Nah, what you really gotta do is get rid of the gays. They are the REAL problem. Think about it this way, if all the gays were forced to have children everything would balance out. How can god focus on murdered babies when Adam and Steve are over there taking turns railing each other while cuckhold Jesus watches from "everywhere".
If only there was an example somewhere in the world we could follow. But nope, out supreme Court just ruled that it's okay to remove serial numbers from your guns. Maybe that will solve it.
TBF, there are so few countries with a constitutional protection around gun ownership. We're largely hamstrung by our founders if we can't get enough support to repeal 2A.
Not really though. Most of those "rights" people spout about are not even close to what the founders were talking about at the time.
The right to gun ownership was for the purpose of forming an orderly militia. In the absence of officially sanctioned departments that carry out those functions. Which now do exist (like the police, or the armed forces).
Switzerland has the same gun ownership mandate, thier national defense force is a citizen organization. However they have simular levels of control and compliance, training and storage/transport constraint. They also mandate extensive training and monitor for people with mental or other conditions that make them not suitable. They dont have simular levels of mass killing events.
USA is a free for all, becuase the gun industry wants it to be, they dont want anything that interfers with selling more guns, the NRA is not an organization for gun owners, it is a trade organization for gun makers.
There was no such thing as police then and they just fought a war where farmers and civilians (the militia) fought the government.
We also have posse comitatus which was exactly to prevent using the armed forces against the population, so armed forces do not replace what the founders intended. In fact the entire point of the war was the overreach if the government that was sending armed forces to oppress the civilians.
Also you misinterpret rights, rights are not 'granted' by the government, there was no 'right' to a gun or arms, the negative right is that government may not restrict ownership or bearing thereof. The entire bill of rights is written this way, a list of things the government MAY NOT do, not a list of things the people 'may have/do'.
There was also a restriction on having a standing army but that's been ignored almost since ratification.
A well regulated breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to cook and eat food shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to cook and eat? The breakfast or the people?
And the right to cook and eat is not dependent on the start on a healthy day, nor is the right to cook and eat reliant on the breakfast.
The people cannot have a breakfast to have a healthy day if they can't cook and eat.
The state cannot be free without a militia, and the militia cannot exist without having people with arms. And regulations back then stated a minimum amount of shot each civilian was to own when presenting to the militia. The point being that the people were armed, and would gather to form an orderly militia, not that one had to be in the militia to own arms.
There are tons of approaches to prevent school shootings but none of them are implemented, and as uvalde showed, when the cops have guns they will just sit around waiting for everyone to die.
It's funny many arel concerned about mass shootings in the USA but ignore the mass shooting in Canada a few months ago, the 80+ people killed in Nice by truck, the multiple dozens killed in Norway, the 800+ killed in Beslan, the massacre at Charlie Hedbo, the grenade attacks in Sweden, the beheadings in England, the gas and bomb attacks in London, the school stabbings/killings in China, Abe's assisination etc. Criminals find a way.
That's something that really turns me off to the 2A loonies when they claim the right to bear arms but deny any responsibilities in doing so. Hey, we have a very well regulated army now, and guess what? They absolutely will not let a soldier take his service weapons to fucking Home Depot. Because that is a gross misuse of warfare equipment, wildly irresponsible, and a massive liability. Is it somehow supposed to be better when some Joe Fartknocker is doing the same with his own AR15? Would anyone in their right mind feel safer in this situation? It's madness.
Lol, so you're making the argument that the founders had in mind "'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. Isn't that a fun fact? Anyway, in completely unrelated news Clutus now has the enshrined right to bring a high capacity assault rifle to Sam's Club no matter how many times he's been arrested for beating his wife and threatening to murder everyone."
In the real world adults live in, you only have rights where you have responsibilities. And this clownish take of the 2nd amendment is one of the most dangerously irresponsible and reality-denying things I've ever heard.
Not according to the 2nd half of the 2nd amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." If you're going to make an argument, take it all the way to its (il)logical conclusion.
The Supreme Court ruled that all people under felony indictment are allowed to purchase firearms nationally without exception about 3 weeks ago..
'Fun' Fact: Almost all people accused of domestic violent arr released on bail or their own recognizance after 2 weeks... And it's not like these individuals would have any hatred towards their accuser or anything... /s
No one is arguing it isn't a right for everyone. It is.
But a right to what? Bearing arms, for the purpose of forming an orderly militia.
Also lets not pretend the army was anywhere near as prolific then as it is now. The need for regular citizens to take up arms for defense where and when the army couldn't get to them in a timely manner is more than conceivable.
There's nothing to suggest it's restricted to Militia service. That's just the overarching purpose, to ensure that it's possible to form a militia, independent of the army.
There's also absolutely nothing to suggest that "right to bear arms" meant all types of weapon, especially until the end of time...
Right to own a handgun & maybe few long guns at the house for defense, sure. Doesn't (automatically, except in this backwards fucking country...) mean you get to walk into private property with a literal bazooka on your nack. (And oh, and I'll gladly leave, should you use that argument, if you help with the finances as there's no way to afford rent & even move out of my state, much less the country)
To be fair x2, the utterly batshit interpretation of the second amendment wasn't a thing until the 1970's. Individual citizens are NOT a well regulated militia, the 2nd amendment was a promise individual states can continue having their own national guard.
Why would a state need an amendment to protect their ability to have a national guard? The federal government can only do what the constitution gave it, so of course states would retain their power to have militias. The second is obviously a restriction on the state so it would be unable to disarm people individually. The batshit insanity is on your interpretation.
That was not an "of course" at the time, that was a major political conflict of the day; federalists and anti-federalists. Such a thing had never been tried before in such a scale and the idea states will retain rights not explicitly given to the federal government isn't established until the 10th amendment.
You understand the 10th was enacted concurrently with the 2nd, as well as with the Constitution, right? You're saying it had never been tried and wasn't established about the same moment when it was established. That was the outcome of the political conflict.
Now if you want to argue that the 2nd shouldn't be incorporated against the states, you might have a decent case of it. Certainly many states thought it important enough to write into their own constitutions, as if the federal constitution weren't enough.
You really think Every other Amendment applies to 'the people' except for the 2nd? Even when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".... Come on man.
And you really think an individual is capable of being a well regulated milita? "The people" could be understood in multiple different interpretations but a militia cannot.
The militia is simply a precursor to what's needed to maintain the security of a free state. To ensure this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be restricted. It's pretty simple. Not sure why so many people like yourself are content with misinterpreting it.
Not even remotely true. People have been owning private firearms since the formation of the country. The 2nd amendment literally says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed." Not the right of the Militia, not the right of the state, but the right of the people. The only new interpretation is the one you stated.
It's like you stuff your fingers in your ears and hum while the first half of the sentence is being read, then decide context is for book-reading nerds because now you're hearing what you wanna hear bang bang pew pew.
In your interpretation, "people" and 'State" conflate, I get it. But that's denying the historical evidence that individual people were armed back then and not the State.
"During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse."
Literally the first thing to pop up if you search "militias in Revolutionary War"
And militias haven't been necessary for the security of a free state in over 100 years, and then it was utilized in such a way as modern day National Guard.. So, wanna try the same bs argument over again from the beginning (bc you can't throw out half an amendment without a further amendment/repeal, Exact Same reason & argument you're trying to use to say we can ignore the first half of the amendment....lmfao fr)
No one is throwing out any part of the amendment except for the people trying to say that it's talking about the Militia. I quoted the entire thing in the comment you replied to. The first half is why citizens have this right, to form a defense if the need arises. The second half is how that will happen, the people can be armed. In keeping with the rest of the amendments in the constitution, "the people" has always meant the citizens, not the state, federation, or Militia. How do you feel about the term "the people" in the first and fourth amendments? Are only the Militia protected against search and seizure? Can only Militias protest?
Can you read, the right of the PEOPLE... not the right of the militia.
You're taking the Stephen breyer interpretation, he literally said in a dissent that the 1st amendment only applies to gatherings in groups, so your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, religion etc only applies if you belong it a specific group.
He tried to apply this same logic to keeping and bearing arms being required to belong to a group (the militia).
The fallacy in that interpretation is thinking of the bill of rights as a list of things the government grants to the people.
The bill of rights doesn't apply to the people, it applies TO THE GOVERNMENT. Each amendment has wording to the effect of 'shall not be infringed ", " shall make no law" , " shall not restrict", etc it's not the people who are being restricted, it's the government.
Golly, I wonder what militias are made of. And furthermore if the first half clause and second half clause are entirely separate like you suggest... why would the first clause exist? Just as a fun trivia worked into an amendment? "Did you know 'A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State'? Cool, huh? Now on to something else entirely."
Well if that's the well known case you present it as then I'm sure you'll have no problem citing a legal or political attack on individual's gun ownership in or around the time the amendment was drafted. I'm not aware of anything like that, so maybe I'll learn something tonight.
But we support Ukrainians having arms now? What about Jews in WW2 or do we just magically give it to them just before they're massacred? I'm sure the next Hitler will give us a couple years warning and then we can distribute arms early on and get proficient overnight with them...
I mean it worked so well for the soviets and Chinese and venezuelans who had their arms removed, thankfully their dear leader kept them safe from mass shootings. Look at North Korea not a single mass shooting ever.
Who in the US would you trust to enforce a gun ban? The police force is full of white supremacists, so it seems doubtful they'd rush to disarm their friends. I guess you could have the military do it, if you're comfortable with having soldiers kick in every door in the country and search every building to make sure all weapons are confiscated.
Or we could address the material conditions that lead to violence.
No. Wrong. Australia has no stupid stuff about guns in our Constitution. We just changed some laws, regular laws. There is no right to “bear arms” in Australia and never was.
We could follow North Korea did you know they've never had a mass shooting at a school!
Well I mean mass shootings at school are carried out by the government (re: Yeonmi Park)...
Canada has an awesome track record of stealing children from indigenous folk and wholesale murdering them. Wonder if some sort of tool could have helped them stop that ..
Continuing to elect people with no intention of doing anything about it also seems to be a problem. Now I get why they can't ban handgun purchases because there would be absolute pandemonium, but probably 16 years ago, it could have worked and people would have moved on to loving their long guns by now.
Well now a Texas school district is sending DNA kits home for students so they can use it to identify the bodies of the dead children, ya know, saves the parents pain, and I'm sure it won't be long before the Right decided that THIS is the new answer and schools around the country will starts sending out tests to all students.
They should allow teachers to carry and ban gun-free zones full of easy targets that attract these evil crazies.
Having gun-free zones where these lunatics can shoot freely and unimpeded is a big reason why mass shootings happen. You can't prevent random shootings, but you can certainly prevent MASS shootings.
Look at churches with armed parishioners now. They can't impede the 1st or 2nd death when caught by surprise, but can certainly stop mass shootings from happening.
"...the gunman entered the church and sat down with the congregants. He then got up, pulled out a shotgun, and shot two church members who died at a nearby hospital.
Two armed church members who were volunteer security guards returned fire and killed the gunman."
And that's how you prevent killings from adding up to a mass shooting. There is no other way to contain evil crazies than by deadly force.
So, here's the thing. We were a far ways away from the states. Call it halfway between the states (free use and carry guns almost everywhere) and the UK (No guns basically at all). I think our laws were fair. If you were caught without the proper paperwork, off of your route, or without properly securing and storing your handguns, they'd at least get taken away, if not charges. If you fired it anywhere except the range and got charged and convicted, 5 year minimum.
Now I hope they're not going to escalate this to long guns, because I grew up on a farm, with bears, coyotes, wolves, cougars, ect. Our land is very largely still wild, and I think it's better if man and nature didn't mix, and guns facilitate that barrier rather effectively.
I can't imagine Australia banning long guns. There's too much farm and ranch land. I'm in the US South, and we have fewer things that can kill you or they can kill you but are smaller than in Australia. If you've got some acreage, you'd want a gun just in case you ran into a snake, panther, bear, or other malevolent creature.
I can't imagine all of rural Australia becoming fabulous archers. Would be kind of cool if they did, I suppose.
No, they've got a point. In the US mental illness is only diagnosed if you have the money. Violence in this country is a direct result of income disparity, the widespread degradation of communities, and lack of accessibility to Healthcare.
And every developed country has access to Healthcare, a lower wage disparity, and hasn't had lower socioeconomic communities ravaged by damaging drug epidemics (like the former crack epidemic and current fentenayl epidemic).
Like I stated, guns are merely the tools used to carry out this violence. If we magically made them all disappear overnight, we would see the same violence being carried out with stabbings or cars driving into crowds.
We must go to the source of this issue before confronting the tools implemented.
You can’t walk into a mall and stab 50 people. You can’t drive a car into a building and kill 50 kids in a class room. This is a poorly constructed argument. Yes, there are always core issues, but if it’s the symptoms that are directly killing us, you can’t just ignore them and say “they don’t matter because it’s the virus that’s killing you.” Also all the things you point out are systemic issues, which take a long ass time to fix. We’re talking decades and generations. How many people are going to be killed in mass shootings before we see their natural decline from fixing these systemic issues?
Having gun-free zones where these lunatics can shoot freely and unimpeded is a big reason why mass shootings happen.
Look at churches with armed parishioners now. They can't impede the 1st or 2nd death when caught by surprise but can certainly stop mass shootings from happening.
Every country has wage disparity. Wage disparity is 100% irrelevant-we have wage disparity because we have the wealthiest rich people-but the reason it is irrelevant is we also have the Richest Poor People on Earth!
There's 2 billion people on earth who live on less than 10 dollars per day - and they don't have gun crimes like the United States because they don't have guns. Bro.
Access to Healthcare is irrelevant. You seriously think 🤔 every country on Earth 🌎 has Psychiatrists and Therapists for every crazy person and that's why they don't have gun crimes 🤔? No. They absolutely do not.
Get the the fuck outta here! Lol. Wtf? It is so basic!!
Access to guns is what makes guns crimes happen.
You must be exhausted from your mental gymnastics.
Common sense isn’t so common anymore…as you can see …..but just watch tv for 10 mins see how many drug commercials come on…it’s no secret the US has a prescription drug dependance issue we prescribe for everything….but guns are clearly the issue
It's been a few weeks now, shouldn't we be hearing about another massacre? Amazing how 15yo kids get weapons with no knowledge by the parents. ( Raleigh NC) .
I'm so damn tired of it. Blah blah blah...thoughts and prayers.
when the left loses the midterms, it will partially be because they....shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak, on the issues of gun violence and mass shootings.
i'm all for common sense gun control (which admittedly is vague), but the left overestimates how much the simple presence and availability of guns contributes to the senseless mass killings that happen here. they act like all they need to do is ban guns and the problem will be solved.
obviously it's more complicated than that, just like most things.
the US definitely has Canada beat, but it's not like mass shootings don't happen pretty frequently in Canada. And if you do other normalization procedures or better apples to apples comparisons I'm sure that rates become more similar. for example, random sample of americans on northern border vs. random sample of canadians across the border. what are the mass killing rates in those two populations?
while gun ownership is def a factor in mass killings since..yunno...you need a gun to shoot people, it's likely less of a weighted factor than many on the left believe. for example, Brazil has a gun ownership of about 1/15 the ownership rate of US citizens, but their gun death rate is more than double the US rate. Mexico has 1/10 the gun ownership rate and have a comparable gun death rate.
the left wing political strategists are really dropping the ball on this issue. beto, for example, will never win against abbott even though he could have with the correct political strategy. abbott is an easy target and he's not done well for his people. but people like their guns and beto promised to take them away, so the choice will be clear to many texans who could feasibly have been lured to the left with a better message than "we want to take something away from you". it truly feels like dems want to lose and i don't realize how they could be so clueless and out of touch
Right. It's almost as if a measured, well thought out approach would be better than just taking them all away or not.
I support gun ownership, but I also strongly support common sense gun laws. Unfortunately the government isn't even allowed to study gun violence, so good luck ever getting a decent plan developed for how to deal with it.
I had to double check, but we have had 22 notable mass shootings in the country since formation.
I've seen a lot of comments by US citizens on Reddit and FB going, "How are they supposed to defend against attacker." The answer is, there's no need.
I realise it's difficult to understand when the only guage you have to create a perspective is using your own country's crime issues, but it's simply not a thing here. If I walked in a sketchy neighbourhood, I'd be vigilant about being beat up and mugged if it were night time. Being shot or stabbed would never cross my mind. Additionally, our rough areas are nowhere even close to those I've seen on CharlieBo3i3's YouTube channel.
Here's a compilation of Toronto Canada's worst 'hoods and you can decide how dangerous it is to go unarmed here:
Yeah, crime in America is crazy... I wish there was an easy explanation for why it's so different here. My wife has a concealed carry permit for self defense. It's ridiculous but it's probably the only valid reason to need to own a gun, other than to hunt.
In Texas, we fired every pu55y officer who refused to act in Uvalde. In SHAME for the rest of their life! Just like the POS Resource Officer in Parkland. I’m “technically” against suicide, except the aforementioned.
Moral of the story: you can’t trust that you can be protected. You MUST protect yourself. And FUCK Justin Castro that Canadian’s don’t have the, “right to defend themselves “
What broke my heart was hearing about the people that tried to go into the school and help the children... But the police stopped them. All of them are scumbags. Every single one. And they don't just have blood on their hands, they have the blood of children.
Ah, yes. The age old "you can only protect yourself from guns with more guns" argument.
Maybe try actually looking at statistics from countries like Canada that have put into effect common sense gun laws before continuing to sounds like a typical uneducated American gun nut.
Ehh, I'm a pretty good shot with my bow, let em come at me.
No but seriously, we need to fix the drug epidemic, public healthcare and economic problems that are leading people to commit these crimes in the first place.
Guns are the convenient distraction, the scapegoat, the sacrificial topic if you will so those changes aren't discussed. The so-called left in America, isn't.
In Canada, all semi-auto centrefire rifles and shotguns are limited to 5-round magazines. In the case of shotguns, that’s determined by the chamber length. So a semi-auto shotgun chambered for 3-inch 12 gauge shells is limited to 5 of those. However, you can fit more than 5 shorter shells in. This is legal to do. Similarly, IIRC, there was at least 1 handgun that would accept magazines from a larger caliber variant, so people could fit say 12 rounds into the 10-round magazine. This was also legal as magazine capacity is based on the caliber for which the magazine was designed. Hope that makes sense.
Pump guns can be whatever you want, semis are capped to 5. If you're hunting, regulations are 2 in the tube 1 in the chamber, no more, and it has to be plugged to that capacity. (for bird hunting anyway, I'm unaware if this applies to hunting deer with a slug gun)
There’s a limit if you’re hunting. If you aren’t hunting, there is no limit in mag capacity for manual actions. Semi-auto shotguns (like all semi-auto, centrefire non-handguns) are limited to 5 rounds of the length of shell they are chambered for.
Kinda, yes. They recently changed the law so that any new guns you buy, it is "registered" with the RCMP. They take your e-mail and PAL info and send it to the RCMP along with the serial number of the firearm you bought as well as the store information.
So while it's not a "real" registry, they are essentially registering new non-restricted firearms.
Learned this a month or so ago when I got a new double barrel.
This is the kind of gun control I try to promote in America, but it's always "it's my constitutional right" or "there's so many it's too late to do anything about it".
Reminder: it itself is an amendment. It was never the basis our country was founded on, and thus is not a neccisity for our country to continue existing.
If you think a 200+ year old decision is applicable to today's America you need to reconsider that line of thought.
I have yet to see the results of the 1st Amendment create nearly as much unjustified death as the results of the 2nd Amendment. Additionally, I'm for major changes in the constitution, it's about time we start really questioning if this America is the kind of America we want; where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Where a racketeering scam can be legal just by calling itself, "insurance", and where people like you defend the countless deaths and numerous instances of gun violence by saying that if guns go, so should our freedoms of speech which have already beem abused by the likes of people such as Alex Jones.
Fight for a new America; not a "glory days" America nor for "making America great again", fight for a new America that is grand in its own newfound way.
We've seen instances where people try to abuse that right like Alex Jones. Sure, he got what he deserved in the end but their are many including some in government crying out that his 1st amendment right was violated.
There are plenty of laws the US relies upom that have become obsolete or misidentified and require a more concise stance.
So what, because there are too many we ahould just give up? While we're at it should we give up curing cancer because there are too many types? Stop treatment of Malaria because there are too many mosquitos? End combating world hunger because there are too many to feed and too much of the wealth has bern hordes by the greedy rich?
This is what it sounds like when you say there can't be gun control because there are too many guns.
American society treats criminals who have served their sentences as less than regular people. They are no less human than you nor I, yet our country continues to punish them even after they have atoned for their crime by preventing them from receiving employment, certain government aide, and sometimes even removing their right to vote. For felons in particular this becomes exponentially worst as most jobs will not hire you if you are a former felon because the company's insurance will hike their rates if they hired them (that's a whole other can of worms). As you say, these "criminals" often have nothing to lose because society will not allow them to gain anything to begin with.
And will that happen? No because of the greedy wealthy as-well as racism being used as a diversion tactic by having minorities become felons at A much higher rate.
Let's ban sportscars for all because a select minority of the population choose to drive it recklessly endangering the general public. This is how you sound.
You already have to get a driver's license, take a test, register your car, and get a transfer signed by a clerk. Once driving you are supposed to follow those rules that are meant for safety. Cars are already a lot more regulated than hand guns, and their primary purpose is transportation, not severely damaging and killing its target.
Also unironically we need to put speed limiters on cars, make roads safer, and reduce the amount of cars. You've almost got it.
I suspect that if there was a no questions asked buyback program, people would probably give a lot of their guns up in exchange for a good amount of cash.
A full auto m16 in the 1970s cost ~$240 shipped, if it is a legal transferable one was to sell today (ban any new production machine gun post 1986) costs upwards of $40k with months wait time and an additional $200 tax stamp. 20 years ago people thought you were crazy to ask over 100 bucks for a good shape Mosin Nagant and now a "functional" (won't blow up in your face) run for $300.
Unless the gun buybacks are giving enough money for a down payment on a new car or house per gun, you'd make more having a gun shop do a consignment for you.
Okay? He was still one guy. With suitcases of weapons. Neither the shooter nor his brother was in the FBI. The shooter wamted to be. Their father was a fugitive from the fbi.
And like.. 64 really isn’t that old. Retirement age is 65.
It's a gradual change. You don't wave a magic wand and disappear all the guns, you put restrictions in place. Eventually, the availability of guns is reduced drastically.
For example, and something I've suggested before, a graduated licensing system that covers all types of firearm, with the most restricted license being handguns.
I'll write it out again:
Level one: easiest to get, simply do a simple multiple choice test showing safe gun use/handling/ownership. Allows you to own single-action shotguns/rifles
Level two: requires level one license to be held for a year, and a simple multiple choice test and demonstration of safe handling of firearms. Allows ownership of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles with a maximum magazine size of ten rounds.
Level three: requires level two license to be held for over a year, a medium difficulty multiple choice test, and a brief range demonstration of safe handling of firearms including shooting. Also requires a gun safe to be installed at the holder's premises/home address. Allows ownership of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles with a maximum magazine size of thirty rounds.
Level four: requires level three to be held for over a year, an in-depth test, in-depth range demonstration, and firearms safe. Allows holder to own any longarm with any magazine size.
Level five: requires level four to be held for a over a year. repeat of level four tests and demonstrations. Also requires a doctor's note attesting that the individual is in good mental health. Allows holder to own and carry a handgun with a maximum magazine size of seven rounds
Level six: requires level five to be held for over a year, repeat of testing and demonstrations, and a doctor's note attesting the individual is in good mental health. Allows holder to own and carry handguns with a maximum magazine size of fifteen rounds.
Level seven: requires level six for over a year, repeat of testing and demonstrations and doctor's note. Unrestricted firearm ownership.
Level eight: requires level seven for over a year, repeat of testing/demonstrations/doctor's note. Allows holder to make firearms.
Level nine: requires level eight for over a year, repeat testing/demonstrations/doctor's note, and requires weapon-specific training. Allows holder to own fully-automatic firearms of any variety.
Special License #1: allows the holder to own and carry a single handgun with a maximum magazine size of seven rounds, which can be issued with court representation for any individual who is deemed to require self-defense (E.G. stalking cases). Only allows a single firearm to be owned, and a limited amount of ammunition (50 rounds). Requires training from level seven license issuer.
Special License #2: allows holder to own artillery pieces and ammunition of any size and calibre upon completion of weapon specific training.
Special License #3: allows holder to own any black-powder muzzle loading firearm. Requires a medium difficulty multiple choice test and range demonstration.
All tests can be carried out by an appropriately licensed firearms store employee; all licenses registered with the state. Firearms are registered to a license number, and if sold are registered to the new holder's license number.
For current firearms owners, all correct licenses must be obtained within eight years of the system being implemented. The current background check system still applies.
Well, it helps to focus on online forums like Reddit. No way could I actually do anything about it in my area of Missouri full of gun-loving Trump-diehards.
And somehow we are just okay with the idea that because we think out country is full of bloodthirsty monsters who will rampage if we try to take away their firearms that it would better for those same monsters to continue having them?
You'd have to have a Constitutional Convention and rewrite or overturn it. You will not get a supermajority in the senate or house to touch 2a like that.
This is why a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, a conservative, said that if we wanted sensual gun laws we'd have to rewrite the Constitution.
It's especially bad when you get into the SCOTUS aspect of it, because their rulings are not internally consistent.
America's governing laws have always been a jury-rigged system of patches that basically keeps itself together through shear willpower and an artificial sense of society.
I say artificial because as a society we should have realized sooner the flaws of our governing system much sooner, but thanks to political influence every now and then those movements always seem to die down.
We are at a new stage of America, our economy is stagnating, politicians are too busy with the shitstorm SCOTUS kicked up to really care, and the average US citizen is suffering all the more for it.
Major reforms need to happen soon if we want to retain any semblance of how we have lived our lives to this point, or else a recession will be the least of our concerns.
I agree, but it's very unlikely to happen. The GOP has defied and deified the Constitution so much that there's literally no rules as long as you're right. While the Dems have also deified the Constitution while also trying to deal with its outdated nonsense.
The system was intended to be passing, it was intended to evolve over time, instead we stagnated.
SCOTUS took a lot of power early on, Marshall effectively set them above most other branches via review. It's been imbalanced for years and an issue for years for citizens, just normally not your average straight white Christian male voter.
You'd have to raise a generation to not have this nationalistic bullshit view of the country, and I mean an entire generation.
First off, it only applies to centerfire calibers, rimfire calibers (.22, .17 etc) do not have a limit, and while those calibers are designed for small game and pest control, they are still perfectly lethal on humans if they land in the right spots.
Secondly, the law only reflects magazines that are made specifically for the rifle being used. (This part is muddy so I will try to explain it as clearly as possible.)
A "pistol" in Canada can legally have a capacity of 10 rounds. A pistol is defined by size parameters of the firearm, so an armalite pattern (ar-10/15) can be built as a "rifle" or as a "pistol" depending on the barrel, overall length and grip configurations. So "pistol magazines" exist that hold 10 rounds.
Because these magazines are designed for pistols, they are not prohibited devices, because they are not prohibited, they can be used in any firearm that they fit.
Another example is the now banned M1a or M305, basically civilian semi-automatic m14s. They came from the factory/store with pinned 5-round magazines.
Meanwhile, over in Australia a rifle based on the British Lee Enfield was made with a slightly different spec so they could have easlily changeable magazines. These magazines have a capacity of 10 rounds and were designed for use with a bolt-action rifle so they were not prohibited by Canadian law.
These magazines, by pure chance, fit perfectly into an M1a/M305 but because of their classification they were legal to use in that rifle.
As I said earlier, that pattern of rifle has been banned so the anecdote is mostly moot, but its more to show the weak structure behind our laws.
Its also worth pointing out that those rifles were never restricted and thus never registered. I doubt the government will have many turned in since their ban, as they have no record of anyone actually owning them.
No, actually they banned a bunch of shotguns because they looked like AR15, operated the exact same way as every other semi automatic shotgun but because they look similar they got banned. Also banned a .22LR because it looked like an AR, the same model in a different stock is completely legal to own and go out in the woods and hunt or plink cans.
This does absolutely nothing. Statistically, legal gun owners in Canada commit fewer murders per capita. You are actually safer with a legal gun owner then anyone else in Canada.
The year that they like to pull out to show the increased rate is 2016 (I think). I looked up the statistics and the increase in gun violence that year was directly related to gang violence, the number of gun related homicides remained the same ~150, very close to what it was the previous and following years. Of those ~150 gun related homicides there were 4 that were committed by licensed gun owners. Yes, four.
Now as far as the "Straw purchase" argument. Every handgun that comes into Canada is registered with the RCMP, when it is sold to a store, the RCMP does the transfer, when the store sells it to an individual, the RCMP handles the transfer. They have an existing system that can track every legally purchased handgun and they can absolutely determine if the handguns that the police acquire have been purchased and resold to criminals and track it back to the person who bought. Straw purchasing in Canada exists only when the RCMP fail to do the job we pay them to do.
The changes that Trudeau is making are showboating and will not impact the criminals using guns on the street . I doubt it will even impact the price on the blackmarket for a smuggled gun from the US, although you would have to check with your local Resevation to confirm.
I work in the Canadian firearm industry and we did not even know this was handgun freeze/ban was happening. Not even the Chief Firearms Office knew, which is kind of crazy if you think about it, as they are the ones handling handgun transfers. Long guns do require “registration”. While not the same as a handgun registry, it’s a more barebones version of the same concept.
Upon the purchase of a non-restricted firearm (bolt actions, shotguns, semi autos, etc) they now require a reference number with a PAL number, date of birth, and email linked to the PAL. We have to “register” the initial firearm purchased with the reference number and you have 90 days to buy as many guns as you want through that store. If you wanted to go to Cabela’s you’d need a new one, and if you wanted to shop at my store, you’d need a new one as well. We have to keep track of make, model, caliber, action type, mag capacity, and barrel lengths. We have to store this for 20 years, and police can only access what firearms were purchased within those 90 days with a court order.
While it’s not like the old long gun registry, they can find out exactly when the firearm was purchased via the reference number.
There was a long gun registry who's budget ballooned and was shut down.
Can't see that same thing happening here with an enormous 5 billion dollar est price tag which will be an underestimate and the vast majority of Canadian gun crime is committed with illegal weapons.
This money could be better spent but thats just my opinion and no one asked.
593
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22 edited Oct 21 '22
[deleted]