Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at Friday’s announcement of the ban of 1,500 makes of military-style rifles (Photo: Justin Trudeau/Flickr).

Jason Kenney marked May 1 with a message to the Conservative base complaining about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decisive move in the wake of the murderous shooting rampage in Portapique, Nova Scotia, to ban 1,500 makes of military-style rifles.

While a significant majority of Canadians breathed a sigh of relief and said to themselves, “it’s about flippin’ time,” Alberta’s premier was trotting out a few NRA talking points and sending a coded message to the worst elements of his political base that his United Conservative Party Government will do what it can to help them evade the federal ban.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

The Alberta news release, in the form of a duet sung by Mr. Kenney and Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer — who is, as they say, a trained lawyer, although he often sounds more like an untrained one — warmed up with the traditional whinge about how sensible gun control laws target “law-abiding Canadians who purchased their property legally, have owned these items safely for years, and who have committed no crimes.”

Oh well. Lots of things that used to be legal, including slavery, spousal abuse and drunk driving, are not any more. Get used to it.

Along the way, Mr. Kenney’s news release trots out the usual insincere Conservative tough-on-crime folderol and makes the false claim the ban will cost “vast sums of money to criminalize law-abiding Canadians.” It was the ill-fated long-gun registry that cost a fortune. But that was the product of a previous generation of Liberals apparently too timid to take more effective and less expensive measures.

Nor does the ban criminalize anyone who chooses not to defy it. There is a lengthy grace period during which gun owners can get rid of their offensive weapons, interpret that phrase as you will.

Alberta Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

Mr. Kenney’s statement then moved on to its coded coda, to wit, that “in response to today’s announcement from Ottawa, our government is actively considering appointing Alberta’s own chief firearms officer to replace the CFO appointed by Ottawa.”

This is a dog-whistle, designed to sound relatively benign to the majority of voters but to carry a specific message to those in the know.

Fortunately, we have Derek Fildebrandt, hunter extraordinaire, former rising star of the UCP, and now self-described bossman of a right-wing Internet publication, to explain what this really means.

The always entertainingly unrestrained Mr. Fildebrandt has been suffering the vapours since the ban was announced, tweeting feverishly, including this illuminating comment: “Every province with any sense of liberty should appoint its own CFO, instruct the Crown to not prosecute, and #DoNotComply.” (Emphasis added, of course, because Twitter is too blunt an instrument for italics.)

So thank you, Mr. Fildebrandt, for saying straight out what your former colleague Mr. Kenney and his legally trained sidekick really have in mind.

It’s funny, isn’t it, how that rule of law thing works in the Conservative mind?

If protesters were to dare to physically block a pipeline construction project wanted by Alberta, this would be greeted by squeals that the rule of law is sacrosanct and must be upheld at all costs.

Former MLA, gun ownership advocate and right-wing website publisher Derek Fildebrandt (Photo: Facebook).

But if the federal government brings in regulations within its jurisdiction that arouse opposition within the ranks of Canada’s Conservative parties — which nowadays are almost totally dominated by NRA-style gun nuts, as the intemperate conduct of the current group of federal Conservative leadership candidates illustrates — then the rule of law flies out the window.

Advocates of wide-open gun ownership, of course, have legal avenues to challenge the federal ban. They can try to stop it in the courts, or at the ballot box.

They know, however, that they will probably lose in the first venue, and will almost certainly lose in the second. The ban, after all, is said to be supported by something like 80 per cent of Canadians. And given the type of hysterical arguments being heard from gun “rights” advocates now, that number is likely to go up, not down, in an election campaign.

It must be galling to Mr. Kenney — still suspected of harbouring prime ministerial ambitions and whose personal interests suggest someone who could live quite happily with a ban on assault-weapons, all things being equal — that the topic so fires up his base when it is such an excellent issue for Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberals.

Voters who might not be fans of Mr. Trudeau in other policy areas know that if the Conservatives return to office too soon after this, they’ll be having another summer of repeal and ensuring any future prohibition of what Ottawa calls “assault-style firearms” is unenforceable by throwing the gates wide open to U.S. imports of tens of thousands of the things.

So expect a return to a Liberal majority if this becomes the key Conservative policy plank in the next election, be it sooner or later.

If there is a silver lining to this situation for Mr. Kenney and the UCP, it is this: It provides a wonderful opportunity in the short term to distract from the series of unfortunate events that have so dogged the premier’s term in office.

Since neither low oil prices nor COVID-19 are likely to go away any time soon, at least this gives Mr. Kenney something to talk about.

A note on comments about this post

As regular readers of this blog know, is tolerant of strong disagreement in its comments section. Gun “rights” advocates, however, are a special case, prone to hysterical, repetitive and often abusive or threatening comments, recitations of meaningless and suspect statistics, and tiresome rhetorical disputations, such as the endless and pointless argument about the definition of “assault rifle.” In addition, they tend to hunt in packs — mobbing the comments sections of publications with which they disagree. The general effect is unenlightening. Accordingly, on this blog, where all comments are moderated, such comments will be dealt with summarily. Most will simply be deleted. If you oppose the views expressed here and do not feel this is fair, well, nobody promised you fairness. You have many publications sympathetic to your views, where your tiresome observations are bound to be welcomed. Make your comments there. DJC

Join the Conversation


  1. There are some reasonable gun owners, I am one. I’m not a gun “nut”, I am former military. I do not own anything, nor did I have plans to own anything on the current list. We do not have the 2nd here, we do not have the legal ability to own a firearm for “defense”, other than farmers and certain trades in certain cases for defense against aggressive animals.

    I am in favor of common sense gun laws, there are some on that list I’m surprised weren’t classified as prohibited before. I’m not in favor of reactionary uninformed decisions.

    A few of the rifles on the list, are purely on the list because they look scary rather than their “capabilities”. Trudeau has been quoted as saying “you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt a deer”, firstly under the fire arms act, that’s illegal already and secondly an AR-15 is to small of a firearm to hunt a deer, if it were legal (it isn’t wasn’t due to it’s restricted classification, and being a “sporting rifle”) it is an excellent firearm for a farmer to protect his live stock from coyotes and the like.

    We already have magazine limits on centre fire rifles, 5 rounds, so sure it may have a “banana clip” but it holds no more than a hunting rifle.

    People quote Australia and there 1996 NFA as being a success, however they’ve had at least 13 “mass shooting” of sorts, some people have different classifications of what counts, since the ban. Their homicide rate stayed pretty much the same for 6-7 years after then dropped. UK has seen an increase in knife violence. My point is criminals who want to do harm will find a way, Nova Scotia fellow, he obtained his illegally, this ban would not have stopped him.

    In the end, I just wish the democratic process could have been followed and it would have been discussed on the floor, more so since the liberals have a minority gov. I would say the same no matter what party was “in power” and tried to pull the same thing.

  2. I don’t recall seeing pictures of Mr. Kenney hunting or hearing he was a NRA member when he went to school in the US, so I assume his interest is political rather than personal. I think two things are at play.

    First, when they need cash, the go to strategy for Conservatives is fundraising calls or letters to gun owners. They don’t have the votes to decide elections, but they sure help Conservatives fund their campaigns. Apparently, the UCP was not feeling so flush at the end of 2019 and also a bit concerned about money coming in during the current pandemic. Mr. Kenney’s strategy here is more about money than votes.

    Second, he may pressure the Federal Conservatives into a more hardline position on this issue. Yes, it will lose votes for them, but the consolation prize for Kenney is the only hope he has of getting out of the political and economic hell hole Alberta is becoming and back to relative political safety in Ottawa, is if the Federal Conservatives lose yet another election. An extreme position on guns along with lack of a credible policy on climate change should just about do the trick.

  3. Here’s my proposal. Prohibit all firearms, hand or long, that are semi-automatic with a detachable magazine. It’s not going to happen but it would solve the biggest concerns around the ownership of those kinds of weapons. It’s the detachable magazine that brings the concept of firepower to those with the authority to use it and those living the fantasy of a prepper or mass murder lifestyle.

    1. As you are aware, gun control — of which I am 100% in favour, & which I’d like to see extended to ban all private/civilian ownership or possession of handguns — is the quintessential wedge issue, dividing conservatives & everyone else, urban & rural, Alsaskytobans & TROC, etc. etc. But the current crop of Cons is so weak federally they’re polling in the high 20s, and the Liberals are within the margin of error of a majority government if an election were held today. So, this is a losing issue for them, except on the fundraising front.

      1. That is an invalid statement. Most of those polls are inaccurate. A majority of Canadians do not support this ban, and that includes all my friends and family of some of which dont even own any firearms. And the conservatives are actually gaining more support, more so then the liberals by a large margin! The liberals got elected as a minority government and what they did to us gun owners is unconstitutional and in direct violation of a democracy. Most of you who support this ban are unneducated with regards to firearms and shouldn’t be the ones to tell us hunters and target shooters what firearms we can and cannot own! This new legislation is bound to be scrapped, and you do not realize that there are over 3 million licenced gun owners in this country. We are not the criminals. Illegal guns coming across the border should be the where the government should steer their focus. If these laws dont get scrapped, you people are going to cause a war in this country. And I support gun control like you. Keeping two hands on a gun and hitting the bulleye 😉

  4. .. Full Disclosure .. I read your Indy posts daily.. and with zero permission often repost via Facebook or other subversive methadology..

    Methinks your ‘gun ban’ observations.. and those of Jason Kenney require .. uh .. critical observation & review.

    Lurking as we do.. under rocks.. we surely wonder how many frightening elk, caribou, grizzly, whitetail, coyotes, wolves, buffalo or more exotic ‘game’ you have on your wall or have ‘pulled jerky’ from.. or fed your brood.. to supplement the meagre salary & pension of a leader like Andrew Scheer (total brood = 7) .. a certified ass kicken slayer of a Whitetail Deer on his first Saskatchewan expedition.. at 400 metres – borrowed 308 cal .. and surely it was a semi auto ? In case the vicious beast took a run at him ? Perhaps he needed an armored tree platform.. fully 45′ feet clear of deer or coyote or slithery reptile.. Those beaver can be pretty stubborn eh ?

  5. Again, the picture or the type of person one would think of when a ‘conservative’ is named is not the kind of person today that they were in prior times.
    The conservative brand has been infiltrated and subsumed by anti-social, regressive and corporatist so-called freedom supporters, largely uneducated, magnificently ignorant and conspicuously belligerent. There are none extant who wish for or work for a better Canada. They only want what they wants. Like Golum.

  6. The usual caterwauling from scary, open-carry, free-locklandia-and-loaded is as predictable as tRumpscuses. But these semi-automatonic maudliCons rifle clear through their sob-wads when triggered by the sight of alleged Eastern “opportunism.” Why, hell!—the gunsmoke’s barely cleared over the trail of twenty-two bodies before the hated Liberals insulted the memories of these loved ones by banning the assault-style weapons which killed them. Such outrage is rarely ever heard—‘cept maybe from weeping, sore hookers who can’t find a john. Considering the opportune target audience, the hypocrisy has definitely hit the bullseye.

    Meanwhile, it’s time, at last: law-abiding citizens have been biding a law that should have happened the last time this happened when it was already long overdue since the time before that.

    Of the three things, the heartbreaking rampage, the subsequent assault-weapon ban, and maudliCon gator-tears, only one is good.

    Now we need to be strong. Good luck, everybody.

  7. Of course the CONs fail to realize that when living next to that armed camp called ‘Murica, guns flow freely over the border for all kinds of purposes. The arms that flow from their beloved USofA included many restricted and banned weapons. This is fact and reality.

    As much as the CONs want to live their GOP-Trumpian dreams and keep accepting that dark-money from the NRA, they are having a hard time hiding the fact that they are nothing more than wannabe Posse Comitatus types who actually believe that guns are for everyone…and they’re a lot of fun, too. And they make you virile in ways that Viagra never can. And the government is out to get them. And ‘Murica … pew, pew, pew!!

    The Liberals are acting on policy that the vast majority of Canadians want. Apart from a few militia nut jobs in the wilds of Alberta, this is a sound policy that will receive wide support.

    And the white Protestants have to give up their guns. Poor snowflakes.

    1. ‘Just Me’ your post seems to contradict itself, well kinda. I do not disagree about firearms coming over the border, there is a process to get them here legally, which is done by law abiding license holding people.

      Many of the restricted, and all of the “banned” firearms are coming over the border illegally already, could you elaborate how making more “banned” will stop this? It won’t, it’s a border protection and enforcement of current laws issue.

      Sources vary in numbers as nobody truly knows how many firearms legal owners have, but Canada has a very large per capita number of firearms.. one estimate is 35 per 100 people. majority no.. but to play the Devil’s advocate, only 66% of people turned out to vote last go around, and of those only 40% voted Liberal.. so you could almost say there are more gun owners than liberal voters… just a speculation of course.

      1. Speaking of the CONs’ beloved gun culture they fetishize about to no end.

        They would have no restrictions at all because…’Murica is better in every way. Sure, virtual restrictions that have enough loopholes in them to make them meaningless and ineffective; but for the most part, NRA and their fellow travellers owns their policies and they get what they pay for.

        And the calls for stiffer penalties do not serve because…the shooters were law abiding before they had their Rambo moment.

        And the comparison to edged weapons is an eternal red herring, because…when was the last time 23 people were killed with a knife in one go?

        If the activities of the late W. Tomlinson, well-known defender of firearms, crackpot, and hyper-moralist cretin, taught us anything is that the most ardent firearms advocate is a gun looney.

  8. I’m not a “gun ‘rights’ advocate” by any stretch of the imagination. I’m one generation off the farm, and was trained to use a sub-machinegun and a gas-operated semi-automatic battle rifle by the Canadian government, but I don’t own any guns and haven’t fired one in over twenty-five years. However, I see this legislation, like the long gun registry, as nothing but pandering. The police in NS wouldn’t reveal what firearms the killer used last week, but he did murder half his victims with man’s deadliest weapon, fire. Generally that type of assault is the preserve of the armed forces of nation states, particularly the USAF, although the RCAF has indulged in that sort of thing in the past. Perhaps we could ban that military weapon? In this country, mass shooting using auto-loading weapons such as assault rifles, sub-machineguns and semi-auto battle rifles is an extremely rare activity. In Calgary, the Mordor of right-wing kookery, the slayings with the largest death tolls have been committed with edged weapons.
    I find the Second Ammendment obsessives in the US to be generally amusing. The destruction of the Yugoslavian state was a stunning example of the potential for a modern society to disintegrate into violence, but it was also an example of the absurdity of the notion of bands of civilians armed with individual mililtary firearms effectively working to counter major state military forces. The Croatians were incapable of executing the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina until they received inflows of illicit NATO heavy arms, such as tanks smuggled down the Rhine, and the tutelage of retired US staff officers working as mercenaries for MPRI. The corpulent dunces of Michigan’s militias would last about eight seconds if the apparatus of the state were brought to bear upon them.
    But I don’t see how this legislation makes us one bit safer given the nature of massascres in this country. It sounds like a facile argument from “freedom aspirational straight Christian capitalists” but the “assault rifle” ban seems no less ridiculous than a ban on vans or box-cutters. As another reader pointed out, the NS nut-case obtained his arsenal illegally.

  9. So only supporting comments are allowed? I tried posting a countering viewpoint only to be Moderated out of the discussion. I wasn’t rude, inflammatory, or disrespectful in any way and yet did not “pass”. This is the new media…the kind a tyrannical government needs to control the flow of information to the population – its called propaganda. Communists and Fascists are masters at it, and soon they’ll come with their guns to demand yours.

    1. Kurt: Your earlier response started by sounding reasonable, but soon descended into the same old same old. You were polite, though. Nevertheless, I promised not to let my liberal instincts overcome my determination not to let the conversation degenerate. Now here I am feeling guilty about it. Not that guilty, though. DJC

    2. Yeah he deleted mine too. I read his columns every single day and frequently share them on Reddit and facebook. I love his writing. I’m also an NDP member. But I don’t agree with this waste of money on gun control. Its easy to score cheap political points instead of actually solving the real reason behind violence.

      1. It doesn’t fit the narrative unfortunately and that seems to be the most important thing these days. As a more classical liberal freedom is still important. To the big city NDPers I invite you to come door knocking the next election in central Alberta. It may change your mind on open carry by law abiding citizens….

  10. Mr Climenhaga, this is something that is important to us all, and we all share the same risk of being victims of violent crime. We all share the same interest in reducing that risk and supporting sound actions to that end.

    That said it is not unreasonable to weigh each proposed action or policy in terms of it purported benefit.

    In this case with the Nova Scotia murderer both expending considerable time and energy into gathering items, including the black market purchase of multiple firearms in the absence of a federally issued license it is difficult to see how legislation in of itself could have prevented his efforts which circumvented existing laws at every step. Ask yourself honestly if this legislation had been in place 6 months or 6 years ago how would it have prevented this horrific event? The murderer sourced multiple firearms without a license, surreptitiously from the U.S.

    What motivates a person to commit this act is a difficult and potentially unanswerable question. My position is that given that, the recently passed OIC does little to address this but does satisfy the need to “do something” , even if we can’t confirm what. Judging by the tropes and stereotypes used to portray firearms owners in your editorial and some of the comments posted here, it also satisfies the need to fight back against a perceived threat.

    It is worthy of noting that Mr Kenny was not the first person to publicly address the issue of gun control in the days following this event. Gun control advocacy groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control were quick the seize upon the tragedy to voice their support for further legislation. Before all of the victims had even been counted.

    While it may provide a feeling of justification to paint firearms owners, particularly those who question or disagree with the recent OIC as miscreants, dangerous militants and other pejoratives, consider the notion that these slurs are not articulate arguments for the legislation.

    Firearms owners are vetted heavily by the RCMP, as they should be and although I cannot speak for all, I take the privilege of firearms ownership as a serious personal and civic responsibility.

    I will also confess that I do in fact own firearms affected by the recent ban. The notion that they have no sporting use is false, as being categorized restricted class, target shooting is the only legitimate use i am allowed to have for them. I have fired thousands of rounds in practice and sanctioned competitions. Every cartridge has been expended on paper targets and not once have I harmed another person. My conduct and use with them is no different than with my more benign single shot bolt action target rifles.

    I put it to all the detractors that the persons taking the position that they have no sporting use, are in the majority persons who see no legitimate use for any firearm, unless it is fanciful stereotypes such as “ranchers and hunters”. The comments by Minister Freeland that there was a culture of “fetishization” surrounding these types of rifles speaks to her personally held contempt of the persons who own these types of rifles, but does nothing to address the firearms themselves.

    This conversation you may have noticed often centres around the gun owners themselves, and speaks little about the impugned firearms. Consider that we firearms owners may actually be much like yourself and fellow citizens and not the hostile and dangerous “gun nuts” that makes it so easy to dismiss our positions.

    1. There surely is a culture of “fetishization” surrounding military styled semi-automatic rifles, and anyone who says there isn’t is not paying attention, or is trying to deceive. You may be an entirely sensible hobbyist as you present, but our social media is filled with gun-buggering brown-shirt wannabes. I don’t ask you to take responsibility for them, but you simply can not pretend that they don’t exist.

  11. This is from Canada’s top cop on firearms.

    Let me lay this out for you and anyone else who also likely isn’t as informed as they would like to be.

    Firstly, let me say this. I’ve been a firearms instructor for 14 years, a police officer and supervisor for 8. A correctional officer for 6 and an RCMP firearms verification expert since 2013. Part of being a firearms verification expert means it’s my job to be able to testify to court what classification different firearms are, and their points of origin and import.

    With that being said I will start with this. Nothing on that list, or in a Canada is an “assault weapon” or a “military grade firearm”. All military firearms have been outright banned in Canada since 1979. Automatic firearms are prohibited in Canada. The rifles on that list are hunting and sporting rifles.

    Trudeau is blatantly lying and misleading Canadians by using their lack of knowledge on the subject. Firstly, he bypassed our democratic process with is outrageous and every Canadian should be appalled. Secondly he is dancing on the graves of all those victims in NS. The shooter used a rifle obtained in the US and a pistol stolen from a Cst killed in cold blood. The victims and their families deserve better. Nothing he did was legal, he wasn’t even a firearms license holder and had previously been banned from owning firearms after a common assault (disclaimer – those conditions had expired).

    Canadians are ridiculously strict with gun laws. Nothing in this act will help public safety in the slightest. All centre fire rifles in Canada are limited to 5 rounds. They cannot be converted to be automatic.

    This will cost Canadians a half billion dollars and have zero effect on public safety. It will hurt public safety as it distracts money and attention from real issues.

    The borders are weak as hell. I would say I handled more American firearms then Canadian ones. Personally I have seized more firearms then most people have ever seen in real life. The border is the biggest problem.

    Secondly, the liberals banned carding and severely limited police powers to be proactive against gangs. The result was a 48% increase in shootings and a 98% increase in the number of people shot in the GTA.

    Thirdly, the liberal government passed bill C75 which lowered sentences on violent crime and terrorism. It reduced bail considerations. Increased bail and promoted early release of offenders.

    The liberals have hurt community safety far worse then we can likely repair.

    Chris Lewis OPP commissioner (Ret) does not support this.

    The association of chiefs of police do not support this.

    Every police officer is screaming at this waste of money that will not help anything.

    My AR 15 holds 5 .223 rounds. My deer rifle holds 5 30-06 rounds. It’s the most commonly used deer rifle in North America. Use common sense and tell me what’s more dangerous.

    I think it’s also important that people understand how licensing works.

    When you first decide you want your Possession and acquisition license (PAL) you find a licensed firearm instructor and tester. You will learn about different types of firearms, ammunition, safe handling, storage and transportation. The hunter safety course required for hunting is another course and exam on top of this. For the firearms portion only you will spend about $200 and an 8 hr training day. Followed by a lengthy exam requiring a 80% pass mark.

    You then submit your application with proof of your testing. A picture, and roughly the same information you submit on your passport. Two guarantors etc. But, if you have a former spouse or partner…hope you’re in good standing. You will need their consent and the Chief Firearms Office (CFO) will contact them. You will wait about 6-12 months while they do background checks and local police records checks as well as calling the two character references you provided.

    Then eventually your card will come in the mail at a cost of $80. Now, you legally can purchase ammunition and a firearm. But, only Non-Restricted firearms such as shotguns and hunting rifles. They must be stored separate from ammunition, out of site and locked. Either with a disabling lock, or in a locked container that is hard to break into. They can only be loaded in a place where they can be legally discharged. Ie the woods far away from people and houses.

    Now, if you want a pistol or sporting rifle you need a restricted possession and acquisition license (RPAL). Back to the classroom, another 16hrs and $200. Another exam another $80 and an application the same as the first. You will wait 6-12 months again. Now, you have your license? Great! You can’t purchase a restricted firearms yet though.

    Before you can do that you’ll need to be a member of a licensed range. Licensed ranges are over seen by the CFO to make sure they meet very stringent safety measures. So here in kingston we have one club, with a 2-3 year waiting list. So you apply and wait. Eventually luckily you get a spot. You pay your $300 annual fee, but you’re not shooting yet. First, another 8 hour safety course and then 4 probationary visits with a range officer.

    Finally, you’re a member. Now you can purchase a pistol or sporting rifle. So you go to the store and chose one. You pay, now you wait. If you’re lucky 2-3 weeks maybe, sometimes 6-10 while the CFO approves it.

    Oh, did I mention all firearms owners are checked on The Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) daily?.

    So finally the day comes. You pick up your pistol or rifle. You’re ready to go! Nope, sorry. You’ll need two locks. A disabling lock and a hard container that locks. Restricted firearms are always locked twice. So we’re on our way right? No, not yet. Now you will need to contact the CFO wait on hold for 35-45 mins and request an Authorization to Transport (ATT). This is a piece of paper they will email you with your current address and your home address permitting you to transport your new firearm. You’re not allowed to stray. That would result in a ten year sentence and lifetime ban.

    Once your home your pistol or rifle is stored separate from ammo and locked twice. It may only be transported to and from your licensed range with your ATT. It may only be discharged at your range.

    At anytime the police on behalf of CFO or CFO may conduct a warrantless search of your home if there is a concern for safety or to verify proper compliance if you’re a collector.

    At any time any person can phone the CFO or local police with a safety concern about you and you will lose your firearms. It is now up to you, to pay to defend yourself.

    That is the just of the firearms licensing requirements in Canada.

    Believe me, gun owners are afraid of sneezing as we can lose them so easily after going through so many hurdles to have them.

    1. 1) you state “This will cost Canadians a half billion dollars and have zero effect on public safety” Evidence, please.

      2) We are aware that these are not “assault rifles”. If we called them semi-automatic weapons, would be sufficiently precise? You gonna give us the “magazine, not a clip” lecture too?

      3) it seems from your remarks that you would welcome an highly authoritarian police state so long as you could what, own a few extra guns? No thanks, pal.

    2. I perceive a dichotomy between your positions on carding and the firearms ban. I am in almost complete agreement with you on the subject of the firearms prohibition, as your position seems to derive from analysis of available evidence. Your stance on carding reminds me of the anti-gun position, in that it does not appear to be based on observable evidence and advocates an absurd, tyrannical and ineffective action by the state.

      1. Thanks for you comment. My post wasn’t my comment it was the firearms expert that classifies firearms in Canada I just posted it here. I would agree with you that carding is a disgusting practice and shouldn’t be legal. I think he was saying it to show if you really wanted to keep people safe we should bring it back.

  12. Partner is an avid hunter with many guns. Partner says there is no reason for civilians to have assault-style weapons (or handguns for that matter). Period.

  13. I have a compromise suggestion: sell all guns legally BUT they must be pink. Bright, flaming, glow-in-the-dark pink. With tassels on the triggers and sparkles along the barrel. Upon being fired, pink smoke will drift out and waft gently into the sky. Simultaneously, the song “I’m A Little Teapot” (“short and stout/here is my handle/here is my spout”) will play for at least two verses and one chorus.

    Men who purchase guns while wearing knock-off military combat outfits will not be allowed to complete their purchase unless they are wearing eyeshadow and liner, mascara and a lipstick colour that is vibrant but doesn’t clash with the colour of the gun. Blusher and rouge are optional; some skin tones don’t need it.

    Let’s do that for six months and check the sales figures at the end of that time.

  14. I’m 64 years old. Learned to shoot on a bolt-action 5-round 22 rifle when I was 10 years old. Got my first shotgun, a 410 when I was 12. Did alot of waterfowl and upland game shooting in Ireland in my 30’s and 40’s during the 1980s and early 90s. At that time I owned 3 12-gauge double-barreled shotguns. Got rid of the guns over 20 years ago. I remember back in the late 60s or early 70s when the first semi-auto”assault-rifle m-16 style” rifles were made available to civilians for hunting and target shooting. Yeah cool looking but even back then in my teens I felt that anybody that needed a 10-20 or30 round magazine for hunting wasn’t much of a hunter. So quite frankly I have no problem with this ban. However this ban does nothing at all to stop the flow of illegal guns from the US…..and thats the biggest gun problem in this country.

    Last year I actually started the process to get a Canadian license for a long-gun..what a ridiculous process…its pretty obvious that the whole idea is to deter people from owning a gun of any sort. Really, it is insanely over-regulated. I wholeheartedly agree with Derek on that point.

  15. I would much rather see a system where the status of a firearm (non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited) is determined by functional criteria (not cosmetic). So, rather than make some huge unwieldly list of which specific firearms models are which, just list the criteria, and go from there. (We already do that by saying all firearms less than a certain length, i.e. handguns, are restricted.) Who’s to say firearms manufacturers whose firearms are on the new list won’t make new firearms that are just different enough to qualify as legal? And then it’s a constant “game” of back-and-forth between the firearms manufacturers and the regulation-writers? I don’t think this move is going to make any significant impact to firearms crime in Canada.

  16. So, what do you suggest is this “real” reason for violence? other than perhaps, just perhaps, the male species is more prone to violence?

    And as a note to the person who commented that only 40% of voters supported the Liberals, I think you overlooked the fact that other political parties, together with those who voted Liberal, still outnumbered the ReformaCons. This seems to be something ReformaCons tend to overlook in their pleading and whining that they got more votes than the Libs, therefore they should be running the current iteration of our government.

    1. It was a Devil’s advocate point. I’m not pro-lib, not pro-cpc, etc… I vote whichever party has the best platform and I think is going to screw me the least.

      I said it earlier, I’m pro common sense laws, banning a firearm on it’s looks rather than what it can do is pointless. The old US “Assault weapon ban” was based off of 4 criteria, I have a firearm that just due to an aftermarket stock… the part you hold, not the part that actually does the shooting met 3 of the 4. Whereas the same firearm with a “traditional” stock didn’t meet any… so would have been banned just on looks, how does that make sense?

      If it would have gone to the floor and the Libs, BQ, NDP, Green, etc voted for it, as we know the CPC would most likely vote against, it would be easier to accept, rather than a minority gov forcing it in.

      1. Derp, sorry. the 40% comment was a Devil’s advocate response to the “The Liberals are acting on policy that the vast majority of Canadians want.” whereas only 40% of voters that turned out… so what 25-30% of eligible voters voted Lib.. how is that “Vast majority”? I don’t remember NDP/BC/Green campaigning on a similar platform.. but I could be wrong.

  17. @Kurt. Seems highly likely that you missed this in the article:

    “If you oppose the views expressed here and do not feel this is fair, well, nobody promised you fairness. You have many publications sympathetic to your views, where your tiresome observations are bound to be welcomed. Make your comments there. DJC”

  18. This short article and most of the comments are testament to the effectiveness of good propaganda. But then, any amateur student of the 20th Century already knew that.

    1. The last time the liberals brought in gun control Allen Rock said in national TV this won’t make us any safer it’s about social engineering us. They wanted to change our gun culture and turn gun owners into villains

  19. Conservatives are into rule of law, just not the type that we see in China. If Trudeau really cared about stopping gun violence he would be going after the perpretrators with harsher prison sentences. The gun ban is about taking away the freedoms of responsible Canadians, nothing more.

  20. The only person with a ethics problem is not any of the people of Alberta, it is of course the PM. The PM issued an order in council to ban the guns (nothing new here, he’s on his fifth ethics violation. FIVE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, FIVE. The only prime minister to ever be convicted of an ethics violation and he’s on his 5th investigation ). How about following the political process and passing it through parliament. A Dictator is as a Dictator dose. Progressive collectivist governments always take the guns and weapons from their law abiding citizens before do things that said law abiding citizens would strongly disagree with. Gun crime is committed by criminals with illegal guns (gun bans don’t take the guns out of the criminals hands.) Law abiding citizens with lawful guns prevent crime. We have known this for generations but it doesn’t fit the progressive agenda of instituting marxist governments across the west. Today’s Liberals = Leftist = Marxists = Communists = 100 000 000 000 murdered people in the 20th century when will you learn. Only governments can commit genocide don’t give your government that kind of power.

    This will be censored. This is how progressives work they silence words and speech they disagree with using any means necessary. This is of course necessary if you wish to make your people all equal (as slaves). Benito Mussolini had his black shirts, Adolf Hitler had his brown shirts, Today the Left has Antifa and their in your town square ripping down your statues and beating you up for speaking out.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.