Petition e-2341: Demand Democratic Process on Liberals' Firearms Agenda
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
It was actually over 2 BILLION wasted in that pitiful effort.
They were warned up front it could not work.
As they have been over and over regarding their current effort.
I sincerely hope that history does repeat itself in this instance, and should they ram this through sufficient numbers of people will have had enough and kick them to the curb the next possible opportunity. The failed firearm registration program in Canada was cited as one of the center reasons the government of that day was toppled...
Nog
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Trudeau Faces New Blow as Toronto Mayor Scraps Call for Gun Bans
https://thegunblog.ca/2020/01/28/trudeau-faces-new-blow-as-toronto-mayor-scraps-call-for-gun-bans/
Peter MacKay on Liberal Gun Bans: ‘Whatever They Do, We Will Undo’
“The safety of Canadians will be enhanced by putting criminals behind bars, not harassing law-abiding citizens.”
https://thegunblog.ca/2020/01/28/peter-mackay-on-liberal-gun-bans-whatever-they-do-we-will-undo/
Nog
https://thegunblog.ca/2020/01/28/trudeau-faces-new-blow-as-toronto-mayor-scraps-call-for-gun-bans/
Peter MacKay on Liberal Gun Bans: ‘Whatever They Do, We Will Undo’
“The safety of Canadians will be enhanced by putting criminals behind bars, not harassing law-abiding citizens.”
https://thegunblog.ca/2020/01/28/peter-mackay-on-liberal-gun-bans-whatever-they-do-we-will-undo/
Nog
ChinookExerciser
Active Member
I suspect we will see the Liberals back out of this. They already have the left vote and they will not lose it. Politically it makes no sense to go down the ban gun road. They have so much to loose and very little to gain.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Also last week, a petition to stop Trudeau’s confiscation order surpassed 100,000 signatures. It became the No. 1 e-petition in Canadian history tonight with more than 130,500 signatures. It still has two weeks to go.
https://thegunblog.ca/2020/01/28/trudeau-faces-new-blow-as-toronto-mayor-scraps-call-for-gun-bans/
https://thegunblog.ca/2020/01/28/trudeau-faces-new-blow-as-toronto-mayor-scraps-call-for-gun-bans/
Most could use an education on "Assault Style Weapons".
Also, Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter was not a criminal before Sandy Hook, so I see a ban as keeping "Assault Style Weapons" out of the hands of potential criminals.
Read on if you dare:
https://www.snipercountry.com/5-56x45-nato-and-ar-15-chronology/
The gory details:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
From the above document:
"The lethality of the AR-I5 and its reliability record were parti- cularly impressive. All confirmed casualties inflicted by the AR-15. including extremity hits, were fatal (see photographs 7 and 8, Annex "D"). "
The above statement about lethality of extremity hits is confirmed by the Sandy Hook coroners report:
"Shortly after the shooting, police announced that Lanza used the rifle to kill the victims at the school.[104] At a press conference on December 15, Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the Chief Medical Examiner of Connecticut, was asked about the wounds, and replied "All the ones that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon."[10][105][95]When asked if the children suffered before dying, Carver replied by stating that "If so, not for very long".[106] Carver, whose office autopsied the victims and who personally performed seven, said the injuries were "devastating" and that parents identified their children from photographs to spare them the sight. All the child victims were first graders, and all were killed with the Bushmaster XM15. Carver said the bullets used were "designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in."
You can research further, but the AR15 & it's ammo through a combination of loose barrel rifling (low rate of twist) & the original Viet Nam era 5.56mm round cause the bullet to tumble with the body versus exiting the body to increase lethality.
As an FYI NATO refused to adopt the Viet Nam era 5.56mm round because of it's lethality.
In the US, low-twist barrels & Viet Nam era 5.56mm rounds are available to the public but not the military.
So, at he end of the day we all should ask ourselves if the good, in whatever selfish manner outweighs the bad.
Also, Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter was not a criminal before Sandy Hook, so I see a ban as keeping "Assault Style Weapons" out of the hands of potential criminals.
Read on if you dare:
https://www.snipercountry.com/5-56x45-nato-and-ar-15-chronology/
The gory details:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
From the above document:
"The lethality of the AR-I5 and its reliability record were parti- cularly impressive. All confirmed casualties inflicted by the AR-15. including extremity hits, were fatal (see photographs 7 and 8, Annex "D"). "
The above statement about lethality of extremity hits is confirmed by the Sandy Hook coroners report:
"Shortly after the shooting, police announced that Lanza used the rifle to kill the victims at the school.[104] At a press conference on December 15, Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the Chief Medical Examiner of Connecticut, was asked about the wounds, and replied "All the ones that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon."[10][105][95]When asked if the children suffered before dying, Carver replied by stating that "If so, not for very long".[106] Carver, whose office autopsied the victims and who personally performed seven, said the injuries were "devastating" and that parents identified their children from photographs to spare them the sight. All the child victims were first graders, and all were killed with the Bushmaster XM15. Carver said the bullets used were "designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in."
You can research further, but the AR15 & it's ammo through a combination of loose barrel rifling (low rate of twist) & the original Viet Nam era 5.56mm round cause the bullet to tumble with the body versus exiting the body to increase lethality.
As an FYI NATO refused to adopt the Viet Nam era 5.56mm round because of it's lethality.
In the US, low-twist barrels & Viet Nam era 5.56mm rounds are available to the public but not the military.
So, at he end of the day we all should ask ourselves if the good, in whatever selfish manner outweighs the bad.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Including yourself it would seem.
The AR 15 is a Restricted Weapon in Canada. That means in order to own one, you are subject to a rather intense background check prior to doing so.
Then, you are subject to daily (yes, daily) background checks to verify you are still worthy of that privilege of ownership.
Further, the Restricted Status requires a permit to take the AR to the range or your gunsmith.
You may not take it anywhere else without specific permission and a strong reason for doing so.
While in transport to the range or your gunsmith, you must take the most direct route, and the firearm must be trigger locked within a secure and locked solid case. At home as with all firearms in Canada, it must be secured in an approved safe.
In Canada the magazines for such rifles are Restricted to holding no more than five rounds - any more are Prohibited.
The AR 15 was never and has never been used by any military in the world.
It was specifically designed as a Sporting Rifle (AR stands for Armalite Rifle not assault rifle btw).
It main uses are target shooting and hunting {US and elsewhere).
In Canada, the AR 15 has never been involved in a single homicide, nor for that matter in any but one single criminal use (wherein the rifle was illegally obtained by a Criminal).
There are many many sporting rifles that function exactly the same as the AR 15, but are not Restricted. This is largely due to the classification system that bases it's considerations on LOOKS rather than performance. In reality, the Ranch Rifle (thus named as for decades it was a common tool found on most western farms / ranches) functions exactly the same, yet no-one appears to want to be banning them yet (Yet as in under Trudeau they wish to classify ALL semi-automatic firearms as "assault style rifles").
Sandy Hook and others were obvious tragedies. However they occurred on US soil, not Canada where our firearm rules and regulations are substantially different. Such comparisons, while obviously tempting for those wishing to push the "Ban" narrative, really are a case of apples and oranges.
Methinks you have mistaken the projectiles of the AK 47 and it's loose rifling with that of the AR. The AK was indeed specifically designed to do exactly as you have noted, as a method to circumvent the Geneva Convention prohibition of expanding projectiles. The AR, as it was never designed nor intended for military employ, certainly was not. The AR is well known for extremely tight tolerances (including rifling) so much so that they need to be extremely well maintained in order to function properly (which in itself would make it a poor military weapon choice).
The AR 15 is regularly used for many shooting sports and contests wherein accuracy is of extreme import (and "loose rifling" affords anything but)
So, at he end of the day we all should ask ourselves just why the current liberal government is so focused on attacking legal firearm owners, while offering up ever increasingly light sentences for criminal activities, and an apparent aversion towards dealing directly with gangs and illegal firearm use. And, as the subject of this petition indicates, that same government appears to be so afraid of debating the matter in the House of Commons they are preparing to introduce the related Legislation by way of an Order in Council (OIC - which offers no possibility of debate / discussion in the House).
From where the Petition sits today, it would appear that an ever increasing number of Canadians are asking those exact same questions...
Nog
The reference links I provided say otherwise. Did you read them?
How bout this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
As you can see the AR-15 was originally a selective fire 5.56mm rifle; when Colt bought the gun from Armalite it diverged into the M16 & Colt AR-15 , with the Colt being not selective fire.
When I SERVED as a Medic during Vietnam the ballistic characteristics of the M16 were well known. As an FYI, some of my fellow Medic's had pre-1970 encountered what was probably test versions of the AK-74, saying that captured M15 5.56mm 45mm rounds could be used in the AK-74. This DOES run contrary to documented fact and is only provided here as it may have use to enthusiasts.
Perhaps you have some experience from when you served you'd like to share.
Last edited:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
One has to be somewhat careful employing Wiki as their main source of information.
It is well understood to be fraught with misinformation as it relies heavily upon the input of site users as "fact".
In this case however it is close enough.
Yes, I read your links. Again, US to Canada Laws and Regulations are MILES apart. Apples and oranges.
Again, the AR 15 never saw the light of day in any military field. Period.
Of course the M 16 did - it was the military variant., designed specifically for that purpose.
The AR was designed for Civilian use.
Again - Period.
You are now altering what you stated previously suggesting the M16 (rather than the AR 15) was designed with less than tight tolerances, and so caused the projectile to be unstable.
Again, that was the intent of the design of the AK 47, not the AR 15 as I originally noted.
Nor was that inherent in either the M16 or it's descendant the M16 A2.
The somewhat ballistically unstable characteristics of the 7.62×39mm AK round were enhanced in this regard by sloppy tolerances, including over-bore sizing and inferior rifling.Whether by intent (as many believe) or simply shoddy production techniques, the result was the same.
That caused the bullet to often "keyhole" (tumble through the air rather than spiral like a football), and most certainly enhanced that effect when striking a target.
That either left the bullet in the target after creating larger wound channel and increased hydro-static trauma due to the tumbling action, or leaving an even larger wound channel upon exit.
The M16 (NOT the subject of this discussion btw) did neither.
On an aside note, the M 16 is a Prohibited Weapon in Canada.
To run a 5.56 x 45mm NATO Round into an AK 74 (5.45×39mm) would be a question of defeating physics.
Not going to happen.
The current documentation on this is recognized fact for a reason.
Need I go into the specifics?
A few questions if I might:
Did you serve under the US or Canadian Flag when in 'Nam?
Are you a US or Canadian citizen?
And if the former, why the interest / focused Ban Mentality on whether or not the topic is afforded due democratic process in the Canadian House of Commons?
I don't often entertain pointed questions as to my background, however in this case they are partially relevant.
Every male member of my Family (both sides) has served in either the US or Canadian Military for five plus generations - excluding me.
Personal choice. LOTS of exposure as you may ascertain.
My experience with firearms goes even deeper.
I am very familiar with pretty well every firearm under discussion, and have owned many of the same for decades.
I am currently in the process of acquiring a Federal Firearms Dealer License in Canada as my brother as done in the US.
Interesting enough, the Canadian Petition continues to gather numbers.
Now having an extremely healthy lead on any Canadian Petition conducted in this manner to date.
Good work. Keep it up Folks!!
Cheers,
Nog
It is well understood to be fraught with misinformation as it relies heavily upon the input of site users as "fact".
In this case however it is close enough.
Yes, I read your links. Again, US to Canada Laws and Regulations are MILES apart. Apples and oranges.
Again, the AR 15 never saw the light of day in any military field. Period.
Of course the M 16 did - it was the military variant., designed specifically for that purpose.
The AR was designed for Civilian use.
Again - Period.
You are now altering what you stated previously suggesting the M16 (rather than the AR 15) was designed with less than tight tolerances, and so caused the projectile to be unstable.
Again, that was the intent of the design of the AK 47, not the AR 15 as I originally noted.
Nor was that inherent in either the M16 or it's descendant the M16 A2.
The somewhat ballistically unstable characteristics of the 7.62×39mm AK round were enhanced in this regard by sloppy tolerances, including over-bore sizing and inferior rifling.Whether by intent (as many believe) or simply shoddy production techniques, the result was the same.
That caused the bullet to often "keyhole" (tumble through the air rather than spiral like a football), and most certainly enhanced that effect when striking a target.
That either left the bullet in the target after creating larger wound channel and increased hydro-static trauma due to the tumbling action, or leaving an even larger wound channel upon exit.
The M16 (NOT the subject of this discussion btw) did neither.
On an aside note, the M 16 is a Prohibited Weapon in Canada.
To run a 5.56 x 45mm NATO Round into an AK 74 (5.45×39mm) would be a question of defeating physics.
Not going to happen.
The current documentation on this is recognized fact for a reason.
Need I go into the specifics?
A few questions if I might:
Did you serve under the US or Canadian Flag when in 'Nam?
Are you a US or Canadian citizen?
And if the former, why the interest / focused Ban Mentality on whether or not the topic is afforded due democratic process in the Canadian House of Commons?
I don't often entertain pointed questions as to my background, however in this case they are partially relevant.
Every male member of my Family (both sides) has served in either the US or Canadian Military for five plus generations - excluding me.
Personal choice. LOTS of exposure as you may ascertain.
My experience with firearms goes even deeper.
I am very familiar with pretty well every firearm under discussion, and have owned many of the same for decades.
I am currently in the process of acquiring a Federal Firearms Dealer License in Canada as my brother as done in the US.
Interesting enough, the Canadian Petition continues to gather numbers.
Now having an extremely healthy lead on any Canadian Petition conducted in this manner to date.
Good work. Keep it up Folks!!
Cheers,
Nog
US Navy
US citizen
All people should know what they are/are not supporting before making that decision. In this case true lethality of many assault stye weapons.
I don't think you & I will ever come to agreement on the differences between Armalite AR15, Colt AR15 & M16 are or that according to my sources the Armalite version was field tested in Viet Nam. I have furnished what I consider reliable sources.
I actually like 5.56mm Assault rifles. If I had a gun, that's what I would own. I firmly believe they serve no legitimate purpose in a non-military/police environment in that other less lethal options exist. Dunno about Canada, but down here I would have no problem getting the Vietnam era barrel, Vietnam era ammo, and a large capacity mag, and a bump stock.
One thing i agree on. I mis-spoke thanks for correcting me what I meant was the AK74 round in an M16. Dunno if this is real or not it was a late night "war story" told while on evening duty.
IMO you could increase your credibility by providing some documented sources AND coming to the realization that those of us who served have a less than favorable view of those who didn't serve but choose to be all hung-ho on guns & warfare. (We call then Chicken Hawks down here). Hard thing for me to say, but if you're tough enough to say to a Sandy Hook parent "I don't give a **** my having an AR is more important ", then your tough enough to take my below-the-belt comments.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Enough Said.
Apples and Oranges. Your statement "Dunno about Canada" spells it all. Thanks
We also have a word for those who like to meddle in affairs not of their concern and outside of their own country.
I am certain you can figure it out what that may be.
As for labeling me, you have WELL missed the mark. I do like firearms of many varying types. I do not care for warfare whatsoever.
No surprises...
Have a nice life.
Nog
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Parliament petition against Liberal gun ban biggest in Canadian history
A petition to Parliament against the Liberals’ gun ban has now reached over 140,000 signatures from upset Canadians across the country and is now the most signed official petition in Canadian history.
The petition against the ban of “military-style assault rifles” opened on Dec. 17, 2019 and will close on Feb. 15 2020.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s office has not responded to The Post Millennial‘s requests for comment. The minister was asked what his response is to a record number of Canadians signing a petition against the Liberal gun ban and about the GTA mayors, including John Tory, releasing a statement calling for better border security to fight gun crime because an estimated 80 percent of gun crime in Canada is committed by illegal guns smuggled in from the US. The mayors’ statement did not mention the Liberal gun ban.
Blair was hit with hard questions during Question Period on Thursday about the gun ban that’s being rammed through Parliament without consultation with the opposition MPs and the public.
Conservative MP Raquel Dancho pointed out that Winnipeg has the highest rates of violent crime in Canada, which is mostly related to the meth crisis and not legal gun ownership. She also quoted Const. Rob Carver who said that the ban will not change the threat level at all.
Dancho then asked, “Will the Liberals admit their policy is completely out of step with police on the front lines and does nothing to keep Winnipeggers safe?”
Blair referred to three ways that guns end up in the hands of criminals before being cut off. He said, “They are smuggled across the border. They are stolen, or they are criminally diverted. And we are taking action to strengthen gun control laws to prevent those guns from being smuggled into Canada, to prevent them from being stolen from legal gun owners …”
When speaking to Blair, Conservative MP, John Brassard said, “Toronto Police Chief, Mark Saunders, revealed in December that 82 percent of handguns involved in crimes were smuggled in from the United States. The Minister of Public Safety had previously stated that half of crime guns come from domestic sources.”
He later asked, “Can the Minister table the source of his information that has now been proven incorrect?”
Blair acknowledged that his previous statistics, stating that 50 percent of handguns involved in crime came from the U.S., have changed.
Blair said, “The 50 percent number actually came from Chief Saunders in his first public statement, but since, as result of some investigations they have done into smuggling, came out with another number. And I acknowledge the facts there …” He was then cut off.
The Post Millennial also reached out to Tracey Wilson, who is a gun rights advocate from the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights.
“I don’t think the Liberals will be forced to withdraw their gun ban plans because of the petition, however the opposition across the nation is overwhelming and undeniable. The petition itself mostly asks for proper parliamentary process to be respected. This weakened, minority government would be wise to listen to the rising voices across the country. This could be the biggest mistake in their history,” said Wilson.
“The strongest argument against the ban is the lack of evidence that it will reduce crime, which should be the focus. That’s in addition to the incredible burden to tax payers for the buyback program itself which could easily soar over the billion dollar mark,” Wilson continued. “It’s impossible to deny that those funds would be better allocated to community programs, at risk youth interventions, anti-smuggling border technology and increased law enforcement funding. This is a blunder of epic proportions on their behalf, but it’s not too late to turn it around. Every Canadian would rally behind the measures I’ve proposed.”
Two previous petitions put forth by Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz calling for the gun ban only received fewer than 24,000 signatures.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office also did not respond to request for comment.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/p...-liberal-gun-ban-biggest-in-canadian-history/
A petition to Parliament against the Liberals’ gun ban has now reached over 140,000 signatures from upset Canadians across the country and is now the most signed official petition in Canadian history.
The petition against the ban of “military-style assault rifles” opened on Dec. 17, 2019 and will close on Feb. 15 2020.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s office has not responded to The Post Millennial‘s requests for comment. The minister was asked what his response is to a record number of Canadians signing a petition against the Liberal gun ban and about the GTA mayors, including John Tory, releasing a statement calling for better border security to fight gun crime because an estimated 80 percent of gun crime in Canada is committed by illegal guns smuggled in from the US. The mayors’ statement did not mention the Liberal gun ban.
Blair was hit with hard questions during Question Period on Thursday about the gun ban that’s being rammed through Parliament without consultation with the opposition MPs and the public.
Conservative MP Raquel Dancho pointed out that Winnipeg has the highest rates of violent crime in Canada, which is mostly related to the meth crisis and not legal gun ownership. She also quoted Const. Rob Carver who said that the ban will not change the threat level at all.
Dancho then asked, “Will the Liberals admit their policy is completely out of step with police on the front lines and does nothing to keep Winnipeggers safe?”
Blair referred to three ways that guns end up in the hands of criminals before being cut off. He said, “They are smuggled across the border. They are stolen, or they are criminally diverted. And we are taking action to strengthen gun control laws to prevent those guns from being smuggled into Canada, to prevent them from being stolen from legal gun owners …”
When speaking to Blair, Conservative MP, John Brassard said, “Toronto Police Chief, Mark Saunders, revealed in December that 82 percent of handguns involved in crimes were smuggled in from the United States. The Minister of Public Safety had previously stated that half of crime guns come from domestic sources.”
He later asked, “Can the Minister table the source of his information that has now been proven incorrect?”
Blair acknowledged that his previous statistics, stating that 50 percent of handguns involved in crime came from the U.S., have changed.
Blair said, “The 50 percent number actually came from Chief Saunders in his first public statement, but since, as result of some investigations they have done into smuggling, came out with another number. And I acknowledge the facts there …” He was then cut off.
The Post Millennial also reached out to Tracey Wilson, who is a gun rights advocate from the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights.
“I don’t think the Liberals will be forced to withdraw their gun ban plans because of the petition, however the opposition across the nation is overwhelming and undeniable. The petition itself mostly asks for proper parliamentary process to be respected. This weakened, minority government would be wise to listen to the rising voices across the country. This could be the biggest mistake in their history,” said Wilson.
“The strongest argument against the ban is the lack of evidence that it will reduce crime, which should be the focus. That’s in addition to the incredible burden to tax payers for the buyback program itself which could easily soar over the billion dollar mark,” Wilson continued. “It’s impossible to deny that those funds would be better allocated to community programs, at risk youth interventions, anti-smuggling border technology and increased law enforcement funding. This is a blunder of epic proportions on their behalf, but it’s not too late to turn it around. Every Canadian would rally behind the measures I’ve proposed.”
Two previous petitions put forth by Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz calling for the gun ban only received fewer than 24,000 signatures.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office also did not respond to request for comment.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/p...-liberal-gun-ban-biggest-in-canadian-history/
This is a hot topic that baffles me, Canada has been filled with Trudeau dumbed down Canadians. Anyone arguing the lethality of an AR with ancient data about tumbling projectiles is in the wrong era. Modern Sporting Rifles use same barrel twists, projectiles and add on's as any bolt gun. Whitewashing Canadas gun laws using US data, stats, links or comparisons clearly demonstrates the brain washing with false info, probably from our biased BS media. Sorry ericl but please understand CANADIAN current laws before making comments. We are not the same as the US. As NOG states the weapons you are arguing to ban have been restricted in Canada for many years. Canada's AR 15 must be semi auto, with 5 rd mags and legal owners must have a restricted licence, with an ATT to move that weapon any where. BTW pistols are the same except a small minority who have carry permits, law, miners, some guides.
Please understand that rules only apply to LEGAL gun owners. Criminals do NOT adhere to laws, please comprehend this. If the weapon/firearm is not trigger locked while locked in your safe or trigger locked and in another lock box while you are travelling directly to the range or gunsmith then laws are being broken. Trudeau taking away and making illegal new weapons will DO NOTHING for the safety of Canadians as the gang bangers, criminals or any other lowlife who are using weapons illegally do not care about legalities. All must understand this.
I am sure all could understand what an infuse of the estimated 2 billion $ WOULD do to enhance the safety of Canadians. Extra RCMP, CBS, Judges, and front line drug, social workers to educate the uneducated.
BTW over the last 34 years I have fired 1000's of rounds with full auto capability thru a C7, C6 and C8 all while serving in the military. Non of those weapons are legal for any private ownership in Canada. While visiting the US I have fired same weapon owned by civilians in many states. Not in Canada.
HM
Please understand that rules only apply to LEGAL gun owners. Criminals do NOT adhere to laws, please comprehend this. If the weapon/firearm is not trigger locked while locked in your safe or trigger locked and in another lock box while you are travelling directly to the range or gunsmith then laws are being broken. Trudeau taking away and making illegal new weapons will DO NOTHING for the safety of Canadians as the gang bangers, criminals or any other lowlife who are using weapons illegally do not care about legalities. All must understand this.
I am sure all could understand what an infuse of the estimated 2 billion $ WOULD do to enhance the safety of Canadians. Extra RCMP, CBS, Judges, and front line drug, social workers to educate the uneducated.
BTW over the last 34 years I have fired 1000's of rounds with full auto capability thru a C7, C6 and C8 all while serving in the military. Non of those weapons are legal for any private ownership in Canada. While visiting the US I have fired same weapon owned by civilians in many states. Not in Canada.
HM
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
The petition continues to grow, passing 150,000 in the last day!
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2341
Thanks for the help Folks! Sincerely Appreciated!!
Nog
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2341
Thanks for the help Folks! Sincerely Appreciated!!
Nog
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
I don't think I've ever said this here - in fact I have tried to avoid it - but I have spent a large part of my adult life working in the arms industry. I have helped bring new manufacturers of AR15s online; I have put ARs in the hands of agencies that needed them. I still get personal FB messages from the owners of a few companies that design and build ARs and their various components, even though I have basically gotten out of that line of work. If you shoot, you have heard of many of the companies I have worked for.
Anybody who thinks there is some special lethality to the AR-15 doesn't know anything about them. They're just another .223 rifle as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. Terminal ballistics was never my specific field but in my work in that industry I spent plenty of time with people working on exactly that.
The main advantage to the AR these days is its modularity. It's the world standard in service rifles because it works really well, and it's the most popular rifle anywhere it's available because there are a million little companies building bits and pieces for it that drop in. The direct gas impingement design is brilliant and the straight-line recoil path is also a fantastic feature.
It's popular for hunting wherever it's legal to do so because it works so well. Attempts to replace the m16 and m4 keep failing because the balance of portability, reliability, durability and accuracy are hard to beat. It's a great all-around rifle, although there have been issues in the field with the terminal ballistics from the get-go...the Mk262 ammunition is excellent but most of what's been available in the military has been mediocre all along. It doesn't even compare to your average plain-jane .270 or .30-06. This is why so many studies have been done about whether it's practical to move to a 6.5 or 6.8mm projectile; in Afghanistan there was a concern about weapons overmatch on the open, rangey terrain, for example. The 6.8s had accuracy issues and the better 6.5s had magazine issues and it's never really moved forward, so some attempts have been made to improve the lethality of the issued ammunition. There are some better options these days but nothing that compares to a full-sized .30 calibre.
Taking it away from civilians and leaving it exclusively in the hands of the state is not at all what I consider a progressive idea. It's just listening to people who don't understand what they're looking at.
Anybody who thinks there is some special lethality to the AR-15 doesn't know anything about them. They're just another .223 rifle as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. Terminal ballistics was never my specific field but in my work in that industry I spent plenty of time with people working on exactly that.
The main advantage to the AR these days is its modularity. It's the world standard in service rifles because it works really well, and it's the most popular rifle anywhere it's available because there are a million little companies building bits and pieces for it that drop in. The direct gas impingement design is brilliant and the straight-line recoil path is also a fantastic feature.
It's popular for hunting wherever it's legal to do so because it works so well. Attempts to replace the m16 and m4 keep failing because the balance of portability, reliability, durability and accuracy are hard to beat. It's a great all-around rifle, although there have been issues in the field with the terminal ballistics from the get-go...the Mk262 ammunition is excellent but most of what's been available in the military has been mediocre all along. It doesn't even compare to your average plain-jane .270 or .30-06. This is why so many studies have been done about whether it's practical to move to a 6.5 or 6.8mm projectile; in Afghanistan there was a concern about weapons overmatch on the open, rangey terrain, for example. The 6.8s had accuracy issues and the better 6.5s had magazine issues and it's never really moved forward, so some attempts have been made to improve the lethality of the issued ammunition. There are some better options these days but nothing that compares to a full-sized .30 calibre.
Taking it away from civilians and leaving it exclusively in the hands of the state is not at all what I consider a progressive idea. It's just listening to people who don't understand what they're looking at.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Many may look upon the now largest Petition to Government ever in Canada as a direct focus upon the firearm debate in Canada.
Instead it is really a matter of the impending decision as to whether a Minority Government should be allowed to FORCE legislation upon Canadian Citizens rather than openly debating such legislation in the House of Commons.
“Orders in council are really a throwback to the days of governing by decree in which monarchs, despots and, in Canada’s case today, elected governments may dictate to the populace with no regard for process, fairness or legal recourse.”
I urge you all to sign this Petition, share is as widely as you can, and simply say NO to Dictatorship Rule in Canada!!
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2341
Thanks In Advance...
Nog
Instead it is really a matter of the impending decision as to whether a Minority Government should be allowed to FORCE legislation upon Canadian Citizens rather than openly debating such legislation in the House of Commons.
“Orders in council are really a throwback to the days of governing by decree in which monarchs, despots and, in Canada’s case today, elected governments may dictate to the populace with no regard for process, fairness or legal recourse.”
I urge you all to sign this Petition, share is as widely as you can, and simply say NO to Dictatorship Rule in Canada!!
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2341
Thanks In Advance...
Nog
Similar threads
