460 Wby really is prohibited

Anyone remember the .460 challenge Bob Prestash had when he owned Phoenix Guns in Edmonton centuries ago.?

Anyone want to comment? He He He He He He.

Some of you buggers are still alive. And have the bruise to show it.
 
Prophet River said:
We have a Westley Richards 577 Nito coming in (@243K US$ !!) in a couple weeks. Just checked, still NR (for now) Guy waited four years and will be into it for just about exactly 400K CAN$ by the time its in his hands. I wonder what compensation the government would be will to do if they were to confiscate it if it goes to prohib? (hate calling it a buy back when they never owned them in the first place)
Click to expand...

I am assuming with having it coming in a couple of weeks means the Gun has not entered Canada yet. It is my understanding a prohibited Gun can not be imported into Canada. If that is the case Govt. Lawyers may argue Govt. will not be liable to compensate and CBSA will either return to Sender or she goes into the Burner.

Perhaps wiser to have the 577 mailed to his PH for safekeeping.

Any Canadian can still own anything prohibited including Guns but just not possess it within Canadian Borders.

The Lawyers will love it.

Cheers
 
CommonCents said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this OIC does nothing to stop this “what if”. They know that. It’s intent is to ban more private property, period.

C.
 
anybody who can afford a $400,000.00 rifle can afford the a team of really top lawyers to tear a new one to the Government and the RCMP..and i REALLY hope they do so,it's about time the Liberal government get what's coming to them,TOTAL EXTINCTION,,
 
CommonCents said:
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.
Click to expand...

the people who are capable of such a task are unwilling to carry it out, if only by virtue of being law abiding. The individuals that prohibition does not reach are the ones with the capacity and inclination for such violence. Are we doomed to fight future crimes at the expense of those who would have already been beyond the scope of criminality? What incentive do we have for obeying laws that would criminalize us?

If I were to claim that firearms ownership is living as my most authentic self why is that less valuable than if I were to claim an alternate gender identity? Is that not inherently a limitation of my section 7 rights to personal freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
 
jimbo45 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe we have a few legal fights on the go right now. They could just use some more funding.
 
CommonCents said:
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.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it
 
ramjet said:
This guy gets it
Click to expand...

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.
 
aakoksal said:
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...
Click to expand...

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
 
ramjet said:
This guy gets it
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dynas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom