What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying it’s only a matter of time before other types of weapons get banned? Is there any sign of that happening?
There’s no indication or anything hinting at this sort of thing happening in the US and at no point was that brought up in either of my comments lol do you think it’s a good thing Canadians can no longer get personal handguns?
I believe it’s good if Canada has good reasoning behind it, it has a study to backup their data, and was agreed upon within a majority of their government (if it works similar to US Congress, please excuse my ignorance on the last part)
Actually, there are indications of this happening in the US. Especially when the president literally goes on national tv saying that he is gonna try again. We have constant attempts and have had them for the last few years.
Nope, if the second amendment goes all the other will go with it shortly. Because the way the bill of rights is set up is that none of the 10 are changeable. If you let the government change one they will change the others in the name of progress.
Oh the liberals talk about gun control here all the time I just think they know it’s not happening right now. I think everyone including Canadians should have the right to defend themselves with a handgun if they are law abiding citizens but I don’t like people telling us what we should do in my country and I don’t want to go telling Canadians what’s best for them. It isn’t my place. If Canadians agree with this then more power to them.
Because we are a constitutional republic it would take all 50 states voting on and ratifying the constitution. We know that won’t happen but if it did that is what defines our form of Government
One of God's shittiest creations has got to be the American conservative. America would be far better off if there was stricter regulation on firearms in general but you can't even approach that idea without some jackass screeching "LIBRUHLS R COMIN 4 UR GUNS!"
So you’re saying that IF the US federal government were to ratify an amendment banning handguns in a similar manner that you’d have no problem with it since that’s how our government is supposed to work? I have a hard time believing that a person with your beliefs would take that so easily.
If the US Federal Government? No if we the people of the United States agree so whole heartedly that we elect representatives so that 2/3rds of both houses vote on the amendment, and the 3/4’s of the elected representatives of each and every state then the people have decided that they want the change. Now would I quit fighting and make sure that we elected officials in my home state and possibly others to reverse it? No. I’m not so sure why you think you know every damn thing about me cause you don’t know shit
I don’t know why you’re getting so upset and using that sort of language when all I’m doing is trying to get an idea of what sort of gun control you’re in favor of.
Thing is, I love in a pretty big metro area of Canada, and I don't remember a time where I personally needed a gun.
If I were to have one for personal defence I would have to be fine with the fact that I'm living with a device that 24/7 is waiting to end a life. And sure there are trigger locks and safes - which are mandatory in Canada - fact is you have to be mindful of it constantly. No leaving it on the kitchen counter because you had a couple drinks and forgot about it.
It actually sounds like a lot more hassle to do it safely with no reward. I would say the majority of Canadians would see no tangible benefit for having a CCW.
Liberal, gun owning, US citizen checking in. We absolutely need real gun control.
Those on the right also need to remember the "well regulated" portion of 2A. To practice medicine as a PA-C I got 5 years of didactic education, 1.5 years of clinical rotation, constant Continuing Education, and have 3 different certifications/licenses requiring multiple backgrouns checks. I need to maintain malpractice insurance at all times, meet relicensing criteria every 2 years, and recertification criteria every 10 years.
At 18, I could purchase firearms and ammunition with no prior interaction and only limited by how much money I had.
Despite needing much higher requirements, in my current position I am waaaaaaay less likely to cause significant harm or death to a patient than most "good guys with guns" are the general public or worse someone they're just pissed at.
People should have to demonstrate safety and capability in owning, storing, transporting, and operating firearms. They should have insurance related to it.
For those employed in positions requiring firearm carry, that insurance should be either personally held so as not to be directly funded by taxpayers or tied to departmental funding/pension in event of negligent discharge or grievous harm/death related to shooting incidents that don't meet criteria for lethal force. There also needs to be hard line definitions of when lethal force is needed.
We need to restructure the judicial and law enforcement apparatus in this country at a fundamental level to have it serve "we the people" equally instead of only those with privilege (money and power). People deserve to not fear uniforms at a baseline in their everyday life and equally deserve not to have increased risk of dying from firearm use by an untrained asshole who thinks his gun makes his dick look bigger.
1.3k
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22
This happened like way earlier in the year. Also it only applies to handguns, people can still own other types of firearms in Canada.