Banning AR-15

the end goal here is total control it isn’t just firearms they’re after first we loose a means of defending ourselves then we loose freedom altogether spoonfed to us under the guise of public safety the most dangerous thing on this planet is the bleeding heart liberal I pray we can all stand united against the tyranny of this government

We could do without these comments

Banning opinions is no better than banning a gun.
I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.
Yes I do believe banning a gun is not the answer. We got Tory down here with every shooting crying for a handgun ban. While the Black lives faction cry its a consequence of their socioeconomic disadvantage.
To both I say hogwash. For all intensive purposes handguns are banned as to own one legally there is a process to be followed. The problem is life's better to be a criminal than an honest citizen, To "fix" the problem forego bail, plea bargains, and' trails make it such that the punishment using/having an illegal gun the deterrent.
Back to the AR-15 I understand the desire to limit the carnage that can be done with one and the obvious kneejerk reflex to ban 'em. Would a better compromise be, much like they restrict shotguns to 3 shells, would a magazine restriction satisfy both sides?

We could do without these comments

Banning opinions is no better than banning a gun.
I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.
Yes I do believe banning a gun is not the answer. We got Tory down here with every shooting crying for a handgun ban. While the Black lives faction cry its a consequence of their socioeconomic disadvantage.
To both I say hogwash. For all intensive purposes handguns are banned as to own one legally there is a process to be followed. The problem is life's better to be a criminal than an honest citizen, To "fix" the problem forego bail, plea bargains, and' trails make it such that the punishment using/having an illegal gun the deterrent.
Back to the AR-15 I understand the desire to limit the carnage that can be done with one and the obvious kneejerk reflex to ban 'em. Would a better compromise be, much like they restrict shotguns to 3 shells, would a magazine restriction satisfy both sides?

First, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle" in Canada. By definition an assault rifle uses an intermediate cartridge, has a detachable magazine, and has a fire rate selector that can switch between semi auto and full auto mode. By that definition, no rifle that can legally be owned in Canada is an assault rifle.
A lot of people think that the "AR" in AR-15 means "assault rifle" but that is incorrect, it stands for "ArmaLight Rifle" which is the company that developed it.

Functionally there is no difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto rifle.
In Canada there already is a magazine restriction for semi auto rifles, for a maximum of 5 rounds, it did not seem to satisfy the other side.
The AR-15's only sin is that its a black rifle and it looks scary.
I listened to an interview on the radio with one of the MPs, not sure what her name was but she actually said something like this (might not be 100% accurate quote, but very close):
"We banned guns that were designed to kill people, and guns that looked like they were designed to kill people"
A ban purely on cosmetic grounds.
Firearms are not designed to kill people, they are designed to fire a bullet to where the barrel is pointing to.
Hammers are not designed to kill people, they are designed to hit a surface they are directed at.
Vans are not designed to kill people, they are designed to transport people and cargo.

The deadliest massacre in Ontario (and 3rd deadliest in Canada) was perpetrated 2 years ago.
The psycho killed 10 people, he didnt fire a single shot, he didnt have a single gun, he used a van.
Vans now scare me, they are clearly designed to kill people. When are we going to ban vans?

Lets ban scary looking guns today.
Lets ban all semi auto guns tomorrow.
Next lets ban all non single shot guns.
Then all guns above a certain caliber.
Then naturally all guns completely.
Lets not forget bows and sligshots as well, lets ban these too.

Did not know there was a restriction on magazines already. Don't know the specifics of this case but did it have the appropriate magazine?
Still doesn't explain the appeal. The ban is because its black and its scary looking is that the appeal of one too?

If you mean the Nova Scotia case, apparently 2 of the firearms he used are on the newly banned list. He did not have a firearms license, he did not obtain any of his firearms legally, the ban would not stop him from obtaining any firearm.

As for the appeal, they are ergonomic and are fun to shoot, with almost no recoil.

Based on observation, it seems to me that the perpetrators of violent crimes using firearms as their weapon don't seem to consult with the requirements of the firearms regulations, hunting licenses, PALs, Restricted PALs, long gun registry's, prohibited hand gun lists,,, or new lists of banned rifles. As a previous poster noted, the perpetrator of the horrible crimes in Nova Scotia obtained all of the guns that he used illegally. He was not allowed to own or use any of the weapons they discovered he had. And so, just like the next person who commits a crime using a firearm, it really doesn't matter what they limit, restrict, prohibit, or ban. Criminals don't much care to consult with those rules, do they?

I have no need for assault style rifles because I own guns to shoot animals that I want to eat. Assault rifles aren't designed to shoot animals. However, don't penalize the law abiding hunters, collectors, or sport/target shooting club members. Saying that these guns kill people = cars drive into people after drinking too much = keyboards make typos = pens write bad university essays....

Well he didn't have a PAL, he was not allowed due to prior legal problems, firearms obtained illegally. Then if he had not been killed, the lawyers and judge (both in it for money) would let him back out and even if found guilty wouldn't serve all that long a sentence, just to make sure the judicial system keep busy.
Someone gets stung by a honey bee, don't burn down the hive, kick the sob in the a## for screwing with the hive.

For all who may support our gun rights please join the CCFR and sign any petition s that may support gun owners please as they are a great help in getting our voices heard.

Please stop using the term "assault rifle" They are already banned and have been for a long time. These items are sport shooting/hunting rifles. There are bolt action hunting rifles on the list. How is a bolt action rifle considered a rifle that is designed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time? Many of you should check and see if your rifle is capable of 10,000 joules because if it is it's banned like the Weatherby Mark V 460. This applies to non-restricted hunting rifles regardless if they are semi or not.

We could do without these comments

Banning opinions is no better than banning a gun.
I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.
Yes I do believe banning a gun is not the answer. We got Tory down here with every shooting crying for a handgun ban. While the Black lives faction cry its a consequence of their socioeconomic disadvantage.
To both I say hogwash. For all intensive purposes handguns are banned as to own one legally there is a process to be followed. The problem is life's better to be a criminal than an honest citizen, To "fix" the problem forego bail, plea bargains, and' trails make it such that the punishment using/having an illegal gun the deterrent.
Back to the AR-15 I understand the desire to limit the carnage that can be done with one and the obvious kneejerk reflex to ban 'em. Would a better compromise be, much like they restrict shotguns to 3 shells, would a magazine restriction satisfy both sides?

First, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle" in Canada. By definition an assault rifle uses an intermediate cartridge, has a detachable magazine, and has a fire rate selector that can switch between semi auto and full auto mode. By that definition, no rifle that can legally be owned in Canada is an assault rifle.
A lot of people think that the "AR" in AR-15 means "assault rifle" but that is incorrect, it stands for "ArmaLight Rifle" which is the company that developed it.

Functionally there is no difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto rifle.
In Canada there already is a magazine restriction for semi auto rifles, for a maximum of 5 rounds, it did not seem to satisfy the other side.
The AR-15's only sin is that its a black rifle and it looks scary.
I listened to an interview on the radio with one of the MPs, not sure what her name was but she actually said something like this (might not be 100% accurate quote, but very close):
"We banned guns that were designed to kill people, and guns that looked like they were designed to kill people"
A ban purely on cosmetic grounds.
Firearms are not designed to kill people, they are designed to fire a bullet to where the barrel is pointing to.
Hammers are not designed to kill people, they are designed to hit a surface they are directed at.
Vans are not designed to kill people, they are designed to transport people and cargo.

The deadliest massacre in Ontario (and 3rd deadliest in Canada) was perpetrated 2 years ago.
The psycho killed 10 people, he didnt fire a single shot, he didnt have a single gun, he used a van.
Vans now scare me, they are clearly designed to kill people. When are we going to ban vans?

Lets ban scary looking guns today.
Lets ban all semi auto guns tomorrow.
Next lets ban all non single shot guns.
Then all guns above a certain caliber.
Then naturally all guns completely.
Lets not forget bows and sligshots as well, lets ban these too.

Well said.

We could do without these comments

Banning opinions is no better than banning a gun.
I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.
Yes I do believe banning a gun is not the answer. We got Tory down here with every shooting crying for a handgun ban. While the Black lives faction cry its a consequence of their socioeconomic disadvantage.
To both I say hogwash. For all intensive purposes handguns are banned as to own one legally there is a process to be followed. The problem is life's better to be a criminal than an honest citizen, To "fix" the problem forego bail, plea bargains, and' trails make it such that the punishment using/having an illegal gun the deterrent.
Back to the AR-15 I understand the desire to limit the carnage that can be done with one and the obvious kneejerk reflex to ban 'em. Would a better compromise be, much like they restrict shotguns to 3 shells, would a magazine restriction satisfy both sides?

First, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle" in Canada. By definition an assault rifle uses an intermediate cartridge, has a detachable magazine, and has a fire rate selector that can switch between semi auto and full auto mode. By that definition, no rifle that can legally be owned in Canada is an assault rifle.
A lot of people think that the "AR" in AR-15 means "assault rifle" but that is incorrect, it stands for "ArmaLight Rifle" which is the company that developed it.

Functionally there is no difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto rifle.
In Canada there already is a magazine restriction for semi auto rifles, for a maximum of 5 rounds, it did not seem to satisfy the other side.
The AR-15's only sin is that its a black rifle and it looks scary.
I listened to an interview on the radio with one of the MPs, not sure what her name was but she actually said something like this (might not be 100% accurate quote, but very close):
"We banned guns that were designed to kill people, and guns that looked like they were designed to kill people"
A ban purely on cosmetic grounds.
Firearms are not designed to kill people, they are designed to fire a bullet to where the barrel is pointing to.
Hammers are not designed to kill people, they are designed to hit a surface they are directed at.
Vans are not designed to kill people, they are designed to transport people and cargo.

The deadliest massacre in Ontario (and 3rd deadliest in Canada) was perpetrated 2 years ago.
The psycho killed 10 people, he didnt fire a single shot, he didnt have a single gun, he used a van.
Vans now scare me, they are clearly designed to kill people. When are we going to ban vans?

Lets ban scary looking guns today.
Lets ban all semi auto guns tomorrow.
Next lets ban all non single shot guns.
Then all guns above a certain caliber.
Then naturally all guns completely.
Lets not forget bows and sligshots as well, lets ban these too.

Well said.

Yup, 100%

awbringl: Well said! ("Where did you buy such a smart keyboard?" - Humour, Arrrrr!)

I may find myself quoting you in a next garage/cooler conversation.

I get what your saying but "assault style weapons" whatever that is isn't the issue or correct. Assault weapons in Canada were banned years ago. Their definition of assault rifles is incorrect. Bolt action hunting rifles are on the list. Even websites are listed as banned guns in their release ((z.085) AR15.Com.) Great research done from our government.

I get what your saying but "assault style weapons" whatever that is isn't the issue or correct. Assault weapons in Canada were banned years ago. Their definition of assault rifles is incorrect. Bolt action hunting rifles are on the list. Even websites are listed as banned guns in their release ((z.085) AR15.Com.) Great research done from our government.

I am no ballistics expert but I grew up with a Dad who owned a loading press, a family that did a lot of our own loading and tinkering with different loads, etc. All for the purpose of big game hunting (deer, moose, occasional bear but not really) so that we could put meat in the freezer.

Feel free to correct me or disagree however you want - if we're the responsible law abiding gun owners than we should/need o have responsible and informed discussion on these types of matters.

My thoughts: 10,000 joules is HUGE muzzle energy. Unless I'm wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time, just ask the wife!), the typical higher caliber hunting rifle (308, 30-06, 300 win mag, 7mm rem mag, etc...) all have muzzle energies ranging from 2500 to 4000ish foot pounds. Foot pounds to joules is not exactly equivalent but close (I think 1 foot pound is about 0.75 or 0.8 joules). Somebody will look it up and correct me I'm sure.

I've put more meat in my freezer using my great grandfathers 30-30 Winchester model 94 than any other rifle. That is probably true for any hunter in North America who was born before 1980!!! The muzzle energy from a typical 30-30 is less than 2000 ft pounds - i.e., a whole hell of a lot less than 10,000 joules.

so, to be clear - 10,000 joules does not include any of the "normal" or "typical" hunting rifles that any farmer, hunter, sport shooter hunting big game in Canada would ever use...at least none that I'm aware of. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

>20 mm bores are banned. Hunting rifles = 6mm, 7mm, 8mm. 12 gauge shotguns = about 18mm. So again, a firearm greater than 20mm bore is HUGE. The ban on bore size does not include any "typical" or "normal" gun that I would ever use to shoot an animal that I want to put in my freezer. My preference is to kill the animal cleanly while minimizing the amount of meat that gets blown 50 yards past into the bush/field....so no, I don't want a cannon to kill my whitetail.

Again, I don't agree with a kneejerk prohibition that penalizes law abiding firearms owners who are collectors, sport shooters, club members, or hunters. But, I guess I don't really see how this affects the typical hunter.

Only my thoughts - let the disagreements begin. Again, we're the responsible gun owners so lets have responsible, informed, educated discussions on this.

Thanks,

Thank you. I consider myself to be a realist. I own several firearms for hunting. I personally don't think this list affects a hunter....but maybe I'm wrong.

Despite what some of the conspiracists are saying, no Govt. agent has knocked on the door yet asking for me to hand over my guns...