp pencil ... and a soft paper ballot.

 

[Randi]

I would imagine so. It’s a freeze no new licenses issued so they are just slowly killing the market. Once you die the gun can’t be passed down to anything

Thank you. I was able to make contact and you are correct. Those who are licensed to carry are Wilderness, Trapping, Armored Car and of course Law Enforcement. At this time, there has been no indication that he will include those people in his new ban on firearms.

Your other point is sad, especially after reading Hunting Wife post. Her handgun will not be handed down to anyone, after his new law goes into effect. It could have been handed down, with the same restriction of use, that was in effect before the new handgun ban. However, they "think" it could be sold to someone who is approved by the RCMP for a Wilderness or Trapping license to carry. That is one way the gun could go to where she would want it to go, but that individual would have to keep that license up to date to keep the gun and to hand it down, the next generation would have to do the same thing

I may not have this "EXACT", but I think this is correct.

 

[OntarioHunter]

It's all conjecture at this point. I think the present minority govt is too flimsy to go out on a limb. It's talk that's intended to look like the govt is doing something without actually doing anything. As legislation it won't get past parliament debate. Forget about the federal Senate. Useless waste of money branch of non-government. No one pays any attention to them. We just pay huge $$$ for them to sit in Ottawa for the rest of their lives doing nothing but signing their salary checks.

 

[RaiderRich]

Great discussion and yes as @Big Fin noted a civil one. My understanding is Canada does not have a 2nd Amendment equivalent so it is a bit different than here in the US. To compare what Trudeau did to what the US is looking to do you need to look at what has happened in Canada. Two years ago Trudeau banned "assault" style weapons. Now he has banned handguns, unsure if that includes revolvers, would like clarification on that. The US is now looking to ban "assault" style weapons.

Let's not forget that Brandon has already looked to the next step in regards to 9mm ammo being able to blow out a persons lungs, so it is safe to assume once the anti 2A types get their "assault" style weapons ban, handguns will be next.

Granted comparing Canada and US, the 2nd Amendment does make it possible to litigate any legislation here and given the current SC make up pretty safe to say any ban may get overturned.

My stance, pure 2nd Amendment supporter. Brandon is wrong when he said that people couldn't buy cannons. They could and did. I do believe the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves if the government became oppressive, so yes I believe they intended citizens to be able to own "military" style weapons.

As many stated mental health needs to be addressed. I have to believe with social media saturating the minds of many, that the brain may be able to go into overload. Combine that with the isolation due to a pandemic and yes I think more than a few people could benefit from counselling. It is a knee jerk reaction to ban guns after a tragedy. Did anyone push for banning 767s after 9/11? Did anyone push for banning of rental trucks after the Oklahoma City bombing?

My 2 cents. Great discussion guys! Keep it civil.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I've got dogs and police for that.

If you had to rely on dogs and police for protection..

 

[KB_]

If you had to rely on dogs and police for protection..

Depends on the dog. If its a Belgian Malinois that is trained. F that noise. I remember seeing the MP's Belgian Mal's on base that had titanium teeth. Holy smokes that dog was sketch.

Great discussion and yes as @Big Fin noted a civil one. My understanding is Canada does not have a 2nd Amendment equivalent so it is a bit different than here in the US. To compare what Trudeau did to what the US is looking to do you need to look at what has happened in Canada. Two years ago Trudeau banned "assault" style weapons. Now he has banned handguns, unsure if that includes revolvers, would like clarification on that. The US is now looking to ban "assault" style weapons.

Let's not forget that Brandon has already looked to the next step in regards to 9mm ammo being able to blow out a persons lungs, so it is safe to assume once the anti 2A types get their "assault" style weapons ban, handguns will be next.

9mm blow your lungs out. I think 50cent (the rap guy) will attest to that not being fully accurate lol

Assault style weapons ban is so vague. I can assault someone with a red rider bb gun. That is a slippery slope.

If we were to let these vague gray areas become law, we are screwed. Its no different then letting the government have a say in what you do with your own dang body. We try to enforce things that we think will help the greater population (Gun control, vaccines, abortion rights) but what comes with those things is chaos. Next thing you know its illegal to drink soda from a pop machine (over exaggerated I know). Its important to tread these waters very carefully.