Death of Long Gun Registry


Durgan
Avatar
#1
Tories move to kill long-gun registry


--
THE CANADIAN PRESS
November 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM EST

OTTAWA — The Harper government has reintroduced a bill to kill the controversial registry for rifles and shotguns.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says the bill means that retailers will still have to record sales of long guns, but individuals won't have to register them.
People will still need a firearms licence to buy rifles and shotguns.
A bill to kill the registry was first introduced in the Commons last June but died when the session was prorogued.
Opposition parties have said they are against eliminating the registration requirement.

Durgan.
--
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#2
IT IS ABOUT BLOODY TIME!

This doesn't go NEARLY far enough to correct the idiocy inherent in Canada's gun control system, but at least it is something...........
 
Nuggler
#3
What Colpy said.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
Avatar
#4
I wonder if they give rebates - or reimburse owners for all those long rifles that went to the shredder. At least I'm legal again....

Woof!
Last edited by lone wolf; Dec 22nd, 2007 at 09:35 PM..
 
Locutus
Avatar
#5
What Colpy and Nug said. Aside from official make-work bilingualism, this is the worst of the liberals wallet-rape.
Last edited by Locutus; Nov 17th, 2007 at 02:54 AM..Reason: brain fartage
 
Jersay
#6
Sad. Sad day. The mounties in Mayerthorpe and elsewhere in Laval were killed by long-guns not pistols. Now the registry is gone. But that is the Cons for you. Continue supporting Con policy.
 
Walter
#7
God bless Mr. Harper.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#8
Though I prefer Bows to guns, this is the best policy they had on the plate and it's been to long in the making.

This is a major step away from the socialist ideology of disarming the public.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JersayView Post

Sad. Sad day. The mounties in Mayerthorpe and elsewhere in Laval were killed by long-guns not pistols. Now the registry is gone. But that is the Cons for you. Continue supporting Con policy.

Don't be ridiculous.

The H&K 91 used in Mayerthorpe had never been registered. It was smuggled in from the United States, I believe.

If you are refering to the female officer killed in Quebec a year ago, The fact the weapon in Laval WAS registered did not stop the owner from shooting the cop. Nor did that fact help in the conviction of the perpetrator. If you are talking about the cop killed in a drug raid, your position is even more laughable.........drug dealers don't carry registered weapons.......

The registry was the Liberals' attempt to buy votes in TO by harassing honest citizens.

The Conservatives are simply plugging a hole in the National treasury through which a couple of BILLION dollars have spilled out, to no discernable end.

Tell me, if you want to keep spending money on this, WHAT GOOD IS IT?
 
MikeyDB
#10
Colpy

I agree with the gist of your sentiments but would enhance the argument (perhaps)...

Canadians have never gotten what they paid for. If you believe that a gaggle of lawyers making enormous money through this and similar stupidity generated out of "government policy" are the Canadian people, it isnt. What return have Canadians gotten on millions spent on legal wrangling out of "Air India", Air-Bus", "Ad-Scam", or any of the never ending dog'npony shows that have padded the coffers of everyone BUT the Canadian people?

Secondly, this is like many government shams, an exercise in diverting Canadians from the real problems that under-gird criminal firearms use. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain" legedermain that supposedly convinces people that poverty, organized crime, drug abuse, and an incredible slew of social maladies stems from firearms ownership.

Whether it's a liberal or a conservative government, Canadians have supported failed policies, inept management and a culture of corruption at the very core of Canadian government.

Bush et al sold the Americans on a war so his buddies could make fortunes and Harper has made a farce out of his promises to "bring integrity" and "transparency" back to Canadian politics.

This current move to screw around with the long-gun registry is merely anohter chapter in the game that passes for government in this country.
 
Durgan
Avatar
#11
It is no doubt comforting to a criminal, intruding on private property, to know that there is likely no guns present, after all citizens of Canada are disarmed, which is basically the underlying intent of the knee-jerk Federal Gun Registry.

Durgan
--
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by DurganView Post

It is no doubt comforting to a criminal, intruding on private property, to know that there is likely no guns present, after all citizens of Canada are disarmed, which is basically the underlying intent of the knee-jerk Federal Gun Registry.

Durgan
--

There is nothing more essential to the continued enjoyment of Liberty than an armed population....

therefore there is nothing more despised by government than an armed population.......
 
jwmcq625
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by DurganView Post

It is no doubt comforting to a criminal, intruding on private property, to know that there is likely no guns present, after all citizens of Canada are disarmed, which is basically the underlying intent of the knee-jerk Federal Gun Registry.

The next step for te Liberals once registration was achieved was the confiscation without compensation, similar to what occured in Australia. Austratia's experience has been that the number of B & E's has skyrocketed, because criminals have no fear that even if the people are home, they are not armed to interfere with whatever it is they want to do. The other reason I believe is that Chretien was afraid that an armed population could overthrow the government when they finally found out all the corruption his government was up to. We have likely only seen the tip of the iceberg when it came to teh underhandedness the Liberals had planned for us. I believe they and the NDP really liked the idea of turning this country into a socialist state, where government is all things to all people, and that is NOT a free country. Myself I don't want socialism, I want the freedom to makemy own decisions as to how MY money should be spent, and not having government make those decisions for me. Someone mentioned the failed Trudeau initiative of bilingualism. It has cost this country a fortune, and is still costing a fortune, and the result is that the numbers have reamined virtually unchanged in what, 40 some odd years?
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by jwmcq625View Post

The next step for te Liberals once registration was achieved was the confiscation without compensation, similar to what occured in Australia. Austratia's experience has been that the number of B & E's has skyrocketed, because criminals have no fear that even if the people are home, they are not armed to interfere with whatever it is they want to do. The other reason I believe is that Chretien was afraid that an armed population could overthrow the government when they finally found out all the corruption his government was up to. We have likely only seen the tip of the iceberg when it came to teh underhandedness the Liberals had planned for us. I believe they and the NDP really liked the idea of turning this country into a socialist state, where government is all things to all people, and that is NOT a free country. Myself I don't want socialism, I want the freedom to makemy own decisions as to how MY money should be spent, and not having government make those decisions for me. Someone mentioned the failed Trudeau initiative of bilingualism. It has cost this country a fortune, and is still costing a fortune, and the result is that the numbers have reamined virtually unchanged in what, 40 some odd years?

Actually, when Australia banned semi-auto, pumps, and I believe lever action guns, they DID pay compensation......several hundred million dollars worth.....for nothing.

Canada does NOT pay compensation when they arbitrarily seize weapons.....outrageous!
 
Sparrow
Avatar
#15
I will take a risk here and ask a stupid question. I really don't know much about guns but here goes.
When someone purchases a gun don't they have to get a license? If so, the licenses would be registered! Why couldn't the information be taken from the application for the license?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

I will take a risk here and ask a stupid question. I really don't know much about guns but here goes.
When someone purchases a gun don't they have to get a license? If so, the licenses would be registered! Why couldn't the information be taken from the application for the license?

Theoretically, it should be easy to get the info from your FAC. That would go against all the complications of bureaucracy government stands for.

Woof!
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

I will take a risk here and ask a stupid question. I really don't know much about guns but here goes.
When someone purchases a gun don't they have to get a license? If so, the licenses would be registered! Why couldn't the information be taken from the application for the license?

I'm not sure I completely understand the question.....but yes, firearms owners have to hold a license. That is a graduated license, for long guns only, for long guns and handguns, or for long guns, handguns, and "grandfathered" prohibited weapons of a specific type.......

Every firearm held by an owner also must be registered.....and there is the rub. The registration system is completely fouled, inaccurate, extremely expensive, an absolute waste of time, energy, and cash.

If we had any sense in this country (IMHO) we would dump all registration...........long guns and handguns........and concentrate on proper licensing.....including a simple provision.....caught with a gun? Got a license for that type? NO?! Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect bail money........simple, cheap, effective.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I'm not sure I completely understand the question.....but yes, firearms owners have to hold a license. That is a graduated license, for long guns only, for long guns and handguns, or for long guns, handguns, and "grandfathered" prohibited weapons of a specific type.......

Every firearm held by an owner also must be registered.....and there is the rub. The registration system is completely fouled, inaccurate, extremely expensive, an absolute waste of time, energy, and cash.

If we had any sense in this country (IMHO) we would dump all registration...........long guns and handguns........and concentrate on proper licensing.....including a simple provision.....caught with a gun? Got a license for that type? NO?! Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect bail money........simple, cheap, effective.

A clear thought, but why is this such a bone of contention with the proponents of the gun registry.

On a simular note...

Does anyone know how easy it is to aquire information on who has in their posession, weapons. Be them long guns, handguns or air rifles for that matter?

Next time you go to Can Trash, go to the sporting goods counter and take a look around for a large blue binder. The colour may very, so you may have to do a lil snooping.

Establishments, such as Canadian Tire and all Sporting Goods stores must record records on the sale of certain items, but Can Trash is recklessly flippant about how it stores those records.

They also require a Drivers License to purchase pellets and BB's.

This information is hard copied on paper.

I've actually seen one of these binders walk out of a store.

Only to be returned by the person that took it, to the store manager, with a lengthy rant on how Can Trash had violated his privacy and subjected his safety to serious damage.
 
MikeyDB
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

A clear thought, but why is this such a bone of contention with the proponents of the gun registry.

On a simular note...

Does anyone know how easy it is to aquire information on who has in their posession, weapons. Be them long guns, handguns or air rifles for that matter?

Next time you go to Can Trash, go to the sporting goods counter and take a look around for a large blue binder. The colour may very, so you may have to do a lil snooping.

Establishments, such as Canadian Tire and all Sporting Goods stores must record records on the sale of certain items, but Can Trash is recklessly flippant about how it stores those records.

They also require a Drivers License to purchase pellets and BB's.

This information is hard copied on paper.

I've actually seen one of these binders walk out of a store.

Only to be returned by the person that took it, to the store manager, with a lengthy rant on how Can Trash had violated his privacy and subjected his safety to serious damage.

Excellent point Bear!

Makes ya wonder now doesn't it! At the club where I shoot we are required to sign-in to the pistol ranges but only a persons PAL number, no names......security ....HA!

As you've pointed out, people purchasing ammunition leave their PAL or POS and other information that makes locating where firearms are stored....easy.

Aside from firearms owners being potentially placed at risk through this wonderful system, does the average Canadian believe that their interests are being served by enforcement of a system that can easily allow someone to locate legitimately owned firearms?

Another indication that the Government of Canada is out of touch with reality and certainly not equpped to talk knowledgeably about security.....

Before you had to provide all that info for ammo...a B&E goon would have had to watch and follow people, now all he has to do is take the book.....

Good point Bear!
 
Sal
#20
sorry, double post
Last edited by Sal; Nov 18th, 2007 at 09:02 AM..
 
Sal
Avatar
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Whether it's a liberal or a conservative government, Canadians have supported failed policies, inept management and a culture of corruption at the very core of Canadian government.

Bush et al sold the Americans on a war so his buddies could make fortunes and Harper has made a farce out of his promises to "bring integrity" and "transparency" back to Canadian politics.

I'd say Mike's words pretty much sums up how I feel about our government and that of the one to the south.

Although I am not pro- gun, I think that is mostly a male thing and the American influence on us, the registry was a disaster right from day one.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

Before you had to provide all that info for ammo...a B&E goon would have had to watch and follow people, now all he has to do is take the book.....

At my house they still do...


I have silent weapons, 1 Crossbow, 4 Compond Bows. No noise to wake the neighbours...

A large...large freezer...

A friend that owns the local rentall, no paper trail for the wood chipper...

And Hunting buddy, that owns a sheep/pig farm.
Quote:

Good point Bear!

Thanx Mikey.
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I'd say that pretty much sums up how I feel about our government and that of the one to the south.

Although I am not pro- gun, I think that is mostly a male thing and the American influence on us, the registry was a disaster right from day one.

Ouch...

I know many women that love to Hunt, my wife included. Though she uses a Crossbow now, she started out as did I, on a 22, shooting rabbits, before moving on to such weaponry as 30-30, or the Lee Enfield classic 303. Both of which she uses with great glee and accuracy.

For what I would say is the majority of the pro-gun group, it is a matter appreciation, use as a tool for hunting, or just a tasteful hobby.

The phallic symbolagy of the rifle or pistol, is generally left to the criminal community, or those that are small mind impotent jackasses. Of which I will assert are well in the minority. But oft cause the biggest sensations.
 
Sal
Avatar
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ouch...

I know many women that love to Hunt, my wife included. Though she uses a Crossbow now, she started out as did I, on a 22, shooting rabbits, before moving on to such weaponry as 30-30, or the Lee Enfield classic 303. Both of which she uses with great glee and accuracy.

For what I would say is the majority of the pro-gun group, it is a matter appreciation, use as a tool for hunting, or just a tasteful hobby.

The phallic symbolagy of the rifle or pistol, is generally left to the criminal community, or those that are small mind impotent jackasses. Of which I will assert are well in the minority. But oft cause the biggest sensations.

Okay when put like that, then yes I can see owning a gun. Sorry, American forum influence and am used to being about the sole person except for the extremem lefties there, advocating that having a hand gun stored beside your bed is more likely to result in the death of a family member than an attacker.

I know this is long guns... but I guess the shadow is there.
As a matter of appreciation and as a tool for hunting, then yes. For protection I pretty much wouldn't trust most people to use it properly.

Thanks for the different perspective... my response was a tad sexist eh?
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

Okay when put like that, then yes I can see owning a gun. Sorry, American forum influence and am used to being about the sole person except for the extremem lefties there, advocating that having a hand gun stored beside your bed is more likely to result in the death of a family member than an attacker.

This is statisically true. But in somecases the eminant threat can out weight the consequences. And in some cases it has been proven to deter illegal activity.

I read an article sometime ago on a small town in the US, that had a weapon posession law, you must own a weapon. The article contained stats on crime that would hilite the positive influence of said law.

Now, without knowing the size of the community, the demographics and the crime rate prior to the law being passed, it is difficult to assess whether or not the law was the significant factor.

But it does make for a good anecdotal arguemnet, lol...

Quote:

I know this is long guns... but I guess the shadow is there.

As it should be. Posessing a weapon is not and should not be, an unchecked right.

There must be safeguards in place to restrict the seemingly incapable and malicious from posessing the simplest of weaponry.

Take Crossbows.

I can walk into the local Sporting Goods store and purchase a Crossbow, that could in effect kill several people in one shot. They are making them that powerful now.

A skilled Archer, could in fact kill several people, before his perch is located and he/she is subdued.

A shadow is sometimes, a healthy thing. Licensing to posess weapons, should be a must on all weapons.

Quote:

As a matter of appreciation and as a tool for hunting, then yes. For protection I pretty much wouldn't trust most people to use it properly.

And I would agree. Especially when done so with a 'kneejerk' reaction to being violated, or the threat thereof.

But it can be said, that with the right and right amount of perpetual training, one can effectively protect themselves with a sidearm. The key point being the training. That is the fundamental flaw with the American system. There is but background checks. Training and severe training at that should be required, repetatively...adnuaseum.
Quote:

Thanks for the different perspective...

Not a problem, anytime.
Quote:

my response was a tad sexist eh?

Not at all. A case for that being a fair assesment could easily be made. Besides, my wife has oft commented on the size of the Bow I choose to use (I prefer my old Fred Bear, Whitetail II at nearly 45 inches, as apposed to the new, smaller hunting bows at around 33 inches), in relation to my endowment. She's a cruel, cruel women, but I love her, lol...
 
Nuggler
Avatar
#25
THE CANADIAN PRESS
November 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM EST

OTTAWA — The Harper government has reintroduced a bill to kill the controversial registry for rifles and shotguns.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says the bill means that retailers will still have to record sales of long guns, but individuals won't have to register them.
People will still need a firearms licence to buy rifles and shotguns.
A bill to kill the registry was first introduced in the Commons last June but died when the session was prorogued.
Opposition parties have said they are against eliminating the registration requirement.

They can "reintroduce" all the bills they want, but, until they have a majority, this one ain't gonna fly.

Can't you hear herr Harper now? "Yawol mine countrymen. Ich ben trying to do dis but dem oder guys say NEIN..................."
Another smoke and mirrors and bull**** doublespeak from a slimy **** political ****monger, the same as the other smoke and mirrors and bull**** double speak slimy ****mongers on the other side of the house.

Just reach deeper into our pockets to pay the lawyers, folks. No problemo. We have a surplus afterall.

(this studious little asshole is really starting to bother me now!!!)
 
Sal
Avatar
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

This is statisically true. But in somecases the eminant threat can out weight the consequences. And in some cases it has been proven to deter illegal activity.

I read an article sometime ago on a small town in the US, that had a weapon posession law, you must own a weapon. The article contained stats on crime that would hilite the positive influence of said law.

Now, without knowing the size of the community, the demographics and the crime rate prior to the law being passed, it is difficult to assess whether or not the law was the significant factor.

But it does make for a good anecdotal arguemnet, lol...

I think I heard something about that law. Likely was used in a post against one of my arguments. They likely bested me that time with that one. It actually does make a kind of convoluted sense.



Quote:

I can walk into the local Sporting Goods store and purchase a Crossbow, that could in effect kill several people in one shot. They are making them that powerful now.

A skilled Archer, could in fact kill several people, before his perch is located and he/she is subdued.

Um, I have this neighbour bugging me...errrrrr...probably not kosher eh?

Quote:

But it can be said, that with the right and right amount of perpetual training, one can effectively protect themselves with a sidearm. The key point being the training. That is the fundamental flaw with the American system. There is but background checks. Training and severe training at that should be required, repetatively...adnuaseum.

See now that makes sense to me. Perpetual training.
What I would rather see though if it is a personal safety issue, that people be physically trained to defend themselves. It is not that hard given the right course to learn small self defense moves that allow one to get out of a bad situation.
I would just hate for our society to go the way of a gun in every home. I would rather we concentrate on cleaning up society which would elminate many social problems which lead to crime in the first place.

I know I am dreaming, but out of such fragile things, come miracles they say.

Quote:

She's a cruel, cruel women, but I love her, lol...

Aren't we all?
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#27
Quote:

Okay when put like that, then yes I can see owning a gun. Sorry, American forum influence and am used to being about the sole person except for the extremem lefties there, advocating that having a hand gun stored beside your bed is more likely to result in the death of a family member than an attacker.

This is, btw (and opening a huge can of worms) completely untrue.

Please don't refer me to Dr. Kellerman, who is such a fraud that the rabidly anti-gun US Center for Disease Control cut off his funding because of his completely cooked statistics.

Instead, read Gary Kleck, who is NOT a "gun person", does not work and write to please a pro-cun employer, and who does serious research as a professor at a US University........he says guns are used in the USA for self-defence at least 1 MILLION times a year..........but that in well over 95% of those cases......not a shot is fired.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I think I heard something about that law. Likely was used in a post against one of my arguments. They likely bested me that time with that one. It actually does make a kind of convoluted sense.

Most likely.

Quote:

Um, I have this neighbour bugging me...errrrrr...probably not kosher eh?

lol...probably not...
Quote:

See now that makes sense to me. Perpetual training.
What I would rather see though if it is a personal safety issue, that people be physically trained to defend themselves. It is not that hard given the right course to learn small self defense moves that allow one to get out of a bad situation.
I would just hate for our society to go the way of a gun in every home. I would rather we concentrate on cleaning up society which would elminate many social problems which lead to crime in the first place.

That would be ideal, but not as likely.
Quote:

I know I am dreaming, but out of such fragile things, come miracles they say.

Very true.
Quote:

Aren't we all?

Even more true...

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

This is, btw (and opening a huge can of worms) completely untrue.

Please don't refer me to Dr. Kellerman, who is such a fraud that the rabidly anti-gun US Center for Disease Control cut off his funding because of his completely cooked statistics.

Instead, read Gary Kleck, who is NOT a "gun person", does not work and write to please a pro-cun employer, and who does serious research as a professor at a US University........he says guns are used in the USA for self-defence at least 1 MILLION times a year..........but that in well over 95% of those cases......not a shot is fired.

Just out of curiousity Colpy, are Law Enforcement stats included in that?
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Most likely.

lol...probably not...
That would be ideal, but not as likely.
Very true.
Even more true...


Just out of curiousity Colpy, are Law Enforcement stats included in that?

No, they are not.

The amazing stat is an American civilian uses a handgun in self-defence in the USA every 13 seconds...........on average, of course.
--
 
CDNBear
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

No, they are not.

The amazing stat is an American civilian uses a handgun in self-defence in the USA every 13 seconds...........on average, of course.
--

Thanx,

Good link too. Thanx again.
 

Similar Threads

24
Liberal Leadership (The Long Long Melodrama)
by Prairie_Ally | Apr 14th, 2006
519
The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
by bluealberta | Dec 15th, 2005
36
Canadian Gun Registry
by missile | Dec 21st, 2004
no new posts