Um what? Canada has a pretty complex set of authority with rights and liberties in its own right. That kind of criticism is usually reserved for the US. The US constitution compared to other countries is really simple and bare. Canada is a democracy with checks and balances too.
For one current example maybe an elected official who puts everyone under house arrest without any due process whatsoever.
That was the purpose of the 2A, according to the Founders, to protect against tyrants. It was even mentioned in the Heller SCOTUS case.
No, the Founders did, if they abuse their power. Deal with it. I can post of lots of their statements to that effect if you want me to. So vote against him, most of those you refer to never accepted the election results and disagree with Trump on policy issues.
What course of action will ultimately be taken when there are no more firearms to restrict, but mass killings continue unabated. Or, what course of action will be taken when the firearms used in mass shootings are no longer the type legally available in the nation of Canada, indicating that they are being brought into the country from elsewhere for the express purpose of being used in the commission of murder?
The statistics are indisputable. A stricter control of the guns drastically reduces the number of mass shootings. It even has an effect on the homicide rate. Canada's homicide rate is five times lower than the US. The more guns are available, the more they allow any lunatic to kill as many people as possible. This is the most fundamental logic.
If an elected official were to declare that they could not legally be criticized without the risk of a prison sentence, or otherwise ordered that individuals be rounded up and placed in detention facilities for crimes they are not allowed to know about, would not such elected officials deserve to be met with violence in turn?
Has there ever been a point in the history of either nation where such was not simply the case? If there is no such point in history, then there is no sense in continually repeating the above, as it is no more pertinent than stating that water is wet, or fire is hot. And yet, despite not having firearm-related restrictions on par with the nation of Australia, the nation of Canada has had far fewer mass killings than the nation of Australia. Why is such the case?
A "complex set of authority" is really a Hodge-podge of various things that get thrown together and changed from time to time as the situation is perceived to warrant. Not within light years with the fundamental base of law and individual freedom that our Constitution provides. Our Constitution is simple and bare, purposefully; the more complex it gets the less a constitution is meaningful. Canada does not have any effective check and balances. Separation of powers is necessary for that. The only check the Parliament has on the prime minister is a vote of no confidence which means elections for a new Parliament which will then appoint a prime minister -- maybe even the same guy that they didn't like in the first place. The government simply appoints justices without any hearings or debate or required concurrences. Etc.
You asked what kind of elected official might require firearms to combat. You didn't ask about what is happening now.
No they aren't. Even the Clinton DOJ said the AWB had no impact on crime. There are twice as many guns in civilian hands now as in the 90s, yet the murder rate is much less. Different demographics, we have more minorities. 90%+ of the murders and victims in NYC are black or hispanic.
AR15's in .308 are called AR10. This guy isn't discerning between .223 and .308 now is he? He actually says that a .223 AR15 is. Too. Powerful. Why over?
Anyone who thinks you can't kill as many people with a handgun, a shotgun, or a bolt action rifle isn't real smart.
You are the one who implied you wanted to kill elected officials. That deserves a visit from law enforcement. That makes you the stupid one.
The question presented on the part of yourself did not ask for examples of tyranny that were currently happening.
I replied similarly to bx4. However, my example of an elected official ordering everyone under house arrest without any due process is tyranny and is happening today.
Trudeau - "You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer," he said. Any other type of rifle that can bring down a deer will also be able to take down people. Like the AR-15 many other rifles that were not banned are semi-automatic as well. They just don't look like military assault style weapons.
True. When the objective is to take away everybody's weapons you do have to begin somewhere, and it is easier and more practical to take away people's liberty one bite at a time..... ya know, like boiling a frog.
And as I stated in my previous last paragraph, Canada does as Canada sees fit...whether or not this new legislation will stand with the population remains to be seen. Canada is NOT America. Period. As I described in my previous first paragraph, which still stands....your "reading around" non-withstanding.