Remember that these are the guys who said that they were preparing to fight UN and/or Chinese troops who might invade Canada?
Now their lawyer says that they were used for hunting? Was she taking about the pipe bomb or the handguns?
I don’t see a single trigger or cable lock in that photo. Was the ammunition stored in a separate locked container?
These guys should never be allowed to own a firearm again based solely on the UN/China delusion. These types of violent collective fantasies are extremely dangerous and they absolutely should be disqualifying.
All guns seized from this blockade were also being used to disrupt international trade.
If these were seized from vehicles, neither of those considerations are relevant. You don’t need a firearm lock or locked ammo box in a vehicle. The firearm just can’t be loaded when in the vehicle.
I know that there are more absurdities that prove your point. However, a handgun can be a great addition to hunting
It is illegal in Canada.
They are restricted, not illegal.
In Canada it is only legal to hunt with non-restricted firearms. It is illegal to hunt with handguns.
Hunting with a Kriss Vector is… a choice.
This whole table just looks like the Modern Warfare 2 load out selection.
And this exactly is the issue with gun bans. Just because something looks scary to you, or looks like it’s from a videogame doesn’t mean it’s more capable than other guns, or that it isn’t used for hunting.
I have always found this to be a funny argument.
“You have two guns that are of the same caliber, fire the same cartridge, have the same rate of fire, and the same killing power but one is non-restricted few one is prohibited. I should be able to own the prohibited one.”
Why? You can get the exact same function from the non-restricted one. The only difference between the two is how they look.
I, a 40 year legal gun owner, believe that it is because of how people think the restricted firearm makes them look and how they think it makes other people feel about them.
How about this. This is an idea that I’ve proposed to people many times. You can keep those firearms but every part of the firearm, everything that goes into or onto the firearm, everything associated with the firearm has to be hot pink. Possessing a firearm or anything associated with a firearm that is supposed to be hot pink but isn’t means you instantly and permanently lose the privilege of owning forearms in Canada. Selling or repairing any firearm or anything associated with a firearm that is supposed to be hot pink means you instantly and permanently lose you license to sell or repair firearms in Canada. Allowing any firearm or anything associated with a firearm that is supposed to be hot pink but isn’t onto your range means that you instantly and permanently lose you licence to operate a range in Canada.
The only difference between the firearm now and in my proposal is the colour.
I don’t give the first fuck what color the gun is that I’m shooting at the range. I’m prefectly happy to shoot a hot pink or neon green or day glow orange gun.
Imagine you own the “restricted” gun or a similar family of guns. Then they suddenly get banned and you need to get rid of your actually worthless guns, because nobody will buy them now. A collector could be down thousands.
You are saying “hot pink” like that’s not an insane approach to it. You are still doing the exact same thing that the people who want to ban guns are doing. You are mandating a change of form of how the firearm looks. How about not doing that and letting people own the guns they want to own, if they are using them for hunting, sport, etc? How about not banning the “scary” guns for their looks only?
Who doesn’t wear plate armor to hunt small game?
I legitimately do because of other hunters.
I wouldn’t give much credit to kevlar vs. a hunting round like a .300WSM.
Removed by mod
I know I do.
