monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

NO, In Canada you can buy an AR-15, you just need a licence.

Trudeau referred to assault rifles and military-grade weapons.

A semi-auto-only AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor a military-grade weapon.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Trudeau referred to assault rifles and military-grade weapons.[/quote[quote]]

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

As I said, Trudeau is lying. Such weapons are already outlawed in Canada. What he's trying to do here is ban a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles.

Hopefully this will rally Canadians to vote him out of office before he can impose such a ban.

It's a chilling reminder though of the critical difference between a serf and a free man. Governments are not allowed to impose unjustifiable gun laws on free men. Serfs, on the other hand, have to do what they're told to do.

This is why the Second Amendment is so important to Americans. Our freedom is priceless.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

As I said, Trudeau is lying. Such weapons are already outlawed in Canada. .

You can repied sitelong, but those weapons aren't outlawed in Canada.
If you are referring to "prohibited" within the categories of firearms as defined in Part III of Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46): the word "prohibited" is a classification and does not indicate that such firearms are "prohibited" as per the normal use of the word.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
NO, In Canada you can buy an AR-15, you just need a licence.

Trudeau referred to assault rifles and military-grade weapons.

A semi-auto-only AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor a military-grade weapon.

These assault weapons are evolutions of the M1 Garand, the standard issue battle rifle of the U.S. forces in WWII. It is a semiautomatic rifle.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

These assault weapons

Semi-auto-only weapons are not assault weapons.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You can repied sitelong, but those weapons aren't outlawed in Canada.

Let's see a cite for Canadian citizens being allowed to own and use assault rifles and/or military weapons.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
These assault weapons

Semi-auto-only weapons are not assault weapons.

Says you.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

I believe that 43 States do not share your opinion that the AR-15 is an assault weapon. That's why they haven't banned them.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Ok. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban opines that it is an assault weapon.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I define any weapon that can fire thirty rounds in 30 seconds as an assault weapon. You and Ollie are disengenious..

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Ok. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban opines that it is an assault weapon.

And they were incorrect. The distinction between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic weapon lies in its select-fire capability. The lawmakers in 43 States understand that.

And besides, you're bringing up something from 25 years ago, which is no longer in effect.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Semi-auto-only weapons are not assault weapons.

Says you.

No. Says the definition of assault weapon.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I define any weapon that can fire thirty rounds in 30 seconds as an assault weapon.

"You concocting fraudulent definitions for words" does not change the real definitions.

RABEL222 wrote:

You and Ollie are disengenious..

Wrong again. The fact that we reject your fraudulent definitions means that we have honor and integrity.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

If you are referring to "prohibited" within the categories of firearms as defined in Part III of Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46): the word "prohibited" is a classification and does not indicate that such firearms are "prohibited" as per the normal use of the word.

Let's say an ordinary Canadian citizen with a clean criminal record (and no mental health problems) wants to get a license to legally own an assault rifle in Canada.

Let's say he wants an assault rifle with three shot burst capability instead of pure full auto.

How hard is it for him to get such a license?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Ok. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban opines that it is an assault weapon.

And they were incorrect.

Says you.

Glenn wrote:

The distinction between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic weapon lies in its select-fire capability. The lawmakers in 43 States understand that.

That's your definition. There are others. That you don't agree with them is irrelevant.

Glenn wrote:

And besides, you're bringing up something from 25 years ago, which is no longer in effect.

The definitions still hold.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Semi-auto-only weapons are not assault weapons.

Says you.

No. Says the definition of assault weapon.

Says your definition of assault weapons. Yours is not the only definition.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

It is the only correct definition.

This progressive tendency to concoct fraudulent definitions for words is pretty silly in my opinion.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Glennn wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Ok. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban opines that it is an assault weapon.

And they were incorrect.

Says you.

Says the definition of assault weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

Glennn wrote:
The distinction between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic weapon lies in its select-fire capability. The lawmakers in 43 States understand that.

That's your definition. There are others.

Fraudulent definitions don't count.

InfraBlue wrote:

That you don't agree with them is irrelevant.

That those definitions are untrue is relevant.

InfraBlue wrote:

Glennn wrote:
And besides, you're bringing up something from 25 years ago, which is no longer in effect.

The definitions still hold.

Fraudulent definitions never hold. They are rightfully disregarded due to the fact that they are untrue.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your redundancy doesn't make you any less wrong.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know