#what the law would do

[beardedmrbean]

The Liberal government has withdrawn a series of controversial amendments to pending firearms legislation, Bill C-21, that some firearms owners say would have unfairly targeted hunters and farmers.

Faced with fierce opposition from Conservative, NDP and Bloc MPs and firearms rights groups, Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed said Friday the government is withdrawing a long list of guns that would have been classified as "prohibited" as part of a push to ban "assault-style" weapons.

The amendments, which were quietly tabled by a Liberal backbench MP in November, would have banned these weapons under the Criminal Code, rather than through regulation. That change would have made the prohibition much more difficult for future governments to reverse.

The government is scrapping clauses that effectively would have banned any rifle or shotgun that could accept a magazine with more than five rounds — whether it actually has such a magazine or not.

The government also intended to ban long guns that generate more than 10,000 joules of energy, or any gun with a muzzle wider than 20 millimetres — two rules that would have rendered many firearms illegal.

These amendments would have had the effect of banning a number of long guns in wide use by hunters.

C-21, as originally drafted, was designed to ban handguns. The amendments expanded its scope.

Because the amendments strayed so dramatically from how the bill was initially written, opposition parties questioned whether the changes were even admissible under parliamentary rules. Those concerns are moot now that the government has backed down.

The government will still push ahead with C-21, which enacts a handgun sales ban, cracks down on gun smuggling and automatically revokes firearms licences held by domestic abusers.

While backtracking on some of the more contentious elements, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said Friday the government would try to revive some parts of the now-defunct amendments package.

Among other changes, the withdrawn amendments would have defined "assault-style firearm" — a term often used by the government that has no definition in law.

In an interview with CBC's Power & Politics, Mendicino said the government will pursue some sort of ban on firearms "designed for the battlefield that have no place in our communities."

What's needed in this minority Parliament, Mendicino said, is support from either the NDP or Bloc — parties that withheld support in the face of backlash from rural dwellers and some Indigenous peoples.

Mendicino conceded the government bungled the process.

"We've got to accept responsibility from where we're at. The step we've taken today is about resetting the narrative," he said, promising the Liberal government still intends to ban firearms used in mass casualty events, like the semi-automatic weapon used in the Quebec City mosque massacre.

Mendicino had defended the amendments before Friday, saying the changes were necessary to reduce gun violence in Canada.

Critics said a ban on popular hunting rifles would do little to make Canadians safer when many crime guns are handguns illegally smuggled over the U.S. border.

Mendicino said the proposed amendments prompted "considerable discussion about the best way to move forward" and "legitimate concerns" were raised by critics "about the need for more consultation and debate."

"We hear those concerns loud and clear, regret the confusion that this process has caused and are committed to a thoughtful and respectful conversation that is based on facts, not fear," he said.

Mendicino said the government didn't draft the amendments to punish rural Canadians, hunters or Indigenous people who rely on these firearms.

"As we've said time and again, the government's intent is to focus on AR-15s and other assault-style weapons. Hunting isn't just a proud Canadian tradition, it's a way of life for communities across this country. Bill C-21 isn't about targeting hunters. It's about certain guns that are too dangerous in other contexts," he said.

PolySeSouvient, a gun control group, said it was "shocked" by the government's decision.

Some guns used for hunting may still fall under firearms ban, Liberal MP says

How Bill C-21 turned from banning handguns to hunting guns

"It is clear that the misinformation propagated by Conservative MPs and the gun lobby has won," said Nathalie Provost, a spokesperson for the group.

Provost said she wants the Liberal government to work with the NDP and Bloc Québécois to table legislation to deliver on its promise to ban assault weapons.

The Liberal government has already banned what it calls "assault-style" firearms through an order-in-council — a directive from cabinet enacted in May 2020 after the Portapique massacre in Nova Scotia.

The intent of the now-withdrawn Bill C-21 amendments was to codify that assault ban in law (an order-in-council can easily be revoked by another government) and add many more makes and models to the list of illegal firearms.

Government House Leader Mark Holland said the government "needs more time" to consult with the firearms community before reviving some of the amendments that were scrapped — including a section that would have banned "ghost guns," which can be bought online and assembled at home.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, a firearms lobby group, called the Liberal reversal "a small win in a bigger battle."

"It's imperative we crush #C21 in its entirety. The Liberals are retreating, now is the perfect time to push forward and #ScrapC21 altogether," Tracey Wilson said. "Good work. Now, let's refocus and scrap it all."

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Friday he "forced Trudeau into a temporary and humiliating climb down."

"He desperately wanted to ban hunting rifles — it was a sucker punch to our lawful and licensed firearms owners," Poilievre said of the amendments. "He's doing this because he got caught. We will not let up. Conservatives will never allow Justin Trudeau to ban hunting rifles."

Poilievre said he described the Liberal backtracking as "temporary," adding he expects Trudeau will be back with another plan to target rural Canadians, Indigenous peoples and sport shooters who used these firearms.

"God forbid if he ever got a majority — he'd ram it through," Poilievre said.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he supports both a national handgun ban and a move to restrict "assault-style" weapons, but he described the government's management of the file as a "failure."

"It is clear that the Liberal government did not do the necessary work and they mismanaged the entire issue. That is clear," Singh told reporters, adding the government bungled Indigenous consultation on the issue.

"They endangered the work we need to do to protect our communities."

[sciderman]

well - webtoons is over, gang

[bumblingbabooshka]

Thinking about marriage/women's rights on Vulcan Some may think that T'Pring not being allowed to divorce Spock was because he was going through the pon farr but if she were allowed to divorce him at all she probably would have done that a long time ago, confirmed by T'Pol when she's speaking with Koss, who isn't suffering from the pon farr. She says that he can choose another mate (without invoking a fight it seems: note the difference between a 'mate' and a 'challenger') and after he makes it clear that nothing she says will change his mind about marrying her, she finally threatens to declare a kal-if-fee. It's clear that Vulcan women cannot divorce/refuse to marry a man they've been betrothed to under any circumstances if A) He himself doesn't consent to ending their marriage or B) She doesn't have someone else waiting in the wings to be given to in his stead. Though, if the challenger she selects fails to win the fight, she'll have to marry her betrothed anyway unless (again) he decides he doesn't want her after the challenge. That seems like an incredibly unfair system, heavily biased towards men. SNW is an alternate universe in many obvious respects but most egregiously in that T'Pring has a lot of non-canonical agency over her relationship with Spock. It's interesting to me that Vulcan society has women in many positions of power and treats women as equal to men from what I've seen despite these laws. We don't really see Vulcans exhibiting a misogynistic attitude towards women in general but in TOS (perhaps because of its general writing style but it's still interesting to note) both Sarek and Spock take on patriarchal attitudes specifically regarding wives. Amanda says that 'of course' Sarek commands her because "he is a Vulcan and I am his wife." It's worthwhile in my eyes to note that she specifies 'wife' instead of attributing this attitude to women as a whole. Again, with TOS' writing style it wouldn't be out of place for her to say "he is a man and I am a woman." Spock, while in a pon farr induced irritation, states that it's "undignified for a woman to play servant to a man that isn't hers" - again implying that there's something specific about being a Wife in Vulcan society which is different from being a woman in general and demands subservience to a husband. This could perhaps stem from the extreme sense of ownership that Vulcan law has permitted men to have over women. A woman legally cannot point blank refuse marriage. There is no option which guarantees she won't have to marry her betrothed other than death. When T'Pau speaks of T'Pring she refers to her as being 'property' and Stonn, before being interrupted, states he's made 'the ancient claim' - we don't know what this is because he gets cut off but it's obvious they're both using the language of Vulcan law. Men are permitted true freedom to choose. If a woman wants to choose someone else to be with there is no option available to her other than the kal-if-fee which might result in the death of the one she wants to be with. And, if her lover fails, her husband can still just decide he wants to marry her and she'll be forced to. T'Pring gives two scenarios: One where Spock 'frees' her and one where he doesn't - it's still ultimately his decision which is clear when he ends the conversation with "Stonn, she is yours." This again isn't just because of the pon farr as T'Pol also goes through this. Koss can choose another mate and when the option is talked about there's no implication that this would result in any sort of fight (both by the casualness of its mention and by the fact that there's no formal word for it unlike the kal-if-fee.) Also, the fact that Koss does eventually grant T'Pol a divorce and it's all fine means that T'Pol isn't lawfully required to have another man waiting if her HUSBAND doesn't want her. It's ONLY required if SHE doesn't want her husband. Tradition must take precedence over individual desire UNLESS!!! You're a man. Then it's fine. Like, your parents might not be happy but legally you're golden.

[keferon]

Isn’t Vortex a fucking torture freak tho? 👀👀👀

Yep. He is. He is a lot of things actually. The more you learn about him the more fucked up it gets

[thefirstflowers]

what a disappointment it must have been for them that it was a little black kid and a black woman saving the day instead of their favorite white man

[sailor-moon-moon]

“Armand is so evil” “Armand is so crazy” Armand spent two hundred years in a catholic cult… he should be even more evil and crazy actually!

[starry-bi-sky]

danny and officer martinez's relationship in "late at night, when the nightingale sings" in a nutshell:

Martinez: FREAK! GET YOUR FUCKING KID!

Battinson, on the other side of the crime scene: he don't bite

Martinez, with Nightingale firmly attached his arm, visibly biting him: YES HE DO!

*points at them* Danny is the Bugs Bunny to Martinez's Elmer Fudd.

Another Officer: i can't believe you're fighting with an actual twelve year old. Martinez: i swear to god that is not a twelve year old, that is a little hellion that crawled out of batman's shadow one dark and stormy night and decided to dedicate his existence to tormenting me. Officer: Are you really that mad about him putting a sticky note on your back-- Martinez: thats not the point

in danny's defense: the word "freak" is. a mini beserker button for him for.... obvious ghostly reasons, so like, even if its not directed at him, he still very much unappreciates Martinez's insults at Battinson. Danny may or may not be projecting.

he's not going to hurt the guy! not in any serious or permanently disfiguring way at least! But he is going to leave mean sticky notes on the square part of his spine that he can't reach, and stick salt in his 3AM Late Night Crime Scene Coffee, and kick the bottom of his heel while he's walking so he stumbles. And other petty, infuriating things that tally up and boil over, over time.

[notfeelingthyaster]

the most awkward thing is going to be louis learning about gabrielle, this whole ass, very important person both armand and lestat took off the narrative

[officialmiintee]

oh ye i made sad heart pirates art inspired by this in twt

[safficranger]

oh what I would do to lie in bed next to her

[dykedvonte]

I think a big misunderstanding is the power people give Curly to actually change things about the way the pony express operates or could’ve done things on the Tulpar.

We are talking about a company that docks pay for bad synergy despite mandated psych evals that should tell which staff members would work well together, only allots for 5 hours of sleep despite having literally no other tasks to truly do and locks all resources behind the access of one person. The last one is likely to manage resources and make it easier to justify collective punishment and blaming one person for it; someone needs something in “excess” or the captain gives in? It’s all on them your pay is docked. Instant resentment.

It’s insidious how the company works, it’s by design to distract you from coming after them, to force tensions to line their own pockets. With all the restrictions and forced interactions, altercations are bound to happen. 5 hours of sleep a day, limited sources of entertainment, no real tasks… the monotony alone would cause bad cabin fever, mix that with just only one absolute mediator and you get the exact environment that allows shit like in the game to happen.

The idea he could just complain and try to throw his weight around to get them to dig into their pocket for the crews comfort is laughable and misses the predatory and dehumanizing aspect of capitalism the Pony Express represents. Curly was and is still just another asset to them. Being a top show pony doesn’t mean he’s anywhere close to the actual top. He is the top of the working ladder, not whoever’s in corporate, he wouldn’t even be on the bottom step unlike what Jimmy perceives. The resounding recommendations he would get are almost mocking as they throw him out like nothing just like the rest. Being a shitty fucking company, how much do you bet they’d mean anything anyways, especially since he wanted to leave the field all together.

He made a fuss and they didn’t listen, he says he should’ve done more but you can tell he knows it wouldn’t have changed anything. Jobs like this are willing to make a sacrifice if it means even a penny more. Curly makes a bigger fuss they likely would’ve just found an “unrelated” reason to fire him, hired a more pliable guy or, terrifyingly, promoted Jimmy. The company was failing, going to shut down whether anything happened on the ship or not. But knowing that they were shutting down and that everyone, including him, would be out of a job with this being their last paycheck, he had to factor in not destroying the last bit of their financial stabilities combined with every other issue on the vessel and his own. He gets another cryopod or locks and then he has to break to them that they are not only fired but there will be substantial cuts to their paychecks due to the “upgrades” (things that already should’ve been in place on their part) on top of anything else that could be docked along the way.

You can blame him for saying it so early into the trip but then again, if he mentioned it later who’s to say it wouldn’t have been worse? On the capitalism side alone how would people in a galaxy away from home, out of a job and already stir crazy react? Don’t get me started on how Jimmy would have reacted if he realized he only had two days left to fix what would be a very hard to miss “problem” in his head…

I can’t even consider explaining this as devils advocate because it’s just facts of the world we and they live in and factors that heavily affected the situation. People are just so quick to make claims on the ease of the choices when P.E literally makes it hard to choose to do anything but suck it up.

[shima-draws]

One Piece where everything’s the same except Cora doesn’t die but Law’s still determined to absolutely beat the shit out of Doflamingo anyway. Cut to post Dressrosa where Law gets a VERY frantic phone call from Cora who’s like what the actual FUCK I saw the newspaper this morning you went up against Doffy all by yourself?? You promised me we would do this together you little SHIT do you have any idea how fucking scared out of my MIND I was when I saw the headline and I thought something happened to you, Law I swear to god, and Law’s like yes Cora I went up against him by myself, like HELL I was going to let him lay a single finger on you. And Cora’s like THAT’S MY LINE!!! You’re MY kid and I should be the one protecting YOU!! And Law’s like what with your shitty devil fruit powers? What could you have done? You would have fallen on your ass and gotten hurt or shot or worse and I’d be too fucking worried about you to focus on anything else. And Cora’s like this conversation is NOT over but I’m so so glad you’re okay. And he starts crying and he’s like oh my GOD Law you know how insane Doffy is I could have lost you. And I wouldn’t have even known until after the fact. And Law goes all quiet and he’s like I know I’m sorry but I could have lost YOU and I couldn’t handle that. I couldn’t. And Cora’s sobbing and he’s like I love you so much Law and Law’s like yeah. I love you too 🥺

Meanwhile the Strawhats witnessed this entire conversation and they’re like. Wow okay that was a lot to unpack. Law’s got a dad and they’re very protective of each other and apparently his dad is Doflamingo’s brother?? And Law literally dismantled Doflamingo’s entire criminal organization and DIDN’T bother telling his dad about it?? No wonder he’s pissed. And they’re also like awwwww we’ve never seen Law so soft and vulnerable before 💕 and Law looks at them and he’s like. You repeat ANY of what you just heard and I WILL kill you. And they’re like ‘Mhmm okay yup we hear you loud and clear. Btw what’s your dad like’ with the BIGGEST shit eating grins and Law’s like Okay! Killing you now!! And proceeds to chase them with his katana

[danandfuckingjonlmao]

good night and sweet dreams to the best, sexiest, sluttiest, smartest, realest, most based, valid, relatable, girlipop, sympathetic, cunt, fun, cool, feminist, aspirational girlboss character in dead boy detectives: doll spider <3

good night to her and no one else. i hope the rest of y’all have a bad night and terrible dreams.

[budd-ie]

“Mu Qing is too logical for his own good” is such a real problem that he deals with and as tragic as it makes his life I also think it’s really funny when someone is accusing him of something and instead of telling them to shut up or leave him alone the first thing he does is pull out the 95 fucking theses detailing every single thing wrong with their argument WITH historical evidence and additional considerations from scholarly psychology articles, MLA format works cited and completely annotated. It could use an editor and some bias correction, but he actually makes a pretty good point. anyways tgcf ace attorney au when

[knockknockitsnickels]

Thinking about parallels between Ms. Beast and Tower. They're both the result of choosing to fight the princess and losing (no-knife and knife routes respectively), both have similarly boastful personalities and see you as beneath them (prey and a pet).

Something about how one becomes an animal and the other becomes a god, yet both transformations are equally dehumanizing.

[maya-caffrey]

can we bring back procedurals? or at least just proper shows like how TV used to be? 5 to 15 seasons, a generous amount of episodes per season, 45 minutes: the sweet spot between too long and too short, pilot episodes that are wildly different from the rest of the show, filler episodes that overall contribute nothing but are extremely fun because that is what god intended, random musical episode, crossovers, waiting an entire week in anticipation to see what happens next, like, this was the PEAK of television, where did we go wrong