• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,397
Points
1,260
"I'll go check and see if it's in the the gun room."
"You have a room dedicated to just guns?"
"Yes."
"Why do you need so many guns that you need a whole room dedicated to them?"
"We're in America, right?"
"Yes..."
"Then I don't need to answer that question."

I have no issue with your post.

I'm also not the only person on this forum who has a gun room.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,397
Points
1,260
I see what you’re saying HT, but I was confused by your earlier post like Jarnhamar was, and thought you were espousing control over what people chose to buy. I see now you were meaning ‘that’s how far they’ll go and then some’ vice your own belief.

I’m concerned as are others, that the current government is on a high right now seeing how far it was able to push Canadians to accepting more and more control…and (reasonably) fearing for more grabbing of power and property to come…

Oh! Sorry for the confusion Mon Ami.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,289
Points
1,160
Not aiming this at you, but need has nothing to do with it. It's their money and choice, if that's what the choose to buy and drive then that's their choice.

The Gov and busy body folks can stay the F out of it as far as I am concerned.

Taking money and property from the rich and giving to the poor have-nots will be seriously popular with a lot of Canadians. Lots of votes.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,397
Points
1,260
Taking money and property from the rich and giving to the poor have-nots will be seriously popular with a lot of Canadians. Lots of votes.

It's absolutely would. Could be an election winner.

Where do you draw the line between the haves and have nots ? Would be interesting to see that articulated.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,450
Points
1,060
The potential buyback price tag (which some of us estimated in the $1B+ range) is going to triple. The buy back won't get canceled they will just leave it in limbo.
There is no buyback provision in Bill C-21. None. Not that I could find and Rod Giltaca (CCFR) has also stated there is no buy back provisions in the Bill.
The buy back was nothing but words spoken to appease. They haven't even been able to find a contractor to entertain it and have pushed the amnesty back to Oct 2023.

 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
294
Points
730
Unpopular thought: This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."

When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.

Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.
 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
294
Points
730
Where do you draw the line between the haves and have nots ? Would be interesting to see that articulated.
I agree with you in principle, but that line has kind of already been drawn for some of us with respect to certain lifestyles and functions. That there is currently no estate/inheritance tax is kind of a misnomer given deemed disposition laws.

Ex.
Land over 1.25 acres being excluded from principal residence for capital gains exemption
Farms having a $1mm capital gains exemption cap
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,865
Points
1,140
Unpopular thought: This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."

When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.

Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.
You're completely right. I fully believe the May 2020 ban and now C-21 were written in such a way to close all the loopholes exposed on social media (e.g. the ban on upper receivers.)
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,397
Points
1,260
Unpopular thought: This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."

When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.

Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.

I disagree. I would wager this and further firearms legislation has always been the desired the end state. I have no doubt in another couple months we will see lever and pump actions. They wont be happy until they are all gone or all we are left with are single shot Cooey .410s.

Its a simple attack on 2 millions strong segment of the population that Liberals don't care about.

I agree with you in principle, but that line has kind of already been drawn for some of us with respect to certain lifestyles and functions. That there is currently no estate/inheritance tax is kind of a misnomer given deemed disposition laws.

Ex.
Land over 1.25 acres being excluded from principal residence for capital gains exemption
Farms having a $1mm capital gains exemption cap

At some point the giant that is the Canadian population has to wake up and change direction.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,865
Points
1,140
I have no doubt in another couple months we will see lever and pump actions.
They need to keep something to campaign on next time. That's why handguns weren't banned outright.
Its a simple attack on 2 millions strong segment of the population that Liberals don't care about.
And who wouldn't likey vote for them in any case.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
833
Points
1,060
Unpopular thought: This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."

When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.

Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.
something I've long thought as well. The law is more consistent and logical now just not to my benefit
I agree with you in principle, but that line has kind of already been drawn for some of us with respect to certain lifestyles and functions. That there is currently no estate/inheritance tax is kind of a misnomer given deemed disposition laws.

Ex.
Land over 1.25 acres being excluded from principal residence for capital gains exemption
Farms having a $1mm capital gains exemption cap
last time for me it was 5 acres I think and I have mostly managed to avoid capital gains but its not easy
 
Top