Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:31 PM
2 Tollers 2 Tollers is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,912
Default Fed Gov - Online Engagement Survey -- handguns and semi-automatic firearms

The feds have released an on-line survey tool as an engagement mechanism for the review that Bill Blair is undertaking on handguns and now semi-automatic -large capacity firearms. Link is provided below

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/c.../index-en.aspx

Last edited by 2 Tollers; 10-11-2018 at 02:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:36 PM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 8,343
Default

semi-automatic -large capacity firearms?

Does Bill know about the magazine limit?

Did the survey, kind of would like you to cut off an arm or a leg type of deal
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:46 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,287
Default

Well they leave lots of boxes for comments. So I commented away. It does seem to try and make something happening a forgone conclusion.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:59 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf View Post
Well they leave lots of boxes for comments. So I commented away. It does seem to try and make something happening a forgone conclusion.
Yup, let me guess... you said no, and commented even though they asked you to comment if you said yes.

So.......... do you think our comments were automatically deleted?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:05 PM
hermn8r hermn8r is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 20
Default

These new proposed laws are not going in a good direction for law abiding gun owners in Canada...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:05 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,542
Default

The US definition of an assault rifle really upset me. Plus, it included reference to "large capacity" ammunition magazines, that are already prohibited in Canada.

How can any data from that question be legit now? What percentage of people that said yes, had issues with mag capacity?

Very dishonest. A question designed to get the result they want.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:28 PM
Puma's Avatar
Puma Puma is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 214
Posts: 1,816
Default Guns

Remember... the Liberals think that all semi autos are evil assault rifles .

The PUBLIC consultation meetings are by invitation only !?! Nice democracy we live in.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:03 PM
kidd kidd is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central AB
Posts: 750
Default survey

The Canadian Government put out a survey that references the US Dept of Justice's definition of an "assault weapon" as a basis for much of the survey questions? Why am I not surprised?
kidd
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:20 PM
Ken07AOVette's Avatar
Ken07AOVette Ken07AOVette is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 24,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bat119 View Post
semi-automatic -large capacity firearms?

Does Bill know about the magazine limit?

Did the survey, kind of would like you to cut off an arm or a leg type of deal
Wow you nailed that one.

The two about 'consequences for law abiding owners' peed me off and got them blasted. Why would law abiding citizens face consequences????
__________________
Only dead fish go with the flow. The rest use their brains in life.


Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:03 PM
guysmiley guysmiley is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 613
Default

My comments were not kind.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:25 PM
Muller Muller is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 152
Default

Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:27 PM
Scott N's Avatar
Scott N Scott N is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muller View Post
Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......
Probably because the decision has already been made, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:34 PM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 8,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muller View Post
Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......
I think this is a smoke and mirrors deal if it was serious there would a log in or something.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:33 PM
Big Grey Wolf Big Grey Wolf is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6,230
Default

My comments were not pretty. What a waste of time , I told them I already need to open 9 locks before I get my handgun to the range and can actually fire a shot at a target, how much more restricted do guns need to be before we are beyond reason.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:34 PM
Ranets Ranets is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 434
Default

Maybe just add 5 years no parole if a firearm of any type is present during the enactment of any crime, if someone is injured or the weapon is discharged add 10 years and if someone is killed life25 these would be added to whatever the initial charge is and the only "people" affected are the criminals. To me this seems much more logical than punishing legitimate gun owners/enthusiasts.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:51 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Nothing but a "feel good" survey, when did the Liberal government (Quebec) ever give a dam what the citizens of Canada thought about anything especially guns. You get a chance to have a little rant, blow some steam but that's it.

Now when they do exactly what they were going to anyway they can proclaim that they asked Canadians what they wanted and that is what they did. The Liberals outright lie, and lie a lot when it comes to firearms.

Good news is when these useless POS Liberals get punted to the curb and the UPC get in, the focus on guns and gun violence will be directed at gangs and the illegal smuggling and use of guns where it should be.

As with most things the Liberals have done, their attack on legal gun owners have made them look like nothing but uneducated fools.....
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:28 PM
Stinky Buffalo's Avatar
Stinky Buffalo Stinky Buffalo is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A bit North o' Center...
Posts: 11,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranets View Post
Maybe just add 5 years no parole if a firearm of any type is present during the enactment of any crime, if someone is injured or the weapon is discharged add 10 years and if someone is killed life25 these would be added to whatever the initial charge is and the only "people" affected are the criminals. To me this seems much more logical than punishing legitimate gun owners/enthusiasts.
Yup.

Or we save some bucks and outsource our penal system to a 3rd world country. That may cut back on recidivism...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:47 AM
binrat binrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 10
Default

Finished as well.
Not going to end well for gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-12-2018, 06:53 AM
dmcbride dmcbride is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bazeau County East side
Posts: 4,166
Default

What a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:12 AM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 375
Default

Just so everyone is aware.. Some of these questions are designed to shoot yourself in the foot. For example

Where should we focus efforts to limit handguns?
a) Legally-owned handguns
b) Illicit handguns
c) Both legally-owned handguns and illicit handguns
d) Neither legally-owned handguns nor illicit handguns
e) No opinion

If you pick Illicit handguns as an answer, the government will turn this around and say that the majority of handguns used in crimes were obtained legally and then either stolen or sold to get into the hands of a criminl and therefore to reduce the illicit handguns used is crimes we need to shut down the sale of legally purchased handguns (handgun ban)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:47 PM
mindoutside mindoutside is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Calgary
Posts: 513
Default

2 cents inserted!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.