Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

canada.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 341 posts

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#331

Post by 15155 »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #330
15155 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mental gymnastics on point once again.

The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.

> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.

"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."

You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.

Pot, meet kettle?

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#332

Post by brailsafe »

vivekd wrote: post #323
brailsafe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not great, but things aren't always great and I've been through shitty years before. All of those things aren't really unique to Canada either, just some of them, particularly taken as a whole set. It's not true that there's no jobs at all, just that there's figuratively no jobs that I'd be capable of getting as a frontend developer in BC, but I'd probably prefer to try and develop trade skills or something than hope that there will always be a place for me in programming. It's also not true that there is literally no possibility of the other things, but a number of other factors would have to both be in place and be agreeable for me to pursue that.

For example, I don't really want to own a house to begin with, but if I did it would be a modest condo in or close to my current neighborhood where I've established myself, not some arbitrarily cheaper place where I'd get some bungalow and there'd be no jobs outside of trades anyway, not many people to re-establish a social life with, or would require a car, or a remote job that I don't have and wouldn't want to do from home in an isolated prairie town. These are just all factors in the system I'm in that don't serve anyone but people who already have quite a lot of money and want to make more by sitting on property. Until then, I'll eek by living in this studio basement suite owned by boomers, sharing rent with my partner, figuring out what the next move is. Maybe eventually I'll have to yield and bail, but I'll cross that bridge when I end up at zero (real zero, not zero + savings) again.

The systems have more or less been the same for many decades, and they've been getting pushed for at least the last one, just not everywhere all at once to their breaking point. They are slow, complex systems that require people to give up control usually, and that's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#333

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

15155 wrote: post #331
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Mental gymnastics on point once again. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense. > Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct. "We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction." You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" t…

> The entire purpose of the Second Amendment

This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.

You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.

You're repugnant.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#335

Post by 15155 »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #333
15155 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mental gymnastics on point once again. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense. > Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct. "We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction." You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" t…

> The entire purpose of the Second Amendment This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking. You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views. You're repugnant.

> the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.

The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.

> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.

Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.

Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.

> You're repugnant.

Come and take them.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#336

Post by WaxProlix »

evandale wrote: post #288
WaxProlix wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which specific law are you referring to? What was the content of the law? You need to be more clear. Repeating the same talking point isn't going to get anywhere, and I can only reference the law(s) I'm familiar with. In Washington at least they were pretty clear that it was a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, exempting handguns. I think California, New York, and Illinois were roughly the same.

You aren't even Canadian? Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.

There are gun control laws and increasing crackdown on liberties everywhere, not just Canada, and pressing you to mention the content of a law is still exactly what I'd do in the case of the Canadian weapons ban. Focusing on one sound bite is not productive.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#337

Post by finnjohnsen2 »

bhaney wrote: post #59

Never cared much about the Flipper Zero personally, but now that governments are banning them I guess it's time to buy one. Great unintentional marketing campaign, Canada!

Exactly this. It is unfortunately above my budget for items with certain near 100% shelf time, because this is a pretty exciting device to boast about owning. Especially after this news from the Canadians.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#338

Post by dghlsakjg »

15155 wrote: post #326
dghlsakjg wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 milita…

The Second Amendment, Heller, Caetano and Bruen are all completely irrelevant in Canada. Canada does not have anything like the Second Amendment, and Americans may be shocked to learn that US law has no relevance to Canadian weapons laws or this conversation. Owning and operating a gun in Canada is a privilege, not a right, and a supermajority of Canadians support more gun control in various polls. Less than 6% of eligible Canadians are licensed, so, for the most part, most Canadians don't really care if they clamp down hard on gun ownership. Largely, Canadians think American gun culture is absolutely insane.

> What defines "weapon of war?"

I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria.

As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2.

> Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?

Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#339

Post by therein »

galangalalgol wrote: post #163
Ancapistani wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you use a Flipper Zero to steal a car? A lot of vehicles - my wife’s 2015 Kia included - have a very flawed implementation of rolling key encryption. Basically, you need to capture three consecutive keys. The receiver is programmed to allow any future key (in case the fob was pressed away from the car), and will happily reset to past keys when you send three consecutive keys in sequence. Ostensibly this is…

That is pretty terrible! Is there a good resource on how different schemes work? It would be nice to know when shopping.

https://rollingpwn.github.io/rolling-pwn/

This is a good start.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#340

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

15155 wrote: post #335
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire purpose of the Second Amendment This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking. You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views. You're repugnant.

> the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking. The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle. > You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views. Where did I "justify violence?" The Second…

> Come and take them.

That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"

But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.

Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.

But I doubt it.

Post reply on HN