Weapons banned in Canada by “Le petit Justin”



That is an M-14 rifle.  Someone tell Trudeau.  It is on his list.  It is quite suitable for hunting deer, elk and the like.  But, then, we know that he has seized on the NS murders as an excuse for disarming Canadians.  What is the word?  "WEXIT?"  pl 


This entry was posted in Canada, Gun Control. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Weapons banned in Canada by “Le petit Justin”

  1. Fred says:

    Well, that should solve the crime problem in Canada. I wonder how long it will take the actual criminals to turn in their now illegal firearms before they commit crimes?
    Does anyone know if Justin is going to ban matches, it looks like 9 people died in fires set by the assailant. He better ban ownership of police uniforms too.

  2. JamesT says:

    Luckily my 410 shotgun (which belonged to my great grandfather) is still legal here.
    What bothers me more is that Google has permanently deleted the SouthFront youtube channel. Bastards.

  3. Shanti Dogra says:

    I’ve been regularly visiting website for years. I’m probably the only Nova Scotian that does. I read it with interest.
    What weapons in the PM list, in your view, ought to be banned? What besides the M-14 shouldn’t?

  4. TV says:

    The Canadians elected that teeny-bopper.
    People get the government they deserve.

  5. Nicolas says:

    Trudeau is completly illogical here. The NS shooter used already illegal guns.

  6. This is only the latest addition to Canada’s prohibited and restricted firearms. It’s a stupid way of going about things. The list is damned near arbitrary. My SKS is perfectly legal. My M1 carbine is restricted. My Savage 1907 pocket pistol is prohibited. To figure out what else is legal, restricted or prohibited would take most of a day and I’d still probably get it wrong. What the hell is the difference between using a legal M1 Garand and a now prohibited M14 in committing a crime? I wonder where they stand on edged weapons? At least Virginia didn’t go down the assault weapons rabbit hole. It’s a meaningless term.

  7. Sichelgaita says:

    JamesT, the age of censorship is just beginning here in the West.

  8. Ursa Maior says:

    No Shit!
    This is the liberals wet dream!
    Bannning everthing except bolt rifles!
    Wonder when the capacity limit will come.

  9. Sam I AM says:

    Col. Lang and others,
    With Canada having around a third or so of the population of the USA and being roughly the same size in terms of land size, what are the odds that the de-centralized Federal Canadian government can actually enforce such inane gun measures?

  10. Eric Newhill says:

    Canadians seem to me to be a docile lot. A few in the North Country will just keep their “assault rifles” and no one will be the wiser except their moose and caribou neighbors.
    Sadly, I think little Justin’s move will further inspire the elitist/socialist crowd in the US, already drunk on power with their recent ability to suspend the Constitution, put us all on house arrest, wreck businesses and the economy.
    There is going to be a wide spread civil war in the US within the next five years. It will make the last one look civilized.

  11. turcopolier says:

    Canada has 38 million inhabitants and the US around 330 million. I have no idea how tough they want to be.

  12. turcopolier says:

    Shanti Dogra
    I am opposed to “banning” weapons in a country supposedly inhabited by free men and women. I am a dual national, US and Canada but I do think well of the submissiveness of today’s Canadians.

  13. Tyler says:

    “There is going to be a wide spread civil war in the US within the next five years. It will make the last one look civilized.”
    There are two Americas right now. One America thinks 9 year old drag queens are a human right, if you hold the wrong opinions you deserve to be proscribed, and they deserve to hold your leash.
    The other America owns arsenals that would make some first world armies green with envy, drives 90 minutes at 5 am on their weekend to show up early for 2 gun matches and just wants to be left the hell alone.
    When these two Americas collide and the wheels come off this thing called the United States, it’s going to look like the Illiad written by Hunter S. Thompson in the grips of an ayuhausca fever dream.

  14. srw says:

    If bolt action rifles were good enough for the majority of the combatants during WWII, they should be good enough for those hunting dangerous deer, moose,or other wily wild critters!

  15. turcopolier says:

    the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect us from moose. Read Federalist #46.

  16. Barbara Ann says:

    “the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect us from moose”
    Indeed. I’m all for POGG, but good governments have a habit of giving way to something much worse far too often. Peace and order, at any cost, is not the mantra of free men.
    Tyler, it is good to see you back. I look forward to reading more of your views on the two Americas you describe as we head towards November. Leaving people the hell alone is utterly anathema to the proselytizing Progressive cult – no gender identifying individual must be left behind. But there won’t be much need for oxymoronic Diversity Coordinators when the people’s patience runs out.

  17. Fred says:

    “damned near arbitrary”
    I believe the word “near” is an unnecessary adjective in that sentence. I disagree with you regarding Virginia. ” the assault weapons rabbit hole. It’s a meaningless term.” The term is essential to normalize adjectives placed in front of the word weapon, especially in a piece of legislation that is only the first of many to come. Don’t worry, they aren’t banning assault hammers yet; even those account for more than 500 killings a year nationwide (US) and have a decided advantage over your various firelocks in that a hammer never runs out of ammunition.

  18. turcopolier says:

    Please find and read “Alternative Americas” by Anne Norton

  19. Barbara Ann says:

    Just ordered it, thanks for the recommendation.

  20. Eric Newhill says:

    What’s really stupid about the list – at least per the link – is that it names specific manufactures, models and calibers, as opposed to general classes of firearms. What is to prevent a manufacturer from changing its name and the name of its product, offering it in a different caliber, and putting it on the market in Canada?
    So the 5.56mm Colt AR15 (prohibited) becomes re-branded as the Trudeau Arms, Canuck Special, 6.5mm, shoulder fired, gas operated, deer slayer, available with 20 and 30 round magazines. That’s not on the list, eh. Wouldn’t it be legal? Trudeau would have to play wack-a-mole with the manufacturers, but meanwhile rifles would be purchased.

  21. Jack says:

    Does public health or the next “scary” emergency trump the Constitution?
    Tucker Carlson poses the question. Do governors of states have unfettered power in an “emergency” as and when declared by the governor?
    Has freedom of speech and assembly been abrogated due to the Wuhan virus?

  22. srw says:

    I keep reading gun rights advocates’ explanation of the Second Amendment as enacted “to constrain government,” or “the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect us from moose”. I haven’t read the Federalist #46 but at the end of the day, the Constitution became the law of the land.
    When it was written, our new nation was in dire financial straits. What money there was for defense was allotted for Naval construction, which is an expensive outlay in any period. The Army was to be provided by each state, which is why the Second Amendment starts out with the words, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, and concludes with, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    This “well-regulated Militia” has more or less been superseded by our national Army but also by each state’s National Guard.
    Our Supreme Court has wisely ruled that the Second Amendment includes owning a gun for personal defense, but has let stand laws regulating the type of “arms” that are not allowed, ie. automatic firearms, sawed off shotguns, or assault type of weapons (in some localities). Sounds to me like a good compromise.

  23. Eric Newhill says:

    What else in the Constitution could be interpreted to have been written based on the conditions of the times and should be deleted or changed?
    Federalist #46 explains what the wording of the 2A was meant to convey – and that is not how you read it.

  24. JamesT says:

    A few years ago, here in Canada, I read in the paper about someone who was sentenced to two years in prison for allowing their firearms license to expire (ie they did not renew it in time). I am now much more careful about making sure I stay compliant with the gun laws.

  25. Seamus Padraig says:

    @ srw | 02 May 2020 at 08:24 PM

    Our Supreme Court has wisely ruled that the Second Amendment includes owning a gun for personal defense …

    In the 1790s, it would have been pretty obvious that self-defense is a legitimate motive for gun ownership, along with hunting, defense of property, livestock, etc–obvious enough, in fact, to go without mention. But the whole reason the authors included the militia clause was to make absolutely, unmistakably clear that that was the main purpose of the Second Amendment. They figured there might arise a controversy over that point some day, so they wanted to head the self-defense-only argument off at the pass.

Comments are closed.