TORONTO - NOVEMBER 2 :Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking to a crowd during a fund raising event organized by the Liberal Party of Canada on November 2, 2017 in Toronto, Canada.
Previous Post
Next Post

Someone forgot to tell Justin Trudeau that he can’t stop the signal. On Friday, October 21, the feeble Canadian Prime Minister announced that handgun ownership has been frozen. No further purchases, transfers or imports of handguns are allowed. At least under officially recognized government databases.

And Canada has more plans to crack down on civilian firearm ownership.

The Canadian government said it’s seen a drastic rise in the number of guns in the country over the last decade, with 70% more handguns in Canada than there were in 2010. The gun freeze was implemented as another gun-control bill was working its way through the Canadian parliament — what the government says will be the strongest gun-control measure in more than 40 years. 

But there’s a problem in Prime Minister Zoolander’s land of make-believe…and it’s not legally armed Canadians. It’s the fact that people can and do 3-D print their own handguns or purchase them on the so-called “black market” without asking the Canadian government for permission

The dim-bulb, culturally misappropriating PM wrote this on his website . . .

Fewer guns mean safer communities. That’s why the Government of Canada is implementing some of the strongest gun control measures in a generation. Handguns are the weapon of choice in most firearm-related crimes, which is why limiting the number of handguns is a critical part of our plan to protect Canadians from gun violence.

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the national freeze on the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns comes into effect. From now on, people cannot buy, sell, or transfer handguns within Canada, and they cannot bring newly acquired handguns into the country.

A national handgun freeze was first announced alongside Bill C-21, the strongest gun control measures in over 40 years, in May 2022. While the bill continues to be debated in Parliament, we are taking immediate action through regulations to keep Canadians safe.

The national handgun freeze is part of the government’s comprehensive plan to tackle gun violence. We have already banned over 1,500 types of assault-style firearms and have strengthened our gun control laws to expand background checks. Bill C-21 proposes further measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands like revoking the firearms licences of those involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, continuing to fight gun smuggling and trafficking, and providing law enforcement more tools to investigate firearms crimes.

One life taken by gun violence is one too many. We will continue to work with provinces, territories, Indigenous communities, and municipalities to keep Canadians safe. We will continue to do whatever it takes to keep guns out of our communities and build a safer country, for everyone.

Really?

What about lives lost because of government-mandated bans on legitimately owning a handgun for personal defense?

Why is the Prime Minister your more inclined to protect criminals than Canada’s law-abiding subjects?

Has the PM never heard of “ghost guns” or 3-D printed guns?

As hard as he tries and as furiously as he flails trying to smother armed self defense in the Great White North, freedom won’t die. Canadians will find a way.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

273 COMMENTS

  1. isnt he the guy
    that when he told his mistress
    that guns make him afraid
    she told him
    that it was time for both of them
    to start seeing other men

      • “ATF not commenting on undercover Canadian police officer at gun show in Great Falls”

        Not sure the ATF has claimed authority to monitor agents from Canadia.

        Anyway, the “police officer” didn’t need to go inside, just photograph license plates.

        BTW, some 10yrs ago, the Canadian Supreme Court (or equivalent) declared that an action legal in another country but violates Canadian law, is punishable.

        • I had no idea that a foreign nations police force, could come to the USA and operate here, just because they wanted to. And not tell anyone. Or ask if it’s ok???

          “China EXPOSED Running SECRET POLICE In US, Canada, And Europe As Fear Of World War Three Escalates”
          video 32 min long

        • This is what happens when a nation has no National borders. And people are allowed to come and go as they please. Without telling anyone. The Libertarians Liberals and the Left support no National borders, they want open borders for the United States.

          I wonder if these Chinese Communist police officers will get a warrant for any police action??? I wonder if these Chinese police stations operating in the United States, will start handing out Chinese made Glock switches, to anyone that wants one???

        • Chris, the libertarians don’t want no borders, they want private property and no government. Then foreign nationals would not be invading for free stuff, and people who wanted foreign nationals on their property could have that without bothering the rest of us.

          Also, the Republicants have not done anything to close the border, or get rid of the illegals here. Even the great R icon Reagan gave them amnesty, and every time the Rs have controlled congress and/or the white house they have done F all to fix the problem. So I don’t know who you would advocate supporting, since all parties are bad on that one.

        • Chris, once someone has legally entered the country, they have most of the same rights as citizens, including First Amendment rights. Unless he effects an arrest, it doesn’t sound like anything he’s doing is illegal under our laws, photography in public of things in public is not a crime.

        • to The Crimson Pirate

          “Chris, the libertarians don’t want no borders, they want private property and no government”

          No, the Libertarians like government. Because they do not want law-abiding citizens killing criminals out right. Which they could do if there was no government, like the libertarian claim they want.

          Let me know when some libertarian is writing a story about foreign Police Operations inside the United States, spying on American citizens without warrant. Or making people “disappear”. The communist police are really good at making people just disappear.

          Trump was sued by Libertarians, Liberals, and the Left to stop him from building the wall.

      • I’m not seeing the issue. If Canadian law enforcement wants to send officers into the US for gathering intelligence on weapons smuggling then I’m all for it. It is not like they are going to be arresting people in the US.

      • Typical dumb azz thinking. He’s “undercover” with Canadian license plates on his car — duhhhhh. Why not just wear the bright red jacket and really really be undercover?

        Happily, most cops are as dumb as the crooks they think they are chasing.

        • once had that experience of being followed from a gun show…guy was a real klutz, as I “made” him immediately…and pulled into a convenient driveway where I proceeded to eyeball him…found it to be more annoying than threatening….

  2. For decades, Canada hasn’t considered self defense as a valid reason to own a gun. Ditto in most (all?) British Commonwealth countries.

    • Correct. Plus you cannot use more force in self-defense than the force used against you, same as England. So if a woman is being beaten to death by her abusive lover, she can’t shoot him, even if he outweighs her by a hundred pounds. Therefore handguns are only useful for defense against bears.
      My son is planning on moving to Toronto to be with his girlfriend/wife to be. I was planning on leaving half my gun collection to him. Guess that’s off the table.

      • “My son is planning on moving to Toronto to be with his girlfriend/wife to be. I was planning on leaving half my gun collection to him.”

        I would re-consider my financial and estate plans.

      • Mark, as I’ve said to you before this is simply incorrect. Many of us have been forced into using firearms in our defence, both against armed individuals (including cops who see fit not to introduce themselves at zero dark thirty as they make forced entry) and against non armed individuals. There exists precisely zero requirement for “equal force application” and I wish you’d stop spreading such nonsense. What does exist is two boxes on the form to purchase a “restricted” weapon (read: handguns) that state “purpose: target practice” and “self defence”. Check the second box and our self imposed nanny overlords, the much vaunted Revenue Collecting Mounted Patrol will deny the purchase. So right off the bat they force millions of people to flat out lie on the form even though self defence with a firearm is in no way illegal up here. Murder and excessive force, just like you guys, is however heavily frowned upon. Get it right if you’re gonna put shit out there.

        • “The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench summarized a widespread view of our Courts in that regard as follows:

          …[T]he right of self-defence commences when the necessity for such defence begins and it terminates when the necessity for such self-defence comes to an end. The law, however, requires that the force used in defending oneself must not be out of proportion to the severity of the attack. An attack by fists may be answered by fists but not with deadly weapons such as knives and guns. In exercising the right of self-defence one must use only such force as on reasonable grounds the person attacked believes to be necessary for his own defence. In short, self-defence means defence, not counter-attack.”

          Relevant sections of the Code are Section 34 (defence of person) and Section 35 (defence of property), excerpts of which are set out below:

          Defence of Person

          Defence — use or threat of force

          34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

          (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

          (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

          (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
          Factors

          (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

          (a) the nature of the force or threat;

          (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

          (c) the person’s role in the incident;

          (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

          (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

          (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

          (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

          (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

          (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

          Up until 2012, it was unlawful to use deadly force in self defence except when deadly force was being against you. “Section 34 limited the justification of force in self-defence to only such force that was “not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm” unless the person was himself under a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm.” I suggest that under the new statute, one cannot determine in advance whether one’s use of force is “lawful” as it is quite impossible to weigh the factors in the heat of the moment that are contained within the current statut6e, and that if one does use deadly force, one can anticipate that one will be prosecuted.

      • Mark, please check back for my reply to your (repeated) erroneous info after it clears moderation camp.

      • Mark N, thanks for the reply. The tenant of ‘reasonableness’ is the basis of such laws and both that word and the word “unless” occur multiple times in that legalese screed. I’ve yet to hear of one single case of anyone being tried, much less charged, with any such legislation after a defensive encounter, be it they used a bat or a gun. Now “unsafe storage” or similar weasel worded charges eagerly pursued by Crown Prosecutors looking for a feather in their pointy hat, yes, but our courts aren’t quite the gong show many of your lower courts are and I’m not up to researching it and providing example but you go ahead and you will see what I mean. No Provincial nor Federal Judge up here is gonna put Granny in the tollbooth for shooting a violent criminal advancing on her. None. But yeah, they will take Grannies gat. What about bears or moose; must we repel such boarders with only tooth and claw or mounted antler display, perhaps a hoof ashtray? C’mon man…

    • “…For decades, Canada hasn’t considered self defense…”

      That is correct on several levels as the US provides the majority of Canada’s national defense. I’m old enough to remember when they cased the colors on their only Airborne unit.

      That being said perhaps the American people should have a say in who can own a weapon and can’t.

      • We do. It’s just that the left wants EVERYONE, except they and their cronies not to have them.

      • there were five beaches at Normandy…two american, two British and one Canadian…not an insignificant contribution from a country with such a small population….

  3. That communist idiot makes our communist (demonrat) idiots foam at the mouth to be so easily able to put the jack boot on the neck of citizens (subjects).

  4. If justin truedodo and Jim Crow Gun Control joe were drowning and I had a rope I’d burn the rope.

  5. So that’s the kind of country Canada is? One guy just decides to ban the sale of firearms? He can do that? Like North Korea? What’s the difference?
    ?

    • Yeah, he can. Remember that whenever Europeans criticize our government.

      Parliament majority can just start making up laws. That’s how it works. Insane, right?

      • “Parliament majority can just start making up laws. ”

        Simmer down, Whippersnapper. Parliaments rule in the place of a king. Kings were utterly sovereign, parliaments are utterly sovereign.

        Besides, what is the point of having power if you can’t abuse it?

    • Huntmaster, he can do it only at zero dark thirty with political overreach. Again. Still. It wil get reversed one way or another, either in the courts or through dethroning the idiot manchild. If he survives his ‘tenure’ that is…

    • there are ways to circumvent these Canadian restrictions to some extent…but no need to tip them off in here….

  6. Is it actually possible to print a functioning firearm that can be shot more than once or twice? By that, I mean, print a functioning firearm with no metal parts atall?

    • There are now 3-D metal printers that can produce fairly high quality stainless steel parts. Who needs plastic unless you are trying to conceal it in places it doesn’t really belong anyway. Anyone with an small lathe can produce metal barrels out of bar stock and even rifle them, with a little skill and ingenuity. FJB, F-ATF.

      • “There are now 3-D metal printers that can produce fairly high quality stainless steel parts.”

        The expense and expertise for metal printers and shop tools should put such guns beyond the street thugs. But also JQ Public at large.

        However….

        Banning possession of an item makes it all but useless, except in a deadly emergency. And then, one gets to spend years in prison feeling good about being alive in jail. Of course, in that event, family suffers the loss of house and home.

        There is no really good outcome to defying a ban. To challenge such a law, one needs “standing” (suffer a harm), which requires being convicted of the crime of possession of the banned item.

        • With commonality will come a commensurate reduction in price. Happens with everything on the leading edge of technology. Take plastic 3d printers themselves as a prime example.

          A decade ago, they were unaffordable to the masses. Now you can acquire pretty good precision at a price point in the sub $400 range. Cheap low end Raspberry Pi, or even less is all you need to run them.

          You’ve almost certainly got a 12vdc 2A wall wart lying about to power the Pi, although I’d invest in a regulated supply instead.

        • “…which requires being convicted of the crime…”

          Not necessarily so, it would seem. In the recent temporary restraining order against the ban on concealed carry in churches in New York’s new law, Judge Suddaby wrote the following in the section on Standing.

          “This is sufficient to establish a credible threat of prosecution under the case law cited in Antonyuk I, 2022 WL 3999791, at *15-16.”

          None of the plaintiffs had been arrested for carrying concealed handguns in their churches, pursuant to the new law. They demonstrated their intention to carry in church, but stated that they feared to do so because of a real threat of prosecution. That fear of prosecution, along with a couple other factors, was sufficient to establish standing. The argument is, the curtailing of the right by threat of prosecution, in itself, constitutes harm.

      • …but first you have to want to…not sure most Canadians fit that profile…they’re a pretty docile lot… most of the time….

  7. All that little pansy a$$ mo-fo did was start the civil war way north of the Mason-Dixon line.

  8. Canadians want this, he isn’t a dictator. Canadians don’t care about their own rights when it comes to free speech much less self-defense rights.

    It’s a mega-white country full of mega-white-guilt and that’s all you need to know yo understand their politics. There’s no reasoning to any decisions made anymore.

    • Hey, butthead, yer thinking of the inner city housewives that he shamelessly panders to and our shameless media holds forth as being all of Canada. This exact situation exists tenfold in your glorious neck of the woods. Here’s a life hint: don’t be a clown and say clownish things.

  9. The US Canadian border is 5,525 miles long, there are plenty of enterprising folks who live near the border that can move product and you can bet that supply will flow to meet demand. Fortunately I don’t live under Castro Jr., if you do it is up to you to determine if you would let a communist prevent you from being able to acquire the tools you need for self defense.

  10. Are there any Canadians here eh?

    I thought there effectively was no such legal market anyways because Canada stopped issuing “prohibited weapons” (handguns and centerfire rifle) permits long ago? What does he think he’s accomplishing?

    • Mark, I’m always here. See my reply to you above, currently Awaiting Moderation™. Again. Still. You get much wrong (repeatedly) and should educate yourself on a topic before holding forth on it, wouldn’t you agree?

    • Oops, wrong Mark (N), my bad. Mark, we have 3 “classifications” (because reasons) up here: Prohibited, Restricted and Non Restricted. Prohibited = full auto, AK 47 (because more reasons) and handguns with barrel lengths under 4.25″. Restricted = any semi auto with barrel lengths under 18.5″, handguns over 4.25″ and the AR15 and it’s “Derivatives™” (because any reason). What the idiot manchild has done is ‘prohibited’ pretty much all of the restricted class and much of the non restricted class. Ain’t Classifications™ wonderful? With any luck someone will shoot him in the face with an Enfield just to make a point. It’ll look good on him. We can propose it to be a national holiday, like he did for that other queen…

  11. They have a king (Charles), a dictator (Trudeau), AND a “Parliament.”

    Sometimes I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. But then I remember that they voted for this, so they must like it that way.

    • He truly is an effeminate little sh!t. I’ve watched the idiot manchild for years before this, thinking this day was coming and he’s always been that way. The gun grabbing is his way of sticking his finger in the eye of all the other kids in school who hated his guts, which was pretty much everybody. Your guy is simply laughable and embarrassing, our guy is truly despised and easily the most hated individual north of Mexico, I imagine.

  12. C’mon TTAGs, that’s a very unflattering image of Truedough. You’re supposed to save those unflattering images for ugly shoes Shannon Watts, Bloombag, Fartstain and so on.

  13. During the Prohibition era, huge quantities of alcohol moved from Canada to the US. America law enforcement was unable to stop even a little bit of it. Guess what is going to move from the US to Canada during the Canadian gun Prohibition era?

    • first class whiskey…but the only people trying to move guns into Canadian cities is the criminal element…not the general population….

  14. Canada has every right to, impose what restrictions on firearms it so decides and you neglect to mention that it has the overwhelming support of the general public. So I ask where are the STREET PROTESTS against this legislation. Sure the legisaltion is not 100% perfect-no legislatiion everis but I’d advise you not to, think that you as an AMERICAN can buck it Sure there will be smuggling but there si not the public demand to make it much worthwhile for the rsks to be taken. Your AVERAGE CANADIAN certainly does NOT have wet dreams about fireearms nor do they they treat them with near religious reverence. Nor do CANADIANS have any CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to carry firearms

    Why is it that you Americans seem to,thinkthat other nations Laws and Legistlation is anything to do with you and why do,you mthink that you can flout those laws with impunity just because you are AMERICAN.
    You have no doubt now noticeed that an admitted US SECURITY AGENT a Ms SACOOLAS who killed a UK Citizen in a motoring incident has now been advised by a FEDERAL JUDGE to return to, the UK to care the music of either causing death by careless driving or ‘without due care and attention by driving on the wrong side of the road She has decided to plead guilty the less serious charge of careless driving and will, in addition be charged with ‘perverting the course of Justice because she claimed DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY to which she was not entitled . She will without a doubt be open to paying considerable compensation payments .
    If she had NOT automatically assumed that she would not get a fair deal in a UK Courts the matter would have been dealt with under normal procedures and she would probaly received a substanial fine but rarely would such an incident results in a jail sentence unless she had been under the influence of Drink or Drugs.

    • “It has the overwhelming support of the general public. So I ask where are the STREET PROTESTS against this legislation?”

      Agreed, Canada is overrun by writhing, cowardly worms, eager to give away their rights for a few tasty gulps of maple syrup and boot polish. But at least they aren’t British.

      “Why do you think that you can flout those laws with impunity just because you are AMERICAN?”

      Saratoga and Yorktown come to mind, but mostly it’s because we’re just so much damned BETTER than other “countries.”

      • Canada is lucky we have more pressing matters to deal with here in the States. Adding stars to the flag would be a walk in the park.

        • Only because the western half of the nation, excluding Vancouver, would be holding the ladder for you. My ladder. It would be the Iwo Jima scene in snow.