Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has successfully used gun control to deflect from a scandal where he was accused of committing a racist act by wearing “brown face” as one of his cosplays. It’s impressive if infuriating.

Part of that push is his desire to ban so-called assault weapons. Especially since it’s clear that the measure would ban more than AR-15s and similar weapons.

In fact, Trudeau even admits this.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that while the federal government is not trying to go after the right to hunt through contentious gun control legislation, the Liberals “are going at some of the guns used to do it.”

Trudeau said that this is because some of these firearms “are too dangerous in other contexts.”

This fall, work in Parliament on the government’s Bill C-21—initially focused on ‘red flag’ laws and restricting legal access to handguns—became the centre of controversy after the Liberals put forward an amendment that would enshrine in law a definition for “assault-style” weapons.

Under the proposed definition, hundreds of models of firearms would become prohibited, including some commonly used hunting rifles. This sparked an uproar among gun rights groups and opposition MPs who saw the belatedly proposed amendment as an attack on law-abiding gun owners. Indigenous leaders have also come out against the proposed legislation, voicing concerns about treaty rights infringement.

But let’s talk a bit about Trudeau’s comment about them being “too dangerous in other contexts.”

I want to talk about this idea that some guns are just “too dangerous” and just how elastic that can be.

After all, Trudeau is talking about hunting weapons, but has decided they’re “too dangerous” and, as such, they need to be banned. These are the same hunting weapons we’re told time and time again by anti-gunners that they don’t want to take away.

Yet here we are.

See, the issue is that claiming some weapons are “too dangerous” means that any weapon can be deemed as “too dangerous.” After all, guns are dangerous. If they’re not, they’re useless as firearms. They need to be dangerous to be effective.

Claiming that some are simply too much so means that it’s only a matter of time before others are considered too dangerous as well.

This ban will cover some hunting weapons right now, but over time will likely be expanded to include more and more until most hunting rifles are gone.

After all, how much “dangerous” is acceptable to the Canadian government? Ask them the question and don’t expect a definitive answer. Even if you get one, it’s just a matter of time before that changes as well.

Firearms are dangerous, which is why we teach gun safety. To decide some are just too dangerous based on arbitrarily defined characteristics opens the door for still more such regulations. Anyone with half a brain can and should be able to see this clearly.

Then again, the whole “half a brain” thing automatically rules out Trudeau from grasping this concept.