CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29200
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 10:36 am
 


Title: Indigenous hunters excluded from Ottawa�s assault weapons ban under Section 35
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2020-05-05 10:25:02
Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14347
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 10:36 am
 


Enough is enough. I want one of the anti gun crowd on here who've been so vehemently defending this gun grab to explain why their "you don't need a semi automatic rifle to hunt" whine only applies to white people?

What possible rational could there be to give natives semi automatic weapons "for hunting" while denying that same right to other Canadians. Oh wait. They must need "assault rifles" so they don't end up over represented in prison.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20923
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 10:53 am
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Enough is enough. I want one of the anti gun crowd on here who've been so vehemently defending this gun grab to explain why their "you don't need a semi automatic rifle to hunt" whine only applies to white people?

What possible rational could there be to give natives semi automatic weapons "for hunting" while denying that same right to other Canadians. Oh wait. They must need "assault rifles" so they don't end up over represented in prison.


Yes, white people are the real victims here.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30468
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 10:57 am
 


Because natives have been hunting with semi-automatic weapons for thousands of years.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8496
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 11:28 am
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Enough is enough. I want one of the anti gun crowd on here who've been so vehemently defending this gun grab to explain why their "you don't need a semi automatic rifle to hunt" whine only applies to white people?

What possible rational could there be to give natives semi automatic weapons "for hunting" while denying that same right to other Canadians. Oh wait. They must need "assault rifles" so they don't end up over represented in prison.

1- I’m not a member of the anti gun crowd, I’m a member of the anti automatic weapon and civilian “public carry” of handgun crowd,
2- I suspect the feds are concerned they will not have the right to regulate what firearms are used on Treaty Lands.
3- Unless my experience is incorrect, you would be able to load all the AR-15’s owned by Treaty guys into a large wheelbarrow with room left over for a few Cooey SS 16 gauges.


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36161
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 11:34 am
 


The article states: “They may continue using firearms that were previously non-restricted for these purposes until a suitable replacement can be acquired.”

But it has never been legal to hunt with an "Assault Rifle", or a rifle that is classed as 'restricted'.

Meaning, the title is incorrect.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2602
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 11:48 am
 


raydan wrote:
Because natives have been hunting with semi-automatic weapons for thousands of years.


ROTFL



-J.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29583
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 11:52 am
 


fifeboy wrote:
...I’m not a member of the anti gun crowd, I’m a member of the anti automatic weapon and civilian “public carry” of handgun crowd...


So's pretty much everyone else. Automatic weapons are already banned, which makes the new bans meaningless. And open carry is also banned, which once again makes any new bans meaningless.

Would it be too much to ask that the ban-crazies in the government actually bother to educate themselves enough to understand the differences between automatic, semi-automatic, and single-shot firearms? I suspect that they haven't made any effort at all to learn these differences is because they simply don't care, because the end goal is to one day have a full and total ban on any sort of private firearm possession altogether. Like why waste any effort to understand the technical details of something you intend to completely abolish out of existence? :?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14347
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 11:56 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Enough is enough. I want one of the anti gun crowd on here who've been so vehemently defending this gun grab to explain why their "you don't need a semi automatic rifle to hunt" whine only applies to white people?

What possible rational could there be to give natives semi automatic weapons "for hunting" while denying that same right to other Canadians. Oh wait. They must need "assault rifles" so they don't end up over represented in prison.


Yes, white people are the real victims here.


I'm still waiting for an answer and your response isn't an answer.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20923
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 12:07 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Enough is enough. I want one of the anti gun crowd on here who've been so vehemently defending this gun grab to explain why their "you don't need a semi automatic rifle to hunt" whine only applies to white people?

What possible rational could there be to give natives semi automatic weapons "for hunting" while denying that same right to other Canadians. Oh wait. They must need "assault rifles" so they don't end up over represented in prison.


Yes, white people are the real victims here.


I'm still waiting for an answer and your response isn't an answer.


OK Boomer


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14347
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 12:09 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
The article states: “They may continue using firearms that were previously non-restricted for these purposes until a suitable replacement can be acquired.”

But it has never been legal to hunt with an "Assault Rifle", or a rifle that is classed as 'restricted'.

Meaning, the title is incorrect.




Yes I understand that none of these prohibited firearms are actual assault rifles and that, in Canada you've never been allowed to hunt with an assault rifle.

But, that still doesn't mitigate the fact that there is "no suitable replacement for an assault rifle"" or even a "prohibited semi automatic rifle" for that matter. Unless of course you step it back down to bolt/lever/pump action rifles which means that these "suitable replacements" are already available and renders that argument moot.

So, is the gov't going to allow the import of semi automatic rifles not on their new prohibited list just for natives and screw the rest of Canada. Or, are they going to allow non native Canadians to own these new rifles too? XD


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14347
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 12:27 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
OK Boomer


Good to know you've still got nothing except childish, ageist insults. R=UP

Fortunately I'm a patient man so I'll wait for your answer and for the record, take all the time you need to formulate a logical explanation for Trudeau's racist guns laws?


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36161
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 12:38 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Fortunately I'm a patient man so I'll wait for your answer and for the record, take all the time you need to formulate a logical explanation for Trudeau's racist guns laws?


Well, I'm not one of the anti-gun crowd you were looking for, but I like to point out the obvious flaws in people's arguments. Your answer is actually in the title: "Section 35". What is Section 35?

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 wrote:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.


So it's not Trudeau's racist laws (that haven't even been written yet), it's actually the Constitution that protects the right of Indigenous people to hunt.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14347
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 3:10 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Fortunately I'm a patient man so I'll wait for your answer and for the record, take all the time you need to formulate a logical explanation for Trudeau's racist guns laws?


Well, I'm not one of the anti-gun crowd you were looking for, but I like to point out the obvious flaws in people's arguments. Your answer is actually in the title: "Section 35". What is Section 35?

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 wrote:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.


So it's not Trudeau's racist laws (that haven't even been written yet), it's actually the Constitution that protects the right of Indigenous people to hunt.


Nobody is disputing the fact that natives have the right to hunt but, in your post there is zero mention of what type of weapons they may use for their "traditional" hunting rights.

So, given that it doesn't mention anywhere in your post about the use of banned or restricted weapons for natives it must be okay if one of them decided he wanted to go hunting with a 155 mm Howitzer or how about if one get's a little hungry and takes a couple of grenades down to the Fraser during tourist season and tosses them off the pier at the New West Quay, nope, no problems with that is there?

And for the record allowing one race to use banned weapons while denying all other races the same right is a racist policy and you'd be the first in line screaming about it if the roles were reversed.

I'm sorry but this has sweet fuck all to do with hunting and everything to do with creating divisions in Canada based on a persons race.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26048

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2020 3:20 pm
 


In 1982 the only people who had heard the term "assault rifle" were armies. That's what Wikipedia tells me anyway. The also tell me assault rifles are "selective fire." Here's how they define "selective fire:"

Quote:
Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.


Near as I can figure "assault rifles" were handed out indiscriminate of race by the army until Prime Minister Blackface came along and just now, redefined the term to describe exclusively, semi-automatic rifles and passed a law that only Natives could use them.

Fricken racist.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.