While I appreciate where you’re coming from, even if the government let us keep our firearms I will reiterate. These are not weapons of warfare, hell even NATO rejected sending these firearms to Ukraine, so that tells a lot.

Unfortunately the Americans would cook us as we’re at a huge disadvantage. If our magazines weren’t pinned to 5-10 rounds and our firearms offered select-fire then I would argue and say we have a chance against a full-on invasion but alas our government wants to make it as easy as possible for our opponents.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right???? They're not even meant for actual "assault". They're "assault-like" rifles because they made them look like M-16s or whatever.

And yeah, what we have in terms of gun ownership doesn't even come close to what the U.S. population has in terms of firearms at home.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Most guns nowadays use polymer frames and stocks. The term 'assault weapon' was first coined when most guns were still old fashion wooden stocks and didn't have many of the post-ww2 features such as protruding pistol grips and barrel shrouds/heat shields. Most guns in the 1970s and 80s that your average person had was probably a ww2 surplus rifle since there were tons of those around in the market.

But since then, and especially post -2000, most guns use more modern material and features. They aren't more powerful than old guns, but they do look different.

One thing that did change that no one talks about is ammunition. Modern ammo is much better and more consistent than older formulations, especially regarding primers and powders. But no one wants to make older corrosive and fouling mixtures that make maintenance annoying and reduce the useful life of the firearm.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Canada needs more people. It only has the population of California, but a lot more land to defend.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The problem won't be the number of guns but the number of capable hands that can use them.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

People on here bang the insurgency drum as if we will put up the same fight as vietnam or the middle east. I love the sentiment, but Canada doesnt have the same number of guns nor the same desperate population as those conflicts did. We glorify the resistance fighting but seem to forget those wars saw several resistance fighters killed per US casuality. And given Americas track record, succesful insurgent missions will be met with air strikes and civilian casualities. If invasion happens by all means we should resist, but prioirty absolutely should be preventing invasion in the first place.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

Maybe we need to loosen a bit of the laws and allow for training groups of Canadians in warfare while also remaining living among civilians.

They did this during ww2 in Britain. All resistance groups that formed did so after Nazi occupation. The UK wanted to make a ready made resistance force well before hand. They trained people on resistance techniques, bombmaking, how to sneak around, sentry removal, etc.

Canada needs something like that, and yes I am willing to join.

[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Join the Canadian army?

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or the reserves. You can work on the weekends

[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am asking you why don't you?

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I'm really thinking about it. I might inquire about it soon. But I'm getting old. I don't know if I'll be of any use.