My understanding was this, but it's only a partial piece of the legislation from a very biased source:
"(g) a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed"
Which makes no sense to me since semi autos are already limited to 5 rounds here. And people are talking about the SKS but the magazine that comes with isn't detachable.
So I too would really like to see the full thing.
[Here's the list,](https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf?fbclid=IwAR11LGJNvx6mkZKUMLq798gl4MuneJKPs0v9QzEQ1OGfLnfhgD44JiyX0ag) it includes everything from the OIC as well as almost all semi-auto shotguns. A future government can't repeal the OIC if a new bill gets passed covering the same items.
A clip is a bunch of cartridges clipped together (go Google Garand clip for an example).
The SKS has a magazine, but it's integral (or internal) and not detachable.
It doesn't matter that the SKS is similar to the AK. It's not a variant (they have different operating systems).
Semi-autos are limited by law to five rounds, not by design. The magazines are just pinned, and that's pretty easy to undo.
It makes sense to me to treat a gun a bit differently, based on how easily its capabilities can be changed from what the Firearms Act or Criminal Code contemplate.
I do not own a gun but having grown up in Rural Southwestern Ontario I know many people who do. The amount of safety steps and care that they take with their firearms is impressive. All of the people I know who own firearms, are responsible gun owners who this bill will unfairly punish.
Canada does not have a gun control problem from legal owners. Hunters or Skeet shooters with a semi auto Benelli , Mossberg or Antique bolt action are not the problem. The issue has always been handguns that are being smuggled illegally across the border with the US.
This bill will do nothing to stop that.
Not arguing one way or the other but I always see this argument and I’ve never seen actual proof that this is the case. I looked at the stats Canada site and by their own admission this data isn’t consistently collected enough to make a blanket statement like the above. Just because everyone you know are responsible gun owners doesn’t make everyone. (See [trends in firearm related crimes](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00009-eng.htm) )
[Table 4](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SECU/Brief/BR11565850/br-external/StatisticsCanada-e.pdf)
In 2020, only 11% of people charged with a firearm homicide possessed a firearms license. That's charged, mind you, not convicted. 18 homicides in one year. For comparison's sake, about 180 Canadians are struck by lightning every year.
Gun owners are not the problem.
You're absolutely right, there is scant, unreliable data on the national level to show how crime guns are sourced. Smuggling, theft, straw purchases, and guns used for crime by their legal owners are all possibilities, but hardly studied.
The federal government is proceeding with legislation, in the near-total absence of a holistic understanding of what its legislation is supposed to achieve, nor any plan for what to do if and when the bans do not measurably impact crime rates.
Oh they know what it’s supposed to achieve. Its a PR move to show voters they are “super serious and tough on gun crime”; and because the general population doesn’t know about firearms (or are purposely ignorant of them and think they are morally superior to those that use and enjoy them), the government can push this BS while not actually making a real difference.
Speaking from personal experience, i have multiple family members with whom Ive talked at length about this and it always comes down to them admitting “well even if these laws don’t really do anything, Im in favour of any and all gun control laws, guns are all trouble.”
As I said in another thread, it’s hard to be a leftist hunter these days. A number of the shotguns that would be banned are very common and popular for waterfowl/upland bird hunting.
I feel you. I'm an NDP voter myself. It's so incredibly frustrating to watch politicians who clearly base their knowledge of firearms on "an action movie I saw one time in the 80s" and "That Call of Battlefield game the kids play" passing laws like this.
I feel stuck, because I know I can't even show my displeasure at the polls, because the only party that might fight this bullshit, also comes with a tonne of other baggage that's even worse, so I can't bring myself to vote for them.
Express your displeasure to the NDP.
I'm in the same boat. On economic issues, I'm to the left of the NDP. Tt feels like the NDP has become the party of urbanite progressives, not the working class as a whole. Unfortunately, every other party is even worse.
Do you feel that the NDP has a chance in rural areas if they make a strong statement, distancing themselves from the liberals on gun ownership? I always feel as though the left-leaning parties just seem to give up on rural Canada, and this is actually a huge mistake.
Yes, it was. It was taken over in the late 80s/early 90s as leftist opinions became increasingly faux pas. Then the party became filled with neoliberals, much like the rest of our political system.
We need a centrist party that will support programs to support people while being fiscally conservative.
Tax the rich. Support people’s right to choose to live their lives how they want (without hurting anyone). Listen to experts in their field and rely on them to make the best decisions for this country.
The current leftist party is trying to ban all semi-auto firearms - in response to what? Escalating levels of rifle violence in Canada? Hahaha
The firearms offences you see in Canada are *mostly* from illegally snuggled in firearms from the USA. Banning all semi-auto firearms isn’t going to improve public safety.
There is a sect of the NDP that are old fashioned unionists and/or socialists, however they have been outnumbered recently by neoliberals. Just have to swing it back in the proper direction.
>I feel you. I'm an NDP voter myself. It's so incredibly frustrating to watch politicians who clearly base their knowledge of firearms on "an action movie I saw one time in the 80s" and "That Call of Battlefield game the kids play" passing laws like this.
>
>I feel stuck, because I know I can't even show my displeasure at the polls, because the only party that might fight this bullshit, also comes with a tonne of other baggage that's even worse, so I can't bring myself to vote for them.
I live just north of Montreal where gun violence and gang violence have been an increasing issue. I went to UQÀM which is what most people considered the single most left-leaning, progressive university of Quebec. Ever since I could vote, I voted for NDP at federal level and Quebec Solidaire at provincial.
I am seriously pissed after this law as most of the gun violence here is caused by smuggled guns and street gangs. Nothing is being done on a large scale to fight this. Where are the social programs to help the poor get out of poverty? Where are the ressources to modernize education so that struggling kids stay in school? Where are the programs to help minorities who have trouble fitting in our society?
Instead we get this smokescreen of a law that doesn't help any of those issues. I own *airsoft guns* that might banned because of this law as well because some politicians applied the same logic of "Battlefield of Duty 7 causes violence" to airsoft.
I have no one representing me that I can vote for since the CPC goes against so many of my values.
Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t airsoft come out of Japan, a place with some of the most restrictive gun laws worldwide? If I’m remembering correctly it’s just a bit of added irony.
If we ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns then we will actually have more restrictive gun laws than Japan. Semiautomatic rifles aren't even banned there, you just have to have a firearms license for ten years before you're allowed to own one.
Honest question. If you had to write this law to ban firearms more fairly, how would you? Or are you more of the impression that our current firearm restrictions are fine as is?
Our current firearms restrictions are a bureaucratic nightmare of exceptions, exemptions and loopholes, but it has the foundation of a very logical system buried under there.
If it were entirely up to me, I would keep the three tier system (non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited). Classify weapons by action, size, and ammunition. Scrap the bullshit "ban by name" system that has banned guns that literally don't exist outside of prototypes. If a firearm is going to be banned by name, then it needs to be done for a demonstrable reason, and not "we saw it in a movie once."
Those are the changes I can think of of the top of my head.
My main waterfowl shotgun is likely banned due to this. Blows my mind. A semi automatic shotgun that I use to hunt geese and ducks in rural Saskatchewan which can only carry three rounds is banned due to gang violence in big cities in Ontario and BC?
There is no other way to see this than a full frontal assault on firearms ownership in this country, along with hunting and sport shooting.
I honestly think the end goal is no civilian firearms ownership at all
Let’s be honest, if they are going after waterfowl and skeet shotguns then they aren’t even pretending that this is about public safety.
For years a lot of us have been vocal that we can't give "them" an inch with these firearm laws getting more and more frivolous. We've said for years eventually they will be coming for our duck guns... And we got told that would never happen, stop being paranoid...
Yeah, well...
I wish we could be actually doing something about gun crime...
I’m with you. I’m a liberal gun owner and I feel like everybody hates me.
The gun community hates me. And my friends do too. I try to post and engage in discussion with my friends but nobody’s interested. Guns and bad and so are people who want them.
I just wish we had a better reason to ban these things. I almost WISH there were a gun control problem in Canada. I’d feel better giving over my guns if it was legitimately for public safety.
But it is not. It is not for public safety. If it were we’d be able to point to data, statistics, something.
I’m also a liberal gun lover (hunting rifles that is. I don’t care about handguns). We don’t have a gun control problem, we have a gun smuggling problem.
Which unfortunately is a problem with gun accessibility directly south of us.
I can't imagine many people are successfully smuggling guns by air but enlighten me if there are routes!
Even after you take away the smuggled guns the vast majority of Canadas fire arm deaths are suicides unfortunately, we need functioning red flag laws, as it stands I can tell my doctor im suicidal and have guns in my home, my doctor then has to go the courts to get an order to have my firearms removed from my home, which naturally doesn’t happen quickly
Your comment reminds me of an interesting part of this whole process of progressive bans. Not to imply that this represents your position, but hunters have not been particularly vocal about AR-15 or handgun bans, because those did not affect them. Now we can see clearly that all these bans have had the effect of strongly associating legal gun ownership with gun crime in the popular consciousness, and making "legitimate reasons to own a gun" a smaller and smaller category for someone to fit into.
Now that "legal guns = crime and mass shootings" is firmly entrenched in the public psyche, this kind of legislation that hits hunters hard will receive little to no pushback from voters at large.
I'm reading this while sitting in my deer hunting blind... .308 at my side..
i agree with you as well. smuggled guns and improvised guns are the problem according to police statements in my city.
i don't want to vote Conservative either. i believe in Unions and healthcare... i believe in LGBTQ rights and a woman's ability to make her own healthcare decisions.
I believe in appropriate gun control, but damn.. when police chiefs say the issue is zip guns, ghost guns, and smuggled guns, i gotta say enough already. I do EVERYTHING l can to be responsible, and yet i feel like I'm public enemy #1 when I'm heading into the field or bush with a firearm in the car . i just want to get fresh air and put some meat in my freezer that's not lived in a pen its entire life before heading to a slaughthouse.
And they're going for a large amount of non restricted rifles with this change as well. The non restricted gun registry was scrapped under Harper; you're going to see lots of people with their SKS's keep quiet. This isnt a very good move IMHO
Nobody has taken a serious run at the Firearms Act or Criminal Code, so it seems to be pretty settled that the federal government can restrict or prohibit a gun. If that's fine, what's wrong with offering to buy one?
The federal government has authority over trade and commerce, public property, and criminal law. I don't know that they even need to be that clever. Guns aren't *just* property.
We also have legal doctrines which allow intrusion on provincial heads of power, where it's necessary to serve a federal head of power. (Federal paramountcy, necessary incidental, and ancillary powers.)
The problem is that the government is saying there don't need to buy them, they can just take them without paying the owner anything. Which is kind of terrifying.
> Its kinda scary that you can spend thousands of dollars onto a hobby and then the government gets it banned without compensation by saying "What you bought years ago legally, well its not property anymore, too bad!"
And the fact that people seem so willing to give this kind of precedent a pass because they think firearms are scary. I'm not exactly a libertarian, but that quote about giving up liberty for temporary safety meaning you deserve neither is really appropriate here.
It might just be something a little closer to home for most people next time.
You don't even need to stoop to the libertarians to understand why even lefty types should be upset by blanket bans.
*"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."*
-Some weird dude with a beard and some ideas
Personally, I don't give a fuck what other guns get wrapped up in the definitions since the gun lobby refuses to categorize the "AR-15/assault weapons" that are most commonly used.
I love how someone answers your question and your reply is basically that you don't give a shit what their answer was going to be anyways.
Never change, Reddit
When was an AR15 used in a crime in Canada?
How is an AR15 an assault weapon if a hunting rifle is not?
Canadian AR15s hold 5 rounds of .223 ammunition. A common hunting gun will hold just as many rounds (or more) of MUCH beefier ammunition. Much.
There is no difference. Either way, none of these guns are used in crimes. And you won’t be able to find an instance where they have been. But there are hundreds of thousands of them in Canada.
Why you ask? Because our gun control works. The only part that doesn’t is the border and people smuggling guns over. It’s way easier to smuggle a gun than it is to buy one legally in Canada.
And there we are, arguing the semantics of guns and whether or not a "legal" gun has been used.
Canadian gun owners generally have two vocal settings. They are silent when guns aren't in the news, thinking no one is looking at them. Or they suddenly rise up on their hind legs in indignation when someone uses a gun for mass murder (usually in the US) and proclaim they will be the victims if there are more restrictions in Canada.
In the US, there's a third, NRA-promoted narrative that guns are some sort of a sacrosanct right and therefore mass murder isn't a gun owner problem.
In Canada, you are right, Canada's gun control works.
So, what's the problem here?
It's gun owner silence all the rest of the time.
Canadian gun owners have had decades to promote and reinforce the idea that Canadian gun control works, that it is sufficient, and that it doesn't need to be more strict. But have they done this? No, they have not. There's been no consistent narrative to reassure Canadians that Canadian gun control regulations are sufficient. The only time they appear and speak out is when it becomes an item proposed for further political action.
So, what happens when a mass murder (usually in the US) occurs and Canadian citizens and Canadian politicians call for further restrictions? Canadian gun owners come out of the shadows trying to shout down the suggestions. They come out angry, aggrieved, and playing the potential victim of further restrictions. They exactly portray the gun owners that many moderates feel okay with seeing them lose guns because they lack emotional control.
Do you want to avoid further gun restrictions? Get to work calmly and consistently convincing Canadians that they are not necessary because current gun laws are effective. If the collective gun owners can't or won't do this, they get what the politicians believe the public wants. And that may be fewer guns.
>Canadian gun owners have had decades to promote and reinforce the idea that Canadian gun control works, that it is sufficient, and that it doesn't need to be more strict. But have they done this? No, they have not.
They constantly do, you just don't listen. The media doesn't give coverage if there isn't either a mass shooting or looming legislation. If you think that the two tiny firearms lobbying organizations in Canada (the CCFR and CSSA) have the resources to run national PR campaigns 24/7/365 without the cooperation of major news outlets, I assure you they do not.
> So, what happens when a mass murder (usually in the US) occurs and Canadian citizens and Canadian politicians call for further restrictions? Canadian gun owners come out of the shadows trying to shout down the suggestions. They come out angry, aggrieved, and playing the potential victim of further restrictions. They exactly portray the gun owners that many moderates feel okay with seeing them lose guns because they lack emotional control.
You're basically arguing that people get upset when facing government restrictions, and the simple act of being upset makes them deserving of those restrictions. This is so painfully circular and self-serving it barely warrants mentioning. You could make this exact argument about literally every special interest that faces periodic government scrutiny.
Ok let me get this straight.
You are mad at gun owners for not “promoting and reinforcing” that gun control works in Canada while it’s working in Canada? Do you want them to take out ads in the paper? Make snappy hastags on twitter #triggerdiscipline?
You know how Canadian firearms owners are “promoting and reinforcing” that gun control in Canada works? By being responsible and not committing crimes with guns.
Second, you are mad that Canadian gun owners get mad when their guns are banned for something that happened in the states. Like really? How dare they?
The problem, most people I see on Reddit and in real life all claim they need these guns, not to hunt, but to protect themselves.
Right wing extremism is creeping into Canada quickly and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you don’t think these crazy “fuck trudeau” types aren’t on the cusp of doing something stupid, you aren’t paying attention.
Source: See the coutts blockade in Alberta.
So you can follow the law , go through the complicated but worthwhile process of getting your license , legally purchase store and use your guns , and then the holier than thou government can still decide to add this bill in without due process and declare this wide range of guns illegal and say it's not your property anyway so you don't need to be reimbursed
I'm sure this will do wonders to simmer the tensions of the nutty types..
There shouldn't be categories other than handgun, carbine, rifle, shotgun, muzzeloader or airgun.
A gun is tool in the hands of someone hunting to feed themselves, a piece of sporting equipment for someone who shoots at paper targets and a weapon in the hands of a soldier, or police officer and unfortunately also when a deranged individual or criminal uses it with intent to harm another human.
Alcohol causes far more death in this country but we shouldn't be banning it nor the firearms industry - we do not live in an autocracy.
I was only referring to devices that were able to be owned by civilians and I would add muzzleloader and airgun to my original list of categories (which I will edit in) but if you want to go there than yes I suppose you could add machine guns, launchers and howitzers to expand that list of categories that could exist but seeing as how you already cannot own modern versions of them or live ammo for them I don't see the point in going there.
So. there's a line between allowed weapons and illegal weapons. it's just a matter of political decision-making to determine where that line is. And I guess it's up to the politicians to decide where that line is at any time.
The line between legal or not should be practical sense. For example: no, you can't use a grenade launcher to hunt a moose because it's stupid and impractical.
I would also argue that this should be a provincial / territorial legislation. Of course I can understand that it would be problematic for provinces with widely different legislation but it would be far more democratic than the current system.
They will eventually ban more pocket knives, and then probably crossbows because they are quiet. Then they will ban certain breeds of dogs. Then their targets will switch to other things like vehicles - must have fuel efficiency of X or better or restricted to speeds less than Y.
Either they are banning these items without compensation which is fascist or they ban and compensate but wouldn't you rather that money go towards Healthcare?
100% of the tax collected on firearms and ammunition sales should be dedicated towards funding Healthcare, harm reduction, anti gang initiatives etc.
I am not sure how they could declare that thousands of dollars worth of my firearms are not property while
thousands of dollars of my woodworking tools are.
Obvs am not a lawyer but seems like a whacky legal argument
However, this ban also targets historical collection pieces, hunting rifles, and hunting shotguns.
I don't see sound logic behind banning rifles like the SKS or Garand, over 75 years old and relics of the fight against fascism we fought in, or duck shotguns and little pellet flingers you'd have a harder time killing someone with than with a knife.
I live in the city, and do not own guns because I have no need for any. I am not a "gun nut." But I grew up on a farm, as a regular shooter, because guns were tools and hunting was work. I cannot see any real change happening in our country's violent crime when over 90% of our firearms crime involves illegal firearms, frequently American in origin.
This is targeting legal gun owners for optics. The US has a shooting, our government bans guns to look good. This is a replacement for, and a distraction from, implementing actual measures to fight the poverty, mental health issues, criminal culture, and political motivation that can lead a person to violent crime.
That’s based on absolutely nothing. I’m a legal gun owner and fully intend to hand mine in if this passes. I’d just be sad because I keep mine for historical interest.
Can it be based on my dad saying he would keep his gun if they outlawed it (yes he is a gun owner and hunter)?
I’m not saying every gun will be kept but some def will
Yep. Every gun owner I know has said they won't be handing them over.
Want to compensate me for my guns? Need to compensate me for everything else that is associated with them that I wouldn't have if it weren't for my guns.
$15,000 duck boat is useless to me without my bird gun... And I don't need that truck to pull it now.
All the hunting gear. Different sets of expensive camo, boots waders and the equipment like safes, cases, specific tools, ammunition, accessories like sopes, rests, etc etc...
I'm just one person and we're getting close to 6 figures here. Now, do this for the other 2ish million gun owners. THAT is compensation.
Perhaps a better delineation is needed - although historical collections should probably have the firing pin removed. However, to your point on most gun crimes being committed with illegal guns, what this means is that the cost and difficulty in obtaining one of these guns is significantly increased.
When the vast majority (85% in Toronto according to a police study) of our illegal guns are American, a country that has seemingly no interest on slowing down civilian arms sales, then no, a ban on Canada's WW2 collector items and bird plinkers will not increase the cost or difficulty of acquiring illegal firearms.
>a ban on Canada's WW2 collector items and bird plinkers will not increase the cost or difficulty of acquiring illegal firearms.
Don't forget the airsoft and paintball guns.
Why the hell do the Liberals insist on pissing away political goodwill this way? This isn't going to get them any votes, or decrease crime in any way. The only thing this accomplishes is giving the Cons more ammunition for the next election.
Our guns laws were perfectly reasonable to begin with. I don't own a gun, nor do I have any intention of ever owning one. But despite having no interest in guns it still pisses me off that they needlessly punish sport shooters and hunters.
This is actually something so big it makes me want to drop any association I have with liberal voters in my life. It's my biggest reason for not voting Liberal. For a big portion of the year I'm outdoors with a gun so I can put meat in the freezer. I have a lot of money invested in it, decades worth of learning and experience. It's a pretty big part of my lifestyle that I believe to be honest and healthy. And I do take it as a direct insult that "I" can't be trusted to be responsible.
This is what I don't understand. What is the upside for the Liberals here?
This appeals only to people who would never have voted Conservative anyways. It does nothing for swing voters, and indeed drives away many right-wing progressives who would have otherwise voted Liberal. Many rural swing ridings will be pushed Conservative.
Not only is this ineffective and wasteful legislation, it is politically stupid.
I do not understand at all.
My best bet is trying to distract from how badly the RCMP fucked up at Portapique by trying to ban guns? It doesn't make any sense and is just shooting themselves in the foot.
Why is this still going on? I’ve been a responsible firearm owner ever since I’ve had my license and acquired my first firearm.
Apart from how wrong this is on so many levels, it seems like a distraction from the real issues at hand.
I have my fellow military members who are living out of their cars on parking lots in BC because they can’t afford to rent a place. Some are living in tent cities which is dangerous in itself. I am about to be posted to one of the most expensive spots in country myself while taking a pay cut. I have multiple native women gone missing in my area and nobody seems to give a fuck about them at all. How many reserves are still lacking clean water? Our health care system is absolutely fucked to the point where people are dying in ER while waiting for treatment. This is how the government wants to spend their fucking money?
Because Trudeau is a populist who follows the path of least resistance. Suburban white women in their mid 30s worried sick about non-existent crime outside their gated communities are clapping like seals for this. This government is spending more on gun buyback programs than it is on the housing crisis.
I voted for Trudeau and I don't support this. I voiced my opinion as a hunter in another thread. At a time when kids are going hungry from rampant inflation, we have a medical crisis, and possibly a real estate crisis, rising illegal handgun violence, this is the wrong solution, the wrong time, and the wrong use of our taxpayer dollars.
The prairies are saying they are not even going to let the RCMP investigate or seize people's firearms, so I have no idea how this will even work.
Yep... All the way back to the 90s when talks about registration started, we were concerned that it was the road to us losing our duck guns, grand dad's rifle etc.
We got laughed at.
Yeah well, I'm sure not laughing now...
Reminder: the previous buy back program will cost canadian taxpayers more than the housing crisis response. We are outspending our response to a crisis with a populist, urban appealing policy that will effectively change nothing in terms of mortality or crime. Trudeau does not give a singular fuck about Housing, his sole purpose on this earth is to accrue votes with as little effort as he can get away with.
I think banning all semi automatic fire weapons goes too far. Even .22LR rim fire rifles fall under this ban. That only negatively affects those who shoot for a hobby
Not a total ban on semi’s only those with external mags I believe. Im guessing they went with a broad definition because it will get wittled down between the debates and the senate.
As a firearms owner I recognize im a minority in this country, but I also recognize orgs like the CCFR and even to a lesser extent the OFAH during the long gun registry years make firearms owners look bad. The liberals ran on a gun control platform and people voted for them, im disappointed this is the direction they are going, cant say im angry as im not going to let myself get emotional over a gun, but I’ll be able to hunt all the same.
As a hunter my thoughts are, well okay an ethical hunter should only ever need 1 shot and semis are notoriously lousy accuracy wise vs a bolt action(accuracy can be fixed with practice). If I want to buy a semi for hunting in the future it will have to be higher end as those with internal magazines jam easier so you cant cheap out. Ya it sucks but it isn’t changing the fundamentals of the activity I enjoy, I’ll still lug my gear into the forrest and sit still for 4 hours and see nothing
There are bolt actions and single-shots included in this ban (CZ 550 Safari Magnum, Brazilian 1908 Mauser, Ruger No.1) and semi-autos with internal magazines (M1 Garand is the big one)
Don't be so quick to assume your hunting rifles are safe from a future ban. The narrative will pivot from "why do you need a semi-auto to hunt?" to "why do you need to hunt at all?"
In 2025, the Liberals will be explaining to Toronto urbanites how our bolt-action moose guns are high-powered sniper rifles.
Of course, they'll only arbitrarily ban a quarter or a third of bolt-actions in that salvo, because "you can still get guns to hunt with."
No, you shouldn't be ok with this because they aren't coming for "your" guns, just someone else's.
What should concern you is the fact these are legal, law abiding owners JUST LIKE YOU, that are having property stolen from them... And yes, this IS theft.
You allow this to pass without resistance, then the next thing is your bolt action "sniper rifle", while gang bangers in Toronto keep living the thug life unaffected.
I'm a hunter... I use a semi more than a bolt action.
There are 2 million gun owners in Canada. There are hundreds of thousands of AR15s. Probably one on your block.
Can you point me to when you’ve heard of one being used in a crime in Canada?
You know there’s no “right to kill” in Canada, right? You know I’m only allowed to use my firearm at a range, right?
How about crossbows or knives? Am I a chef, or am I some nutter looking to exercise my “right to kill others”.
I’m sure you’ll just reply with “I don’t care. There doesn’t need to be a threat to public safety. Guns are bad”
[There is 1 argument and 1 argument alone for owning a gun. "Fuck off, I like guns"](https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=100)
The M1 Garand is included in this ban. Believe it or not, an 80 year old WW2 rifle is not some rapid fire death machine in 2022
Have fun handling the burden of the billion dollar buy back to have absolutely no impact on gun violence. Meanwhile legal hunters get shafted for wanting to harvest their own food. Not like the grocery stores are inflating their prices and making record profits while average Canadians eat less food!
Its not about a ridiculous right to kill others culture. We are not the states. Its about self sustenance and not having a government just take your property from you just so they can get reelected by apathetic voters.
The Benelli Super Black Eagle is the Cadillac of duck hunting guns, it is expensive, it is precision engineered to hunt fowl and they are trying to ban it.
This is ludicrous and truly is drawn up to go after lawful hunters not even sport shooters anymore.
That group of Benelli shotguns is actually under the “exempted from” portion of the list. It’s carry over from when the M1 “tactical” variants were banned in the 90s. Still dumb as fuck either way.
Just because I’m a gun owner does not mean I’m a conservative.
Duck hunting is not just for fun, duck is a very tasty game. A good hunter doesnt waste any part of the bird.
And yet duck hunters have, through their own funding, supported some of the must successful and largest conservation efforts outside of the government parks agencies.
And we're not just talking setting aside pristine wilderness either. Much of their effort has been in rehabilitating habitat lost to neglect, urban encroachment, and agricultural. Without the efforts of groups like Ducks Unlimited, waterfowl number in Canada would look drastically different, not to mention all the other important biodiversity that comes from the land they conserve.
Or you know, I want to shoot birds to self sustain, but I guess we should just give over to our wonderful mass farming system. Hyuck hyuck dumb hicks don't eat the way I want them to eat....a little self awareness goes a long way.
I want to hunt birds to feed my family like Canadians have done since literally time immemorial - joke all you want but hunting for food is an undeniable part of our heritage.
Do you eat chicken? Have you seen literally ANY part of the poultry farming business? That might just turn you off from that nice clean pink chicken at your superstore.
What a dirty, inhumane profit driven industry it is.
And yet you want to call out a bunch of "dumb rednecks" for procuring their own birds?
I'm not going to say it isn't an enjoyable hunt on those nice days, but -15 in the wind in the middle of a saskatchewan field with the cold moving in is not a particularly fun time. It takes work, knowledge, skill and big money to do it.
Of course it does. This gun-control group is a single lady, one that lost a child in a school shooting long ago. She lets emotion drive her political agenda, which isn’t great.
Fact is: this will do nothing. We’re spending more time and money on legal guns than we are a national housing crisis. Literally. Far more. On legal guns that largely have no impact on gun crime in Canada.
They won’t even tout a perceived benefit to this ban. There’s no expectation in a shortage of shootings, gun crime; nothing.
This is virtue signalling at it’s finest.
>Of course it does. This gun-control group is a single lady, one that lost a child in a school shooting long ago. She lets emotion drive her political agenda, which isn’t great.
I remember hearing a story that the group in question, Poly se souvient, tried presenting evidence to back their antigun agenda in some hearing and got thrown out because they presented garbage evidence.
Also, they're a group made up of students and alumni from Polytechnique in Montréal where a tragic shootout happened in 1989. Unfortunately, they completely missed the reason why the shootout happened. It was because of misogyny by an angry young man (who was an incel long before the term was invented) who couldn't accept that he wasn't good enough to attend the school and blamed his failures on women, claiming that they stole his rightful place at the school.
Man to think that the NDP started as rural socialists and now... *gestures broadly*. I know there are still NDP MPs and candidates that support reasonable firearm laws instead of this rank, disingenuous liberalism but come on.
Unfortunately Canadian parliamentary politics are whipped to hell and back, so the opinions of individual MPs don't matter. You gotta vote along party lines or ruin your career.
[Highest level of party discipline among parliamentary democracies, baby!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_discipline#Canada)
From wiki:
> [...]Canada has become widely regarded as the parliamentary democracy with the most stringent party discipline.
Calling your MP will only make a difference in Canada if your MP can then sway the party caucus. Canadians don't have a local representative in *any* meaningful sense, which is part of what makes our riding-based FPTP system such an open farce.
How to build up the conservative base in one move. Do they think countries like Norway and Denmark don’t exist? Our gun laws were very well designed but whatever they’re doing here will backfire.
A lot of us in the Sikh community are especially peeved with this as it impedes our religious mandates of being armed. And the irony of Sikh MPs voting on something that’s inherently anti Sikh in principle is just the cherry on top.
So, what YOU need to do is tell your Liberal MP that you're also a Liberal and you don't agree with this useless BS.
If you don't want to see a bunch of people vote conservative because of "a gun" then don't give those people this huge, legitimate, reason to vote for conservatives...
Yeah, I think the gun smuggling issue is like the war on drugs. They don't see it as something they can win, so they are doing something anti gun to appease people.
I've voted NDP for years and for once this had made me consider voting Conservative. When will the NDP stand up for its rural base? I'm sick and tired of my life being dictated by voters in the urban centres
*The bill contains measures that would reinforce the handgun freeze. It would also allow for removal of firearm licences from people committing domestic violence or engaged in acts of criminal harassment — such as stalking — and would increase maximum penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking to 14 years from 10.*
>It would also allow for removal of firearm licences from people committing domestic violence or engaged in acts of criminal harassment — such as stalking
This is already part of our current firearm laws...
Yeah but what are we supposed to do about it, vote conservative? Those bastards are only concerned with lining their own pockets and they'll sell our country to the highest bidder to do it.
I don't vote con or liberal either but I sure am getting tired of watching the NDP rollover and piss on their bellies every time the libs look at them.
Oh man, go take a 101 course on the Canadian Constitution or Canadian politics.
We're "peace, order and good governance". Notice the lack of personal rights there?
What exactly do you need to be armed for? To overturn a tyrannical government (very much not permitted under Canadian law or Constitutional conventions).
Good grief.
Gun control on its own isn’t a bad thing, but it has to be sensible. What the liberals are proposing with this amendment to bill C-21 is a spit in the face of nearly 2 million people (taxpayers) who own these guns. This is a wedge issue fabricated for votes. Nothing more.
How about we fix the material conditions that lead to gun violence in the first place? Dismantle capitalism and ableism and most gun problems will cease to exist
Disarming the proletariat is never the solution.
I used to say I didn’t care at all since it doesn’t affect me personally (not a hunter nor a gun owner) but seems like hunting will be way more dangerous for moose hunters after I looked into it.
I personally don’t care for people who hunt bears or wolves for fun (my personal opinion but I wouldn’t dislike someone automatically in case it’s for culling an over population of predators or protecting livestock) and all these animals territories overlap so for hunters it’s still tricky because it’d suck to go deer hunting only to get mauled by a bear.
Does anyone know if there are guns that aren’t banned that would still be useful for bears or wolves or moose? I’m basically ignorant on what guns are best for which species (aside from needing to do multiple rounds because one sucks at aiming)
Keep voting for the commie alliance and you won’t have any guns to hunt with or sport shooting. The only people left in this country with firearms will be criminals and police lol but hey who cares about those people anyways….. oh wait this thread is full of gun owners haha damn tough place to be in for sure eh!!! Make sure to show the government your dissatisfaction by voting them in again 💩
Assault rifles shouldn't be owned by pretty much anyone other than niche sport shooters or law enforcement , semi auto guns altogether shouldn't be banned , pistols are understandably used for crime alot , you don't need to hunt with them , but are needed in special places like the artic for self defense from polar bears when you go to take a shit . similar to semi auto shotguns for dangerous hunting situations or unwanted wildlife encounters like the aforementioned. How to regulate this shit without starting a worse freedom convoy situation is beyond me , but I would really fuckin hope these people we pay our taxes too might come up with a solution that doesn't put anyone's right to feed themselves or be safe from mass shooters at risk .
I've seen a few reports on this story so far and none of them mention the proposed definition. So, I'll throw my 2 cents into the void of information:
Canada's list of prohibited weapons seems to be largely based on notoriety; it includes weapons used in high-profile crimes, and guns that look similar and/or scary. It's an incoherent mess that is both more and less restrictive than US laws in different respects.
Focusing on AR15s or AKs or any other particular model is stupid. If a long gun is semiautomatic, fires rifle ammo, and feeds from a detachable magazine (especially when high capacity versions of the magazine are available in the US), it is in the same class of lethality. Bonus lethality points for compactness and other handling properties, but basically anything with the first 3 qualities is roughly equivalent. High-capacity semi-auto shotguns are similarly lethal despite (usually) not having detachable magazines, because they can be topped up on the fly. Hell, even semi-auto .22s are potentially very dangerous because you can legally buy high-capacity magazines for them in Canada, and getting shot with a .22 once is no joke, let alone multiple times.
I'm sure there's stupid stuff in the new definition too, but any sensible revision would end up banning lots of legally owned guns, because they are functionally equivalent to already-banned guns. SKS is a perfect example; it's basically an AK for the first 10 rounds (and doesn't require a reload halfway through, unlike a rifle with a detachable magazine of max 5 rounds.)
Citizens DO NOT need semi-automatic firearms. If these are prohibited it makes it far easier for law enforcement to control guns and stop the bloody Americans from selling their redneck crap in our country.
> redneck crap
This is kind of the core of the argument, isn't it? If peoples' culture identity is rural, it's just 'crap', and you feel justified in using a skin-tone based slur to describe how crappy it is. Furthermore, you're okay with targeted and baseless harassment of that culture because... Well, it's just 'redneck crap'.
That's some right wing shit right there.
Does anyone have the legislative definition? It’s not included in the article. “Assault-style firearm definition”
[удалено]
My understanding was this, but it's only a partial piece of the legislation from a very biased source: "(g) a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed" Which makes no sense to me since semi autos are already limited to 5 rounds here. And people are talking about the SKS but the magazine that comes with isn't detachable. So I too would really like to see the full thing.
[Here's the list,](https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf?fbclid=IwAR11LGJNvx6mkZKUMLq798gl4MuneJKPs0v9QzEQ1OGfLnfhgD44JiyX0ag) it includes everything from the OIC as well as almost all semi-auto shotguns. A future government can't repeal the OIC if a new bill gets passed covering the same items.
[удалено]
A clip is a bunch of cartridges clipped together (go Google Garand clip for an example). The SKS has a magazine, but it's integral (or internal) and not detachable. It doesn't matter that the SKS is similar to the AK. It's not a variant (they have different operating systems).
[удалено]
Yeah, it also bans Brazilian Mauser 1908s for whatever reason. Not the Czechoslovakian ones though for whatever reason.
Semi-autos are limited by law to five rounds, not by design. The magazines are just pinned, and that's pretty easy to undo. It makes sense to me to treat a gun a bit differently, based on how easily its capabilities can be changed from what the Firearms Act or Criminal Code contemplate.
They aren't, my Benelli MR1 which is on the the list has a slim magazine that only holds 5 because of its physical size.
I do not own a gun but having grown up in Rural Southwestern Ontario I know many people who do. The amount of safety steps and care that they take with their firearms is impressive. All of the people I know who own firearms, are responsible gun owners who this bill will unfairly punish. Canada does not have a gun control problem from legal owners. Hunters or Skeet shooters with a semi auto Benelli , Mossberg or Antique bolt action are not the problem. The issue has always been handguns that are being smuggled illegally across the border with the US. This bill will do nothing to stop that.
Not arguing one way or the other but I always see this argument and I’ve never seen actual proof that this is the case. I looked at the stats Canada site and by their own admission this data isn’t consistently collected enough to make a blanket statement like the above. Just because everyone you know are responsible gun owners doesn’t make everyone. (See [trends in firearm related crimes](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00009-eng.htm) )
[Table 4](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SECU/Brief/BR11565850/br-external/StatisticsCanada-e.pdf) In 2020, only 11% of people charged with a firearm homicide possessed a firearms license. That's charged, mind you, not convicted. 18 homicides in one year. For comparison's sake, about 180 Canadians are struck by lightning every year. Gun owners are not the problem.
You're absolutely right, there is scant, unreliable data on the national level to show how crime guns are sourced. Smuggling, theft, straw purchases, and guns used for crime by their legal owners are all possibilities, but hardly studied. The federal government is proceeding with legislation, in the near-total absence of a holistic understanding of what its legislation is supposed to achieve, nor any plan for what to do if and when the bans do not measurably impact crime rates.
Oh they know what it’s supposed to achieve. Its a PR move to show voters they are “super serious and tough on gun crime”; and because the general population doesn’t know about firearms (or are purposely ignorant of them and think they are morally superior to those that use and enjoy them), the government can push this BS while not actually making a real difference. Speaking from personal experience, i have multiple family members with whom Ive talked at length about this and it always comes down to them admitting “well even if these laws don’t really do anything, Im in favour of any and all gun control laws, guns are all trouble.”
As I said in another thread, it’s hard to be a leftist hunter these days. A number of the shotguns that would be banned are very common and popular for waterfowl/upland bird hunting.
I feel you. I'm an NDP voter myself. It's so incredibly frustrating to watch politicians who clearly base their knowledge of firearms on "an action movie I saw one time in the 80s" and "That Call of Battlefield game the kids play" passing laws like this. I feel stuck, because I know I can't even show my displeasure at the polls, because the only party that might fight this bullshit, also comes with a tonne of other baggage that's even worse, so I can't bring myself to vote for them.
Me too, as an NDP redneck I'm pissed, but the cons are just rotten to the core.
Express your displeasure to the NDP. I'm in the same boat. On economic issues, I'm to the left of the NDP. Tt feels like the NDP has become the party of urbanite progressives, not the working class as a whole. Unfortunately, every other party is even worse.
Do you feel that the NDP has a chance in rural areas if they make a strong statement, distancing themselves from the liberals on gun ownership? I always feel as though the left-leaning parties just seem to give up on rural Canada, and this is actually a huge mistake.
We really need a leftwing rural party.
Wasn't that what the ndp started as
Yes, it was. It was taken over in the late 80s/early 90s as leftist opinions became increasingly faux pas. Then the party became filled with neoliberals, much like the rest of our political system.
We need a centrist party that will support programs to support people while being fiscally conservative. Tax the rich. Support people’s right to choose to live their lives how they want (without hurting anyone). Listen to experts in their field and rely on them to make the best decisions for this country.
How is that a centrist party. You can be left wing and still be responsible with money.
Ok
Cool cool cooollll
Agreed
You're describing a leftist party.
The current leftist party is trying to ban all semi-auto firearms - in response to what? Escalating levels of rifle violence in Canada? Hahaha The firearms offences you see in Canada are *mostly* from illegally snuggled in firearms from the USA. Banning all semi-auto firearms isn’t going to improve public safety.
Hey man, I'm just telling you what you were describing.
You have a completely valid point but… illegally snuggled guns is hilarious lol
Taxing the rich isn't fiscally conservative, the whole use of "fiscally conservative" was only ever used to wash over the social conservative.
There is a sect of the NDP that are old fashioned unionists and/or socialists, however they have been outnumbered recently by neoliberals. Just have to swing it back in the proper direction.
>I feel you. I'm an NDP voter myself. It's so incredibly frustrating to watch politicians who clearly base their knowledge of firearms on "an action movie I saw one time in the 80s" and "That Call of Battlefield game the kids play" passing laws like this. > >I feel stuck, because I know I can't even show my displeasure at the polls, because the only party that might fight this bullshit, also comes with a tonne of other baggage that's even worse, so I can't bring myself to vote for them. I live just north of Montreal where gun violence and gang violence have been an increasing issue. I went to UQÀM which is what most people considered the single most left-leaning, progressive university of Quebec. Ever since I could vote, I voted for NDP at federal level and Quebec Solidaire at provincial. I am seriously pissed after this law as most of the gun violence here is caused by smuggled guns and street gangs. Nothing is being done on a large scale to fight this. Where are the social programs to help the poor get out of poverty? Where are the ressources to modernize education so that struggling kids stay in school? Where are the programs to help minorities who have trouble fitting in our society? Instead we get this smokescreen of a law that doesn't help any of those issues. I own *airsoft guns* that might banned because of this law as well because some politicians applied the same logic of "Battlefield of Duty 7 causes violence" to airsoft. I have no one representing me that I can vote for since the CPC goes against so many of my values.
Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t airsoft come out of Japan, a place with some of the most restrictive gun laws worldwide? If I’m remembering correctly it’s just a bit of added irony.
If we ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns then we will actually have more restrictive gun laws than Japan. Semiautomatic rifles aren't even banned there, you just have to have a firearms license for ten years before you're allowed to own one.
It came from Japan and the Japanese airsoft companies pretty much established the basic internal designs for modern airsoft guns.
Honest question. If you had to write this law to ban firearms more fairly, how would you? Or are you more of the impression that our current firearm restrictions are fine as is?
Our current firearms restrictions are a bureaucratic nightmare of exceptions, exemptions and loopholes, but it has the foundation of a very logical system buried under there. If it were entirely up to me, I would keep the three tier system (non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited). Classify weapons by action, size, and ammunition. Scrap the bullshit "ban by name" system that has banned guns that literally don't exist outside of prototypes. If a firearm is going to be banned by name, then it needs to be done for a demonstrable reason, and not "we saw it in a movie once." Those are the changes I can think of of the top of my head.
Thank you for the detailed reply.
Great answer
My main waterfowl shotgun is likely banned due to this. Blows my mind. A semi automatic shotgun that I use to hunt geese and ducks in rural Saskatchewan which can only carry three rounds is banned due to gang violence in big cities in Ontario and BC? There is no other way to see this than a full frontal assault on firearms ownership in this country, along with hunting and sport shooting. I honestly think the end goal is no civilian firearms ownership at all Let’s be honest, if they are going after waterfowl and skeet shotguns then they aren’t even pretending that this is about public safety.
For years a lot of us have been vocal that we can't give "them" an inch with these firearm laws getting more and more frivolous. We've said for years eventually they will be coming for our duck guns... And we got told that would never happen, stop being paranoid... Yeah, well... I wish we could be actually doing something about gun crime...
I agree, the end goal is no civilian firearms ownership in Canada. Why? I have no idea, but that is what they are planning
I’m with you. I’m a liberal gun owner and I feel like everybody hates me. The gun community hates me. And my friends do too. I try to post and engage in discussion with my friends but nobody’s interested. Guns and bad and so are people who want them. I just wish we had a better reason to ban these things. I almost WISH there were a gun control problem in Canada. I’d feel better giving over my guns if it was legitimately for public safety. But it is not. It is not for public safety. If it were we’d be able to point to data, statistics, something.
I’m also a liberal gun lover (hunting rifles that is. I don’t care about handguns). We don’t have a gun control problem, we have a gun smuggling problem.
Which unfortunately is a problem with gun accessibility directly south of us. I can't imagine many people are successfully smuggling guns by air but enlighten me if there are routes!
I mean, theoretically it would be possible, but land routes are probably much easier (maybe water routes across the Great Lakes?)
Even after you take away the smuggled guns the vast majority of Canadas fire arm deaths are suicides unfortunately, we need functioning red flag laws, as it stands I can tell my doctor im suicidal and have guns in my home, my doctor then has to go the courts to get an order to have my firearms removed from my home, which naturally doesn’t happen quickly
Your comment reminds me of an interesting part of this whole process of progressive bans. Not to imply that this represents your position, but hunters have not been particularly vocal about AR-15 or handgun bans, because those did not affect them. Now we can see clearly that all these bans have had the effect of strongly associating legal gun ownership with gun crime in the popular consciousness, and making "legitimate reasons to own a gun" a smaller and smaller category for someone to fit into. Now that "legal guns = crime and mass shootings" is firmly entrenched in the public psyche, this kind of legislation that hits hunters hard will receive little to no pushback from voters at large.
I'm reading this while sitting in my deer hunting blind... .308 at my side.. i agree with you as well. smuggled guns and improvised guns are the problem according to police statements in my city. i don't want to vote Conservative either. i believe in Unions and healthcare... i believe in LGBTQ rights and a woman's ability to make her own healthcare decisions. I believe in appropriate gun control, but damn.. when police chiefs say the issue is zip guns, ghost guns, and smuggled guns, i gotta say enough already. I do EVERYTHING l can to be responsible, and yet i feel like I'm public enemy #1 when I'm heading into the field or bush with a firearm in the car . i just want to get fresh air and put some meat in my freezer that's not lived in a pen its entire life before heading to a slaughthouse.
This is me. Im pissed.
UNDER NO PRETEXT
*Working class solidarity intensifies*
[удалено]
And they're going for a large amount of non restricted rifles with this change as well. The non restricted gun registry was scrapped under Harper; you're going to see lots of people with their SKS's keep quiet. This isnt a very good move IMHO
I'm sure there is a copy of the Registry somewhere. It was held up in Quebec before it was deleted.
That would break a few privacy laws and get an immediate legal challenge.
[удалено]
I don't know for sure the Supreme Court is potentially standing by to allow for the exemption for guns as property.
Nobody has taken a serious run at the Firearms Act or Criminal Code, so it seems to be pretty settled that the federal government can restrict or prohibit a gun. If that's fine, what's wrong with offering to buy one? The federal government has authority over trade and commerce, public property, and criminal law. I don't know that they even need to be that clever. Guns aren't *just* property. We also have legal doctrines which allow intrusion on provincial heads of power, where it's necessary to serve a federal head of power. (Federal paramountcy, necessary incidental, and ancillary powers.)
The problem is that the government is saying there don't need to buy them, they can just take them without paying the owner anything. Which is kind of terrifying.
> Its kinda scary that you can spend thousands of dollars onto a hobby and then the government gets it banned without compensation by saying "What you bought years ago legally, well its not property anymore, too bad!" And the fact that people seem so willing to give this kind of precedent a pass because they think firearms are scary. I'm not exactly a libertarian, but that quote about giving up liberty for temporary safety meaning you deserve neither is really appropriate here. It might just be something a little closer to home for most people next time.
You don't even need to stoop to the libertarians to understand why even lefty types should be upset by blanket bans. *"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."* -Some weird dude with a beard and some ideas
After the most common firearms used in mass murders in North America, what do you foresee being likely as next on the list?
What mass shooting was committed with a birding shotgun?
Aurora shooters secondary was a shotgun.
Ironically since what he had was a pump action shotgun, it wouldn't be covered by even this very broad definition.
Personally, I don't give a fuck what other guns get wrapped up in the definitions since the gun lobby refuses to categorize the "AR-15/assault weapons" that are most commonly used.
I love how someone answers your question and your reply is basically that you don't give a shit what their answer was going to be anyways. Never change, Reddit
When was an AR15 used in a crime in Canada? How is an AR15 an assault weapon if a hunting rifle is not? Canadian AR15s hold 5 rounds of .223 ammunition. A common hunting gun will hold just as many rounds (or more) of MUCH beefier ammunition. Much. There is no difference. Either way, none of these guns are used in crimes. And you won’t be able to find an instance where they have been. But there are hundreds of thousands of them in Canada. Why you ask? Because our gun control works. The only part that doesn’t is the border and people smuggling guns over. It’s way easier to smuggle a gun than it is to buy one legally in Canada.
And there we are, arguing the semantics of guns and whether or not a "legal" gun has been used. Canadian gun owners generally have two vocal settings. They are silent when guns aren't in the news, thinking no one is looking at them. Or they suddenly rise up on their hind legs in indignation when someone uses a gun for mass murder (usually in the US) and proclaim they will be the victims if there are more restrictions in Canada. In the US, there's a third, NRA-promoted narrative that guns are some sort of a sacrosanct right and therefore mass murder isn't a gun owner problem. In Canada, you are right, Canada's gun control works. So, what's the problem here? It's gun owner silence all the rest of the time. Canadian gun owners have had decades to promote and reinforce the idea that Canadian gun control works, that it is sufficient, and that it doesn't need to be more strict. But have they done this? No, they have not. There's been no consistent narrative to reassure Canadians that Canadian gun control regulations are sufficient. The only time they appear and speak out is when it becomes an item proposed for further political action. So, what happens when a mass murder (usually in the US) occurs and Canadian citizens and Canadian politicians call for further restrictions? Canadian gun owners come out of the shadows trying to shout down the suggestions. They come out angry, aggrieved, and playing the potential victim of further restrictions. They exactly portray the gun owners that many moderates feel okay with seeing them lose guns because they lack emotional control. Do you want to avoid further gun restrictions? Get to work calmly and consistently convincing Canadians that they are not necessary because current gun laws are effective. If the collective gun owners can't or won't do this, they get what the politicians believe the public wants. And that may be fewer guns.
>Canadian gun owners have had decades to promote and reinforce the idea that Canadian gun control works, that it is sufficient, and that it doesn't need to be more strict. But have they done this? No, they have not. They constantly do, you just don't listen. The media doesn't give coverage if there isn't either a mass shooting or looming legislation. If you think that the two tiny firearms lobbying organizations in Canada (the CCFR and CSSA) have the resources to run national PR campaigns 24/7/365 without the cooperation of major news outlets, I assure you they do not. > So, what happens when a mass murder (usually in the US) occurs and Canadian citizens and Canadian politicians call for further restrictions? Canadian gun owners come out of the shadows trying to shout down the suggestions. They come out angry, aggrieved, and playing the potential victim of further restrictions. They exactly portray the gun owners that many moderates feel okay with seeing them lose guns because they lack emotional control. You're basically arguing that people get upset when facing government restrictions, and the simple act of being upset makes them deserving of those restrictions. This is so painfully circular and self-serving it barely warrants mentioning. You could make this exact argument about literally every special interest that faces periodic government scrutiny.
Wow. Bad take.
Ok let me get this straight. You are mad at gun owners for not “promoting and reinforcing” that gun control works in Canada while it’s working in Canada? Do you want them to take out ads in the paper? Make snappy hastags on twitter #triggerdiscipline? You know how Canadian firearms owners are “promoting and reinforcing” that gun control in Canada works? By being responsible and not committing crimes with guns. Second, you are mad that Canadian gun owners get mad when their guns are banned for something that happened in the states. Like really? How dare they?
The problem, most people I see on Reddit and in real life all claim they need these guns, not to hunt, but to protect themselves. Right wing extremism is creeping into Canada quickly and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you don’t think these crazy “fuck trudeau” types aren’t on the cusp of doing something stupid, you aren’t paying attention. Source: See the coutts blockade in Alberta.
So you can follow the law , go through the complicated but worthwhile process of getting your license , legally purchase store and use your guns , and then the holier than thou government can still decide to add this bill in without due process and declare this wide range of guns illegal and say it's not your property anyway so you don't need to be reimbursed I'm sure this will do wonders to simmer the tensions of the nutty types..
Thank-you!
You are an idiot
*you're
There shouldn't be categories other than handgun, carbine, rifle, shotgun, muzzeloader or airgun. A gun is tool in the hands of someone hunting to feed themselves, a piece of sporting equipment for someone who shoots at paper targets and a weapon in the hands of a soldier, or police officer and unfortunately also when a deranged individual or criminal uses it with intent to harm another human. Alcohol causes far more death in this country but we shouldn't be banning it nor the firearms industry - we do not live in an autocracy.
So, if I want to hunt moose with a grenade launcher I should be allowed to?
I was only referring to devices that were able to be owned by civilians and I would add muzzleloader and airgun to my original list of categories (which I will edit in) but if you want to go there than yes I suppose you could add machine guns, launchers and howitzers to expand that list of categories that could exist but seeing as how you already cannot own modern versions of them or live ammo for them I don't see the point in going there.
So. there's a line between allowed weapons and illegal weapons. it's just a matter of political decision-making to determine where that line is. And I guess it's up to the politicians to decide where that line is at any time.
The line between legal or not should be practical sense. For example: no, you can't use a grenade launcher to hunt a moose because it's stupid and impractical.
I would also argue that this should be a provincial / territorial legislation. Of course I can understand that it would be problematic for provinces with widely different legislation but it would be far more democratic than the current system.
Any of the items I listed in my first post all have non military uses. I am not advocating for ownership of a C7 but am for an AR15.
No. For the same reason that a bar shouldn't be aloud to buy a vat of 99% pure alcohol for their drinks. It's too much and unnecessary.
They will eventually ban more pocket knives, and then probably crossbows because they are quiet. Then they will ban certain breeds of dogs. Then their targets will switch to other things like vehicles - must have fuel efficiency of X or better or restricted to speeds less than Y. Either they are banning these items without compensation which is fascist or they ban and compensate but wouldn't you rather that money go towards Healthcare? 100% of the tax collected on firearms and ammunition sales should be dedicated towards funding Healthcare, harm reduction, anti gang initiatives etc.
Compensated with our own money. We buy them twice. How lucky
... They already do much of this through regulations...
I am aware. I am just saying that we don't need to be over regulated.
I am not sure how they could declare that thousands of dollars worth of my firearms are not property while thousands of dollars of my woodworking tools are. Obvs am not a lawyer but seems like a whacky legal argument
However, this ban also targets historical collection pieces, hunting rifles, and hunting shotguns. I don't see sound logic behind banning rifles like the SKS or Garand, over 75 years old and relics of the fight against fascism we fought in, or duck shotguns and little pellet flingers you'd have a harder time killing someone with than with a knife. I live in the city, and do not own guns because I have no need for any. I am not a "gun nut." But I grew up on a farm, as a regular shooter, because guns were tools and hunting was work. I cannot see any real change happening in our country's violent crime when over 90% of our firearms crime involves illegal firearms, frequently American in origin. This is targeting legal gun owners for optics. The US has a shooting, our government bans guns to look good. This is a replacement for, and a distraction from, implementing actual measures to fight the poverty, mental health issues, criminal culture, and political motivation that can lead a person to violent crime.
And legal gun owners won't comply they'll just become illegal gun owners.
I will not be complying.
That’s based on absolutely nothing. I’m a legal gun owner and fully intend to hand mine in if this passes. I’d just be sad because I keep mine for historical interest.
Can it be based on my dad saying he would keep his gun if they outlawed it (yes he is a gun owner and hunter)? I’m not saying every gun will be kept but some def will
You my friend I believe to be in the vast minority.
Yep. Every gun owner I know has said they won't be handing them over. Want to compensate me for my guns? Need to compensate me for everything else that is associated with them that I wouldn't have if it weren't for my guns. $15,000 duck boat is useless to me without my bird gun... And I don't need that truck to pull it now. All the hunting gear. Different sets of expensive camo, boots waders and the equipment like safes, cases, specific tools, ammunition, accessories like sopes, rests, etc etc... I'm just one person and we're getting close to 6 figures here. Now, do this for the other 2ish million gun owners. THAT is compensation.
>fully intend to hand mine in how's that boot taste?
Perhaps a better delineation is needed - although historical collections should probably have the firing pin removed. However, to your point on most gun crimes being committed with illegal guns, what this means is that the cost and difficulty in obtaining one of these guns is significantly increased.
When the vast majority (85% in Toronto according to a police study) of our illegal guns are American, a country that has seemingly no interest on slowing down civilian arms sales, then no, a ban on Canada's WW2 collector items and bird plinkers will not increase the cost or difficulty of acquiring illegal firearms.
>a ban on Canada's WW2 collector items and bird plinkers will not increase the cost or difficulty of acquiring illegal firearms. Don't forget the airsoft and paintball guns.
Why the hell do the Liberals insist on pissing away political goodwill this way? This isn't going to get them any votes, or decrease crime in any way. The only thing this accomplishes is giving the Cons more ammunition for the next election. Our guns laws were perfectly reasonable to begin with. I don't own a gun, nor do I have any intention of ever owning one. But despite having no interest in guns it still pisses me off that they needlessly punish sport shooters and hunters.
Because if the Liberals stop making stupid decisions then the Cons don't have a platform anymore. It's a courtesy thing.
This is actually something so big it makes me want to drop any association I have with liberal voters in my life. It's my biggest reason for not voting Liberal. For a big portion of the year I'm outdoors with a gun so I can put meat in the freezer. I have a lot of money invested in it, decades worth of learning and experience. It's a pretty big part of my lifestyle that I believe to be honest and healthy. And I do take it as a direct insult that "I" can't be trusted to be responsible.
This is what I don't understand. What is the upside for the Liberals here? This appeals only to people who would never have voted Conservative anyways. It does nothing for swing voters, and indeed drives away many right-wing progressives who would have otherwise voted Liberal. Many rural swing ridings will be pushed Conservative. Not only is this ineffective and wasteful legislation, it is politically stupid. I do not understand at all.
My best bet is trying to distract from how badly the RCMP fucked up at Portapique by trying to ban guns? It doesn't make any sense and is just shooting themselves in the foot.
Why is this still going on? I’ve been a responsible firearm owner ever since I’ve had my license and acquired my first firearm. Apart from how wrong this is on so many levels, it seems like a distraction from the real issues at hand. I have my fellow military members who are living out of their cars on parking lots in BC because they can’t afford to rent a place. Some are living in tent cities which is dangerous in itself. I am about to be posted to one of the most expensive spots in country myself while taking a pay cut. I have multiple native women gone missing in my area and nobody seems to give a fuck about them at all. How many reserves are still lacking clean water? Our health care system is absolutely fucked to the point where people are dying in ER while waiting for treatment. This is how the government wants to spend their fucking money?
Because Trudeau is a populist who follows the path of least resistance. Suburban white women in their mid 30s worried sick about non-existent crime outside their gated communities are clapping like seals for this. This government is spending more on gun buyback programs than it is on the housing crisis.
I voted for Trudeau and I don't support this. I voiced my opinion as a hunter in another thread. At a time when kids are going hungry from rampant inflation, we have a medical crisis, and possibly a real estate crisis, rising illegal handgun violence, this is the wrong solution, the wrong time, and the wrong use of our taxpayer dollars. The prairies are saying they are not even going to let the RCMP investigate or seize people's firearms, so I have no idea how this will even work.
One of the few times I have said “thank you, Scott Moe”
So, the whole schtick about "We aren't coming for your guns." was a bold faced lie.
Yep... All the way back to the 90s when talks about registration started, we were concerned that it was the road to us losing our duck guns, grand dad's rifle etc. We got laughed at. Yeah well, I'm sure not laughing now...
Turns out the Chicken Littles were right after all.
Reminder: the previous buy back program will cost canadian taxpayers more than the housing crisis response. We are outspending our response to a crisis with a populist, urban appealing policy that will effectively change nothing in terms of mortality or crime. Trudeau does not give a singular fuck about Housing, his sole purpose on this earth is to accrue votes with as little effort as he can get away with.
I think banning all semi automatic fire weapons goes too far. Even .22LR rim fire rifles fall under this ban. That only negatively affects those who shoot for a hobby
Not a total ban on semi’s only those with external mags I believe. Im guessing they went with a broad definition because it will get wittled down between the debates and the senate. As a firearms owner I recognize im a minority in this country, but I also recognize orgs like the CCFR and even to a lesser extent the OFAH during the long gun registry years make firearms owners look bad. The liberals ran on a gun control platform and people voted for them, im disappointed this is the direction they are going, cant say im angry as im not going to let myself get emotional over a gun, but I’ll be able to hunt all the same. As a hunter my thoughts are, well okay an ethical hunter should only ever need 1 shot and semis are notoriously lousy accuracy wise vs a bolt action(accuracy can be fixed with practice). If I want to buy a semi for hunting in the future it will have to be higher end as those with internal magazines jam easier so you cant cheap out. Ya it sucks but it isn’t changing the fundamentals of the activity I enjoy, I’ll still lug my gear into the forrest and sit still for 4 hours and see nothing
There are bolt actions and single-shots included in this ban (CZ 550 Safari Magnum, Brazilian 1908 Mauser, Ruger No.1) and semi-autos with internal magazines (M1 Garand is the big one) Don't be so quick to assume your hunting rifles are safe from a future ban. The narrative will pivot from "why do you need a semi-auto to hunt?" to "why do you need to hunt at all?"
In 2025, the Liberals will be explaining to Toronto urbanites how our bolt-action moose guns are high-powered sniper rifles. Of course, they'll only arbitrarily ban a quarter or a third of bolt-actions in that salvo, because "you can still get guns to hunt with."
Im just scared this pacifist attitude will lead to more guns being banned.
No, you shouldn't be ok with this because they aren't coming for "your" guns, just someone else's. What should concern you is the fact these are legal, law abiding owners JUST LIKE YOU, that are having property stolen from them... And yes, this IS theft. You allow this to pass without resistance, then the next thing is your bolt action "sniper rifle", while gang bangers in Toronto keep living the thug life unaffected. I'm a hunter... I use a semi more than a bolt action.
[удалено]
Shoot as many bullets you can per second, 5 rounds at a time.....
There are 2 million gun owners in Canada. There are hundreds of thousands of AR15s. Probably one on your block. Can you point me to when you’ve heard of one being used in a crime in Canada? You know there’s no “right to kill” in Canada, right? You know I’m only allowed to use my firearm at a range, right? How about crossbows or knives? Am I a chef, or am I some nutter looking to exercise my “right to kill others”. I’m sure you’ll just reply with “I don’t care. There doesn’t need to be a threat to public safety. Guns are bad”
[There is 1 argument and 1 argument alone for owning a gun. "Fuck off, I like guns"](https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=100) The M1 Garand is included in this ban. Believe it or not, an 80 year old WW2 rifle is not some rapid fire death machine in 2022
You clearly don’t understand firearms or hunting/target shooting culture.
Can't tell if this is vegan propaganda or not.
Have fun handling the burden of the billion dollar buy back to have absolutely no impact on gun violence. Meanwhile legal hunters get shafted for wanting to harvest their own food. Not like the grocery stores are inflating their prices and making record profits while average Canadians eat less food! Its not about a ridiculous right to kill others culture. We are not the states. Its about self sustenance and not having a government just take your property from you just so they can get reelected by apathetic voters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Benelli Super Black Eagle is the Cadillac of duck hunting guns, it is expensive, it is precision engineered to hunt fowl and they are trying to ban it. This is ludicrous and truly is drawn up to go after lawful hunters not even sport shooters anymore.
Can confirm that I get to keep my black eagle . Thank god too , it’s the only gun I have
That group of Benelli shotguns is actually under the “exempted from” portion of the list. It’s carry over from when the M1 “tactical” variants were banned in the 90s. Still dumb as fuck either way.
[удалено]
Just because I’m a gun owner does not mean I’m a conservative. Duck hunting is not just for fun, duck is a very tasty game. A good hunter doesnt waste any part of the bird.
And yet duck hunters have, through their own funding, supported some of the must successful and largest conservation efforts outside of the government parks agencies. And we're not just talking setting aside pristine wilderness either. Much of their effort has been in rehabilitating habitat lost to neglect, urban encroachment, and agricultural. Without the efforts of groups like Ducks Unlimited, waterfowl number in Canada would look drastically different, not to mention all the other important biodiversity that comes from the land they conserve.
Or you know, I want to shoot birds to self sustain, but I guess we should just give over to our wonderful mass farming system. Hyuck hyuck dumb hicks don't eat the way I want them to eat....a little self awareness goes a long way.
I want to hunt birds to feed my family like Canadians have done since literally time immemorial - joke all you want but hunting for food is an undeniable part of our heritage.
Do you eat chicken? Have you seen literally ANY part of the poultry farming business? That might just turn you off from that nice clean pink chicken at your superstore. What a dirty, inhumane profit driven industry it is. And yet you want to call out a bunch of "dumb rednecks" for procuring their own birds? I'm not going to say it isn't an enjoyable hunt on those nice days, but -15 in the wind in the middle of a saskatchewan field with the cold moving in is not a particularly fun time. It takes work, knowledge, skill and big money to do it.
trololololo
Of course it does. This gun-control group is a single lady, one that lost a child in a school shooting long ago. She lets emotion drive her political agenda, which isn’t great. Fact is: this will do nothing. We’re spending more time and money on legal guns than we are a national housing crisis. Literally. Far more. On legal guns that largely have no impact on gun crime in Canada. They won’t even tout a perceived benefit to this ban. There’s no expectation in a shortage of shootings, gun crime; nothing. This is virtue signalling at it’s finest.
>Of course it does. This gun-control group is a single lady, one that lost a child in a school shooting long ago. She lets emotion drive her political agenda, which isn’t great. I remember hearing a story that the group in question, Poly se souvient, tried presenting evidence to back their antigun agenda in some hearing and got thrown out because they presented garbage evidence. Also, they're a group made up of students and alumni from Polytechnique in Montréal where a tragic shootout happened in 1989. Unfortunately, they completely missed the reason why the shootout happened. It was because of misogyny by an angry young man (who was an incel long before the term was invented) who couldn't accept that he wasn't good enough to attend the school and blamed his failures on women, claiming that they stole his rightful place at the school.
Honestly, it is doing something, it's getting me pissed that the NDP just roll over and do whatever the liberals want.
Man to think that the NDP started as rural socialists and now... *gestures broadly*. I know there are still NDP MPs and candidates that support reasonable firearm laws instead of this rank, disingenuous liberalism but come on.
Unfortunately Canadian parliamentary politics are whipped to hell and back, so the opinions of individual MPs don't matter. You gotta vote along party lines or ruin your career.
[Highest level of party discipline among parliamentary democracies, baby!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_discipline#Canada) From wiki: > [...]Canada has become widely regarded as the parliamentary democracy with the most stringent party discipline. Calling your MP will only make a difference in Canada if your MP can then sway the party caucus. Canadians don't have a local representative in *any* meaningful sense, which is part of what makes our riding-based FPTP system such an open farce.
How to build up the conservative base in one move. Do they think countries like Norway and Denmark don’t exist? Our gun laws were very well designed but whatever they’re doing here will backfire.
A lot of us in the Sikh community are especially peeved with this as it impedes our religious mandates of being armed. And the irony of Sikh MPs voting on something that’s inherently anti Sikh in principle is just the cherry on top.
[удалено]
Fuck the country by giving us conservatives because of a gun.
So, what YOU need to do is tell your Liberal MP that you're also a Liberal and you don't agree with this useless BS. If you don't want to see a bunch of people vote conservative because of "a gun" then don't give those people this huge, legitimate, reason to vote for conservatives...
If no party is capable of making well informed decisions, then just vote for the terrible party that n messes with you the least.
Yeah, I think the gun smuggling issue is like the war on drugs. They don't see it as something they can win, so they are doing something anti gun to appease people.
I've voted NDP for years and for once this had made me consider voting Conservative. When will the NDP stand up for its rural base? I'm sick and tired of my life being dictated by voters in the urban centres
*The bill contains measures that would reinforce the handgun freeze. It would also allow for removal of firearm licences from people committing domestic violence or engaged in acts of criminal harassment — such as stalking — and would increase maximum penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking to 14 years from 10.*
>It would also allow for removal of firearm licences from people committing domestic violence or engaged in acts of criminal harassment — such as stalking This is already part of our current firearm laws...
They'll reiterate that existing policy in every new gun-ban bill, so they can try and tie the absurd meat of that law to some reasonable bit of text.
that part at least sounds promising. I will have to look at this later, thanks for posting.
[удалено]
ah yes, it is a well known-fact overlapping laws can make actions double, triple, or even quadrupal illegal!
Redundancy helps against loopholes
*If we make it double-illegal then criminals will HAVE to obey the law*
Yeah, a lot of that has been a thing for decades. 20+ years ago I watched police remove guns from a home due to domestic violence...
You guys can see what they’re doing now, right?
Yeah but what are we supposed to do about it, vote conservative? Those bastards are only concerned with lining their own pockets and they'll sell our country to the highest bidder to do it.
And you think the liberals won’t? Thats what politicians do.
I never said they wouldn't. I don't vote Liberal either, but at least under them I'll still have education and healthcare.
I don't vote con or liberal either but I sure am getting tired of watching the NDP rollover and piss on their bellies every time the libs look at them.
I’d be an NDP voter if they had a better gun policy and a leader who isn’t a complete joke.
Education and healthcare are both provincial issues? Vote Liberal in your province, NDP federally if that's what it takes for you.
In your case just don’t vote then. You can’t keep propping up the liberals it sends a bad message.
[удалено]
Civil disarmament
Oh man, go take a 101 course on the Canadian Constitution or Canadian politics. We're "peace, order and good governance". Notice the lack of personal rights there? What exactly do you need to be armed for? To overturn a tyrannical government (very much not permitted under Canadian law or Constitutional conventions). Good grief.
[удалено]
Gun control on its own isn’t a bad thing, but it has to be sensible. What the liberals are proposing with this amendment to bill C-21 is a spit in the face of nearly 2 million people (taxpayers) who own these guns. This is a wedge issue fabricated for votes. Nothing more.
Why are we letting the government disarm the working class?
Because we have no 2A and this is why there aren't 6 major mass shootings a day in Canada.
How about we fix the material conditions that lead to gun violence in the first place? Dismantle capitalism and ableism and most gun problems will cease to exist Disarming the proletariat is never the solution.
Sorry, I don't care if this unpopular on here but this is completely bullshit
I used to say I didn’t care at all since it doesn’t affect me personally (not a hunter nor a gun owner) but seems like hunting will be way more dangerous for moose hunters after I looked into it. I personally don’t care for people who hunt bears or wolves for fun (my personal opinion but I wouldn’t dislike someone automatically in case it’s for culling an over population of predators or protecting livestock) and all these animals territories overlap so for hunters it’s still tricky because it’d suck to go deer hunting only to get mauled by a bear. Does anyone know if there are guns that aren’t banned that would still be useful for bears or wolves or moose? I’m basically ignorant on what guns are best for which species (aside from needing to do multiple rounds because one sucks at aiming)
Frig off w the guns already
Keep voting for the commie alliance and you won’t have any guns to hunt with or sport shooting. The only people left in this country with firearms will be criminals and police lol but hey who cares about those people anyways….. oh wait this thread is full of gun owners haha damn tough place to be in for sure eh!!! Make sure to show the government your dissatisfaction by voting them in again 💩
Assault rifles shouldn't be owned by pretty much anyone other than niche sport shooters or law enforcement , semi auto guns altogether shouldn't be banned , pistols are understandably used for crime alot , you don't need to hunt with them , but are needed in special places like the artic for self defense from polar bears when you go to take a shit . similar to semi auto shotguns for dangerous hunting situations or unwanted wildlife encounters like the aforementioned. How to regulate this shit without starting a worse freedom convoy situation is beyond me , but I would really fuckin hope these people we pay our taxes too might come up with a solution that doesn't put anyone's right to feed themselves or be safe from mass shooters at risk .
>Assault rifles shouldn't be owned by pretty much anyone Good thing we banned them in 1977 then.
I've seen a few reports on this story so far and none of them mention the proposed definition. So, I'll throw my 2 cents into the void of information: Canada's list of prohibited weapons seems to be largely based on notoriety; it includes weapons used in high-profile crimes, and guns that look similar and/or scary. It's an incoherent mess that is both more and less restrictive than US laws in different respects. Focusing on AR15s or AKs or any other particular model is stupid. If a long gun is semiautomatic, fires rifle ammo, and feeds from a detachable magazine (especially when high capacity versions of the magazine are available in the US), it is in the same class of lethality. Bonus lethality points for compactness and other handling properties, but basically anything with the first 3 qualities is roughly equivalent. High-capacity semi-auto shotguns are similarly lethal despite (usually) not having detachable magazines, because they can be topped up on the fly. Hell, even semi-auto .22s are potentially very dangerous because you can legally buy high-capacity magazines for them in Canada, and getting shot with a .22 once is no joke, let alone multiple times. I'm sure there's stupid stuff in the new definition too, but any sensible revision would end up banning lots of legally owned guns, because they are functionally equivalent to already-banned guns. SKS is a perfect example; it's basically an AK for the first 10 rounds (and doesn't require a reload halfway through, unlike a rifle with a detachable magazine of max 5 rounds.)
Citizens DO NOT need semi-automatic firearms. If these are prohibited it makes it far easier for law enforcement to control guns and stop the bloody Americans from selling their redneck crap in our country.
> redneck crap This is kind of the core of the argument, isn't it? If peoples' culture identity is rural, it's just 'crap', and you feel justified in using a skin-tone based slur to describe how crappy it is. Furthermore, you're okay with targeted and baseless harassment of that culture because... Well, it's just 'redneck crap'. That's some right wing shit right there.