Now I really have to buy one. Any time the government tries to ban something I feel like I should buy it.
Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
321–330 of 341 posts
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except gun ownership is codified into the US Constitution. That’s why is impossible to get rid of, unfortunately.
Unfortunately? Just above we can see a clear point that criminals will still have guns. They won't turn them in. You'll only take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. My wife carries a gun because she is smaller and weaker than most men, she needs it to protect herself.
But if they’re harder to get, fewer will have them. You can very much get an illegal firearm in Australia or the UK if you really want, but firearms crimes are significantly less because they’re not readily available.
I don’t think we (Canada or anybody) should necessarily ban guns, but I don’t think the US should have the 2nd amendment (as it’s now interpreted anyways) either.
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#323Canada has totally lost its way. Housing is a massive issue. Healthcare is under constant attack. Immigration is used to prop up a failing economy. We don’t really make anything. Wages are lower than the US just because. There’s no negotiating power. The dollar is weak. We can’t extract most of the available resources because of the weather and environmental concerns. The praries are being sold off to foreign investo…
It's an obnoxiously tough time and it's easy to fall into a pit of despair regarding the decreasing availability of a prosperous future if you don't already have it, and all of those issues can be both interesting and depressing to think about. However, what we do have is a pretty welcoming, friendly, and adventurous population that's a great basis for building a home, even if that doesn't mean having a house. If you…
>For me, I haven't had a job for almost a year, nobody's hiring, nobody will be hiring, rent is increasing, I'll almost certainly never own a home or be able to retire, and I don't think having kids would be feasible if I was set on it; all together, a miserable situation to be in. But... I do have friends, I have places to spend my time,
Im sorry but this is one of the saddest things I've ever read. As a Canadian of this was my experience of Canada I would be doing everything I could to get out. Thankfully it isn't yet, but things definitely are not looking good and I am worried about the future
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "well-regulated" nonsense is long-settled jurisprudence.
Is it? Will it remain so? What other nonsense is in the US Constitution and Ammendments?
The nonsense is the commonly-parroted layman's interpretation of what "well-regulated" means.
Even Ginsburg agreed: "well-regulated" as written in the Constitution does not mean "restricted." The English language has changed some since 1791!
This is settled jurisprudence since at least 2008.
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
He only said there is no legal "right", not that gun ownership was completely illegal. The point being, reasonable countries view gun ownership as a privilege that can be lost, instead of a right that cannot.
It's a quibble - the base position here in common law is that the people of this state have a right to weapons .. much later the people of this state first agreed that the body they employ to debate common rules would be allowed to argue the regulation of firearms and delegate enforcement of any agreeed regulations to those tasked with the enforcement of policy - the Act grants that right to our employees, the politi…
And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.
You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.
- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!
- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
An M1 Garand was given to young men to shoot at other people. How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn? How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about. An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind. The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands. P…
All firearms are designed to kill: none are designed to wound. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or home defense.
What defines "weapon of war?"
Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms?
In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.)
> then legislators will come up with functional criteria
Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features.
Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except gun ownership is codified into the US Constitution. That’s why is impossible to get rid of, unfortunately.
And the Constitution is immutable, right? What would you even call a ratified change to the Constitution?
For purposes of repealing or altering the Second Amendment, yes, the Constitution is effectively immutable.
But of course anyone is welcome to attempt to get a majority of state legislatures onboard to ratify a new amendment.
Analogous terms are encoded into most state constitutions - probably have to knock those pesky provisions out as well.
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately? Just above we can see a clear point that criminals will still have guns. They won't turn them in. You'll only take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. My wife carries a gun because she is smaller and weaker than most men, she needs it to protect herself.
Unfortunately because I wish there were no guns at all. But I’m a pragmatist. I know gun ownership will never go away in the U.S. so I own guns as well.
How would you prevent folks from machining, 3d printing, or casting their own? Firearm technology is centuries old.
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think his point was that Australia does not specifically enumerate a right to bear arms. That makes it much easier for politicians and judges to erode liberties in the name of safety or "think of the children". Eg. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years, while the US has largely resisted similar efforts to restrict civil liberties.
The 1973 Act is the part in which we the citizens of W.Australia grant the right for our elected and employed politicians to form regulations wrt firearms. That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations. The 1974 Regulations are the evolving regulations, the fine detail about what the licence requirements are, the purchase and sale requirements are, the various classes, s…
"The 1974 Regulations...can be changed" - if you will go to prison today for violating these statutes, you do not actually have a right.
Rights are by definition not "pending repeal of statute."
Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a quibble - the base position here in common law is that the people of this state have a right to weapons .. much later the people of this state first agreed that the body they employ to debate common rules would be allowed to argue the regulation of firearms and delegate enforcement of any agreeed regulations to those tasked with the enforcement of policy - the Act grants that right to our employees, the politi…
And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to. You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform. - The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we…
> And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.
This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".
Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.