Canada bans 1500 kinds of military style weapons.

eider

Well-known member
In a similar reaction to that of New Zealand, Canada has decided that military-type weapons are no longer fit for any civilian use.
[h=3]Trudeau announces ban on 1,500 kinds of assault weapons ...[/h] www.bbc.co.uk › news › world-us-canada-52505765
2 days ago - Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has introduced a long-promised ban on assault-style weapons following the country's worst gun ... [h=3]Canada Bans Assault Weapons in Wake of Deadly Mass ...[/h] www.nytimes.com › 2020/05/01 › world › canada-bans-a...
2 days ago - The ban means that Canadians will no longer be able to own rifles like the AR-15, the military-style weapon used in several mass shootings in the ...
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
In a similar reaction to that of New Zealand, Canada has decided that military-type weapons are no longer fit for any civilian use.

Very good news. The reactionaries among us will obviously decry this attempt to deprive the mentally ill and those who "snap" from having easy access to such weapons. These G.I. Joe wannabes wish to retain such weapons in their possession so they can threaten an armed insurrection in case another Bammy gets elected and tries to give them universal health care.

For those here who take everything literally, I am being sarcastic--but only by a little bit, not by much.
 

Aimiel

New member
Apparently they're now planning to not just socialize their medicine but now, also: their government. :duh:
 

eider

Well-known member
Very good news. The reactionaries among us will obviously decry this attempt to deprive the mentally ill and those who "snap" from having easy access to such weapons. These G.I. Joe wannabes wish to retain such weapons in their possession so they can threaten an armed insurrection in case another Bammy gets elected and tries to give them universal health care.

For those here who take everything literally, I am being sarcastic--but only by a little bit, not by much.

Fair enough.
I've never really understood why any civilian would want or need an assault rifle or fast fire gun, but over the next two years all such guns will be handed in. I'm guessing that Canada will introduce a buy-back system for these...?
 

eider

Well-known member
Apparently they're now planning to not just socialize their medicine but now, also: their government. :duh:

What....... a national medical system? Who could possibly want that? :chuckle:
I mean, who would want to provide medicine for everybody? :D

What an evil idea....
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
What....... a national medical system? Who could possibly want that? :chuckle:
I mean, who would want to provide medicine for everybody? :D

What an evil idea....

You bet it is an evil idea for it comes at the price of being a serf instead of living in liberty. Without liberty life is not worth living. Just ask the people of NK, Cuba, China, and the many generations of serfs around the world. Ask them how easy it is to regain liberty once it's gone. Remember Tiananmen Square where Chinese tanks ran over Chinese people and those people died willingly for their chance for liberty? Why? Why did they think it was worth more than their lives? Why do so many North Koreans defect to South Korea at the risk of their lives? Why are the people of Hong Kong willing to risk prison, poverty, and death for liberty? Do you think all of these people I just mentionrf are stupid and have very screwed up priorities? I don't think so. I think they understand very well the value of liberty for their lives have been lived for generations without it.

Mock all you want. All it will demonstrate is that you have no idea of the value of liberty. For you, familiarity breeds contempt.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
You bet it is an evil idea for it comes at the price of being a serf instead of living in liberty. Without liberty life is not worth living. Just ask the people of NK, Cuba, China, and the many generations of serfs around the world.

Can I ask the people in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or any other industrialized nation for that matter? Because they all have universal health care.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Can I ask the people in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or any other industrialized nation for that matter? Because they all have universal health care.

What's the matter? Why do you want to run away from the socialist nations I have listed? They have gone full on socialism. And the rest of the nations experimenting with it will find that they, likewise, will either abandon socialism or go full-on dictatorial as the forms of government that allow freedom cannot last under economic socialism.

There is no such thing as democratic socialism. It's a con game for economic socialism must get rid of all forms of liberty in it's economic system to survive long term. It has to be a limited number of people making decisions that all agree on policy and direction. That means that all the political parties, political structure, the way of governing by committees made up of different ideologies have to go and only one side can rule. That is a requirement and if you don't understand that, you have no idea as to what you're speaking about. You can't have an opposing set of ideas wrangling at the government level or everything economic stops happening. There can only be one set of ideas and one set of people at the top. Outsiders need not apply. And that is totalitarianism. There is nothing even close to democratic about it.
 

eider

Well-known member
You bet it is an evil idea for it comes at the price of being a serf instead of living in liberty. Without liberty life is not worth living. Just ask the people of NK, Cuba, China, and the many generations of serfs around the world. Ask them how easy it is to regain liberty once it's gone. Remember Tiananmen Square where Chinese tanks ran over Chinese people and those people died willingly for their chance for liberty? Why? Why did they think it was worth more than their lives? Why do so many North Koreans defect to South Korea at the risk of their lives? Why are the people of Hong Kong willing to risk prison, poverty, and death for liberty? Do you think all of these people I just mentionrf are stupid and have very screwed up priorities? I don't think so. I think they understand very well the value of liberty for their lives have been lived for generations without it.

Mock all you want. All it will demonstrate is that you have no idea of the value of liberty. For you, familiarity breeds contempt.

Do you think that citizens are running out of the UK in the night, desperate for freedom from a free health service? Strange idea.

Do you think that New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom are lands without liberty?

And anyway, what do you want an assault rifle for? Are you thinking of killing lots of people or something? When? Why?
 

eider

Well-known member
What's the matter? Why do you want to run away from the socialist nations I have listed? They have gone full on socialism. And the rest of the nations experimenting with it will find that they, likewise, will either abandon socialism or go full-on dictatorial as the forms of government that allow freedom cannot last under economic socialism.

There is no such thing as democratic socialism. It's a con game for economic socialism must get rid of all forms of liberty in it's economic system to survive long term. It has to be a limited number of people making decisions that all agree on policy and direction. That means that all the political parties, political structure, the way of governing by committees made up of different ideologies have to go and only one side can rule. That is a requirement and if you don't understand that, you have no idea as to what you're speaking about. You can't have an opposing set of ideas wrangling at the government level or everything economic stops happening. There can only be one set of ideas and one set of people at the top. Outsiders need not apply. And that is totalitarianism. There is nothing even close to democratic about it.

Would you let a poor person die for want of medical care?
Would you let folks be mass murdered by nutters with fast fire guns that no civilian needs?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
You bet it is an evil idea for it comes at the price of being a serf instead of living in liberty. Without liberty life is not worth living. Just ask the people of NK, Cuba, China, and the many generations of serfs around the world. Ask them how easy it is to regain liberty once it's gone. Remember Tiananmen Square where Chinese tanks ran over Chinese people and those people died willingly for their chance for liberty? Why? Why did they think it was worth more than their lives? Why do so many North Koreans defect to South Korea at the risk of their lives? Why are the people of Hong Kong willing to risk prison, poverty, and death for liberty? Do you think all of these people I just mentionrf are stupid and have very screwed up priorities? I don't think so. I think they understand very well the value of liberty for their lives have been lived for generations without it.

Mock all you want. All it will demonstrate is that you have no idea of the value of liberty. For you, familiarity breeds contempt.

As bad as our health care system is supposed to be, it doesn't seem to have deterred immigration, legal and illegal.
Just look at all those other countries with socialized medicine! :chuckle:

 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
And anyway, what do you want an assault rifle for? Are you thinking of killing lots of people or something? When? Why?

The second amendment was written by a bunch of yahoos with guns who had just finished fighting a war with the greatest military power of the day.

What do you think their intent was?
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
The second amendment was written by a bunch of yahoos with guns who had just finished fighting a war with the greatest military power of the day.

What do you think their intent was?

Back then, a bunch of yahoos with guns could defeat an army because they were pretty much evenly matched. Today, not so much.
 

eider

Well-known member
we have socialized medicine for the poor

no, that's against the law

and the highest body count achieved by a group of mass murderers was done with these:

Wow! Well, that's that then........
So what hand and long guns have you got?
 

eider

Well-known member
Back then, a bunch of yahoos with guns could defeat an army because they were pretty much evenly matched. Today, not so much.

True.
And today, a single crazy with a fast fire rifle (or pistol) can mass-murder scores and scores of innocent people.

I notice that the gun nuts want to talk about medicine and not gun controls. :chuckle:
 

chair

Well-known member
Back then, a bunch of yahoos with guns could defeat an army because they were pretty much evenly matched. Today, not so much.

All the more reason to allow civilians to own real machine guns and mortars. A MAG is a dual-use weapon- it's great for hunting, and if you ever need to overthrow a government, it's pretty handy.
 
Top