7.62 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 9 hours ago, xspider1 said: Oh my gosh! I had no idea that Canadian hand-gun laws were so strict. In Tennessee, an adult can carry in most public places, open or concealed (as of July 1st, 2021), no permit, or training required. That, I think, is stupid. Proper gun training, a background check and a permit should be required to carry a loaded weapon in public. Of course, career criminals (many of them children) are committing most of the crimes. So, their penalty for gun law violations should be severe and there should be zero tolerance for gun thieves, world-wide. " Shall not be infringed " 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmknight Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, 7.62 said: " Shall not be infringed " Full list of banned firearms in Canada: https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/The-List-G46-final.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7.62 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) 19 minutes ago, cmknight said: Full list of banned firearms in Canada: https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/The-List-G46-final.pdf Yeah we are not Canada and no one should have to ask permission to the state to carry a firearm . Constitutional carry should not stop at some state borders . It should be through the entire 50 states . It's bull crap some communists states think they can limit the 2nd . What would happen if a few decided only one religion will be practiced in our state . First Amendment: Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition Second Amendment: Right to bear arms Third Amendment: Restricts housing soldiers in private homes Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable search and seizure Fifth Amendment: Protects against self-testimony, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and due process Sixth Amendment: Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, to compel testimony, and to legal representation Seventh Amendment: Right to a jury trial in federal courts for civil cases where the claim exceeds a certain dollar value Eighth Amendment: Prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments Ninth Amendment: States that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out Tenth Amendment: States that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution Edited July 26 by 7.62 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 38 minutes ago, 7.62 said: Yeah we are not Canada and no one should have to ask permission to the state to carry a firearm . Constitutional carry should not stop at some state borders . It should be through the entire 50 states . It's bull crap some communists states think they can limit the 2nd . What would happen if a few decided only one religion will be practiced in our state .......... Actually, the U.S. Constitution is primarily the foundation of rules for the federal government, and each state was required to create their own constitution (ratified by Congress and SCOTUS) prior to statehood acceptance. Every state has a "Second Amendment", but some were poor comparisons to the U.S. Constitution. For example, here is the California: Quote ..........The Constitution of California does not contain a provision explicitly guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. Article 1, Section 1, of the California Constitution implies a right to self-defense (without specifically mentioning a right to keep and bear arms) and defense of property, by stating, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.".......... Compare that to Article 1, Section 19 of Alaska's Constitution: Quote ..........A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State........ All 50 states have a similar article/section. Some are great, some suck...........just like the state itself. Frankly, if the people of California want to live communist drones, more power to them. I enjoy watching the place burn, both in the cities and the wilds, by forest or social mismanagement. Let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity; repeatedly. I don't want to visit Sudan, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, et al, so I don't go there. I don't want to visit California, either, but because I have family there, sometimes I have to go. I was raised there, but had the wisdom to get out young. I return on occasion at my peril. When in Rome, do like the Romans do. If you don't like what Romans do, don't go there. Spend your money in more favorable locales. Let California go the way of Sudan, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, etc. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7.62 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 10 minutes ago, Huntster said: Actually, the U.S. Constitution is primarily the foundation of rules for the federal government, and each state was required to create their own constitution (ratified by Congress and SCOTUS) prior to statehood acceptance. Every state has a "Second Amendment", but some were poor comparisons to the U.S. Constitution. For example, here is the California: Compare that to Article 1, Section 19 of Alaska's Constitution: All 50 states have a similar article/section. Some are great, some suck...........just like the state itself. Frankly, if the people of California want to live communist drones, more power to them. I enjoy watching the place burn, both in the cities and the wilds, by forest or social mismanagement. Let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity; repeatedly. I don't want to visit Sudan, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, et al, so I don't go there. I don't want to visit California, either, but because I have family there, sometimes I have to go. I was raised there, but had the wisdom to get out young. I return on occasion at my peril. When in Rome, do like the Romans do. If you don't like what Romans do, don't go there. Spend your money in more favorable locales. Let California go the way of Sudan, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, etc. The only difference is in every state constitution if they tried to limit freedom of religion as an example the feds would immediately step in . The only time they don't is when it deals with the 2nd . Look at how hard it was to even get SCOTUS to hear a 2nd amendment case . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 45 minutes ago, 7.62 said: The only difference is in every state constitution if they tried to limit freedom of religion as an example the feds would immediately step in . The only time they don't is when it deals with the 2nd . Look at how hard it was to even get SCOTUS to hear a 2nd amendment case . Yup. This has been going on, back and forth, since the beginning, starting with slavery. I suspect it will continue until major revolution/civil war and a new government, which I'm pretty confident will not be an overall improvement. I'll note that even in nations seen as oppressive hunting rifles are commonly owned, both scoped and not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langfordbc Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 On 7/24/2024 at 8:31 PM, Huntster said: So what do they expect you to do? Turn them in to be destroyed? Being Liberals, they're all about ideas. But also being Liberals, they tend to be so wildly incompetent that they have zero clue on how to execute those ideas. At the moment this leaves us in limbo. After requesting tenders for various aspects of a confiscation in the last four years, they haven't even found somebody to design a program to accomplish said confiscation. So we wait. And hopefully the Conservatives, who have and enormous lead in polls, win a majority and reverse the legislation as they've said they would. An election is due by October 2025 at the latest. On 7/24/2024 at 8:36 PM, Huntster said: It would be really tough for me to leave your area. I consider it the best geography on Earth. Too bad the politics suck. It's getting bad everywhere, but there's no hint of gun grabbing here. Their tactic here is to restrict access to the hunting resources and restrict ammo shipping in. It really is an outdoorsman's paradise. Moose, elk, black bear, mule deer, and white tail are all literally in my yard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langfordbc Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 On 7/25/2024 at 8:54 AM, Huntster said: From this and previous readings, it appears to me that, with the registration hoop jumping, Canadian citizens can own most handguns with a 4.5" or longer barrel, including semi-autos like a Glock 20, or large caliber revolvers. No? If you owned handguns before the 2022 freeze, you can still currently possess and shoot them, but cannot buy or transfer them. They are all registered but .25 and .32 caliber, and anything less that a 4 1/4" barrel were "prohibited" in the 90's and in most cases you cannot transport or shoot those. Aside from those, you could pretty well own any handgun before 2022. Semi mags are restricted to 10 rounds. I own .22's up to a S&W 500, including a Glock 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langfordbc Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 17 hours ago, xspider1 said: Oh my gosh! I had no idea that Canadian hand-gun laws were so strict. In Tennessee, an adult can carry in most public places, open or concealed (as of July 1st, 2021), no permit, or training required. That, I think, is stupid. Proper gun training, a background check and a permit should be required to carry a loaded weapon in public. Of course, career criminals (many of them children) are committing most of the crimes. So, their penalty for gun law violations should be severe and there should be zero tolerance for gun thieves, world-wide. New Hampshire will issue me a non-resident carry permit for $100 for 5 years, and several other states will honor that permit. I had one a few years ago just to say I did. It is almost impossible to get a carry permit in Canada, and even then it is only for specific types of wilderness work (trapping, prospecting, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 22 hours ago, Huntster said: The Old Guys! A great group to be in! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, langfordbc said: .........After requesting tenders for various aspects of a confiscation in the last four years, they haven't even found somebody to design a program to accomplish said confiscation. So we wait.......... I'm thinking that a confiscator job would qualify for hazardous duty. There is already a labor shortage out there, and there might be a high loss rate for firearms confiscators, so it might be a long, long wait........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langfordbc Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 1 hour ago, Huntster said: I'm thinking that a confiscator job would qualify for hazardous duty. There is already a labor shortage out there, and there might be a high loss rate for firearms confiscators, so it might be a long, long wait........... That would be the Liberal's wet dream. A confiscator getting hurt or killed while confiscating would be used as proof of their claim about how dangerous gun owners are and as justification for further use of force against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted July 27 Author Share Posted July 27 36 minutes ago, langfordbc said: That would be the Liberal's wet dream. A confiscator getting hurt or killed while confiscating would be used as proof of their claim about how dangerous gun owners are and as justification for further use of force against them. They'd be correct. Guns are designed to be tools of deadly force. Their wet dream might end up a nightmare.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Ok, yeah, I'm all for the 2nd Amendment. I am not, however, for an unconditional right to keep and bear any and all arms. This may be a topic for a different thread, but I have to ask: Do you see any conditions at all which should be required for a person to maintain the right to keep and bear arms, especially in public places? Who thinks that violent, convicted felons should have the right to carry in public? Who thinks that significantly mentally ill people should have the right to carry in public? Who think that minors should have the right to carry in public? Who thinks that it's ok to mount a loaded howitzer in a city yard and point it at passing cars? Really not trying to stir the pot, just wondering who feels, or doesn't feel, that any gun restrictions at all are appropriate? A few years ago, I was inline at a grocery store here (in a not so good part of town). The man in front of me in line had a large, apparently semi-automatic pistol in a shoulder holster. His shoulder holster was designed/fitted so that the (surely loaded and likely cocked and 'locked' pistol) was pointed pretty much directly at my face. I was offended and felt like grabbing that pistol and whipping the idiot with it. no joke. Instead I stepped aside so that I was not in the line of fire from an idiot that probably doesn't know $H^T about gun safety and who is probably well above average to have an accidental discharge. After I checked and walked to my truck, I noticed that they were parked, illegally, in a handicap spot. That was no surprise of course, just another disappointment in the stupidity and thoughtlessness of many people. Without reasonable laws and enforcement, the idiots in this world will definitely descend us into chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langfordbc Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 1 minute ago, Huntster said: They'd be correct. Guns are designed to be tools of deadly force. Their wet dream might end up a nightmare.......... Fair enough. Even if they succeed with getting a confiscation program off the ground, I think they could care less about actually collecting the guns - they know the owners are typically more responsible and less dangerous than your average citizen. They'd be just as happy if the guns stayed in owners hands and every once in a while catch an otherwise law abiding, tax paying, family man, and throw them in jail. While a great deal of the guns banned in the last five years are registered (pistols and AR's), there are many semi-auto rifles that aren't. Judging by the the rush to buy those guns and the premiums they commanded, I suspect compliance will not be high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts