In watching the last video interview above, yes, AR15's are designed to kill. If they are good enough for the government to use, for that purpose, then please explain why I can't use one in the same manner to defend my home, my family, myself, my community?
Their arguments are asinine.
Yes they are designed to kill, agreed. And their comments are asinine
But for the liberals and their antigun cheerleaders to sit their and say there is no " other purpose" for them in Canada or anywhere is ridiculous, especially in Canada where every firearm is "prohibited"(no ownership) unless you have a firearm license.
And every firearm that enters Canada is vetted by RCMP/GOV and classified for the only "other purposes" these firearms are allowed into the country for in the first place, "Hunting and Sporting".
Even though we do have the right to use a firearm in self defense most Canadians don't know that.
Legal Precedent Gives Us the Right to Have Guns
Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides for the narrow use of a firearm in justifiable self-defence licensed gun owners are strictly regulated, not responsible for violent gun crime and feed billions into the Canadian economy.
Legal Precedent
The Firearms Act provisions anyone who meets the criteria and conditions to obtain a firearms license, “Non-restricted” and “Restricted,” and purchases firearms for recreational use, including hunting.
This is a legal precedent.
Firearms Have Evolved
For many years firearms have been designed and manufactured to meet the competitive and functional needs of those sports and hunting in efficiency, accuracy in functional use in the sporting context – not killing people.
Firearms have evolved as sporting equipment, irrespective of where they started off from.
Again, precedence.
‘Right of Way’
The Canadian government provisioned and set precedence for gun owners by the very Act & regulations that were attacked and bastardized to capitalize on emotional reaction and vulnerability.
This provision is also precedent; gun owners have had a legal “right of way” by our permitted use for decades. Now, it is presumed that this can vaporize with keystrokes.
Old Case Law
In Canada, the concept of a firearm as an implement of death was set out in case law in R. v. Cairns (1962), where the court referred to the firearm in question as “a deadly weapon.”
This was repeated in R. v. Formosa (1993), and in R. v. Felawka (1993):
A firearm is expressly designed to kill or wound. … A firearm is quite different from an object such as a carving knife or an ice pick which will normally be used for legitimate purposes.
Archaic and Flawed
Archaic, flawed perceptions specific to the times, these notions piggybacked on early legal case law and do not account for the evolution of firearms for sport and hunting.
This evolution has been formed by the technological advances in its sport context, noting IDPA, IPSC, target shooting and others use of various rifles, handguns and shotguns.
While doctors and others may be against firearms, citing the devastating injuries – massive organ damage and blood loss only comparable to car accidents and stabbings – law abiding gun owners and the modern firearms they use are not the problem.
This Is the Legal Argument
Gun manufacturers do not design firearms for the military – for killing – they design them for sport shooters by provision of Canadian government legislation that has been in place for decades.
This is the legal argument.
The government created this precedent for sport shooters.
Do not let them take it from you.
They just know what this db tells them
The Right to Bears Arms (Canada)