CanadianGunNutz.com logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 120

Thread: 460 Wby really is prohibited

  1. #91
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer caramel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    20,861
    I still remember that nice 460W i did not buy sometime in April 2019. I regret that very much. JP.
    Each year i have a mandatory medical. Yep for for the second year in a row. Life is good. JP.

  2. #92
    CGN frequent flyer jimbo45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Prophet River View Post
    Yeah, and this guy has quite a few like this....
    I donít understand why a guy like this donít take a million bucks and hire the best damn team of lawyers out there and fight this.

  3. #93
    Uber Super GunNutz guy329's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    SASK
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo45 View Post
    I don’t understand why a guy like this don’t take a million bucks and hire the best damn team of lawyers out there and fight this.
    I believe we have a few legal fights on the go right now. They could just use some more funding.
    The West wants Out!

  4. #94
    CGN Regular ramjet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonCents View Post
    If I may provide an opinion I haven't seen voiced in this thread yet:

    I believe that the 10,000 j rating is intended to limit high bullet-mass long range rifles like the .50 BMG, and any other round that could serve its purpose, because they have the ability to reach out and touch somebody from beyond the protection of a defensive perimeter and through a protective barrier of insufficient strength.

    I believe that the rifles capable of this are being targetted because they would be the single most effective tool for a sufficiently dedictated individual should they decide to prematurely unseat an overreaching elected official, to put it nicely.

    If one anticipates a more and more unstable future, the likelihood of such a dedicated person arising amongst the capable (read: armed) population increases.

    I believe limiting this potential risk to government officials was the single most important intent behind this particular aspect of the OIC.
    This guy gets it

  5. #95
    Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by ramjet View Post
    This guy gets it
    Honestly, I disagree. Most use cases of .50 BMG is for stuff like shooting into an engine block and detonating unexplored ordnance. Carrying around a .50 bmg rifle in public would be extremely conspicuous (I’m pretty sure these rifles are hardly ever used in crimes, ever). In addition to that, they are expensive. Crimes like forcefully “unseating” an elected official are usually done by people who are irrational and rash. They would likely not be able to afford the price tag. I’m willing to bet almost anyone who is successful enough in life to drop 5k on a rifle has enough to lose that they won’t do something stupid.

  6. #96
    CGN Regular Melvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    118
    Well said. The previous comments only serve to justify the gun ban to those who feel it is necessary.

  7. #97
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kamloops, BC
    Posts
    2,131
    Quote Originally Posted by aakoksal View Post
    This has nothing to do with the ongoing gun violence, they are simply ensuring civilians don't have capabilities to engage long-range targets when in times of crisis... Looks like they are scared sh!tless...
    That's how I see it too. They don't want us to have anything that could be effective in any sort of civil war or uprising. Basically the same reason for any sort of weapons ban in history, can't have the peasants getting uppity.
    Kristian

  8. #98
    Super GunNutz kevin g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hfx, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    656
    wow...hell be a multi-millionaire when the buyback pays out
    If you take your kids hunting, you Won't have to go hunting for your kids!!!!

    My wife...yes. My dog...maybe. My gun....NEVER !!!

  9. #99
    Super GunNutz C-7.62x51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by ramjet View Post
    This guy gets it
    This guy gets what? That big bore rifles can shoot long ranges and kill things? Don’t we all get that? Are you saying this justifies the OIC? That it will somehow stop the lunatic that would perpetrate such a crime?

    C.

  10. #100
    CGN frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Dynas View Post
    Honestly, I disagree. Most use cases of .50 BMG is for stuff like shooting into an engine block and detonating unexplored ordnance. Carrying around a .50 bmg rifle in public would be extremely conspicuous (I’m pretty sure these rifles are hardly ever used in crimes, ever). In addition to that, they are expensive. Crimes like forcefully “unseating” an elected official are usually done by people who are irrational and rash. They would likely not be able to afford the price tag. I’m willing to bet almost anyone who is successful enough in life to drop 5k on a rifle has enough to lose that they won’t do something stupid.
    You’re right, no one will do anything stupid because we are vetted, licensed owners and good people. The problem is the government doesn’t think that is the case.

    CommonCents nailed it though. The end game here is civil disarmament for fear of uprisings when populations are forced into authoritarian rule. This line of logic is well documented and discussed by major world governance organizations like the UN.

    If you apply that logic to the OIC it only makes sense. Historically there has been very little gun violence and mass shootings in Canada compared to other places in the world from licensed owners. The most recent one surrounded by controversy and loose details, as well as suspiciously convenient timing. They are attacking the license holders (tax payers, good Canadians) because that is who they are afraid of. They don’t actually give a crap about gangs and gun crime and welcome more of it because it helps them pass laws.

    They targeted semi autos and long range, heavy hitting calibers. These guns aren’t used by criminals like you say. The government fears the citizens, and this is timely based on the “new normal” authoritarian overreach we find ourselves in today. They are worried people will try to stop them from their agenda, as wrong as they are on that.

    They don’t care if you get shot. They are worried about themselves like any natural politician.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •