Re: Long Gun Registry -Yes- NoDec 20th, 2010
You don't seem to get my drift. How do you expect Joe Sixpack to obey laws that even the learned legal professionals can't seem to understand? Government agencies, somewhat like corporations can indeed be like people legally; a corporation can be charged criminally, but that was not the point I was getting at. Individual LEO's violate the firearms act, either because of flaws in procedures or simply negligence. It is incumbent upon the senior officers to ensure compliance, but they fail to address violations either because of ignorance or misinterpretation of the laws. But in any case violators are rarely held to account because guilt would be spread too far and wide.
citizens. They of course are not, nor can a corporation or agency be sentenced to a prison term for illegal activity. So let's not piss around with semantics and obfuscation. Too difficult to understand the law, don't own a gun. If you want law and order, then you live by that. But you can't have it both ways. Conservatives want it both ways when it suits them. Like the Toronto police who it would seem relish dishing out the brute force violence and heaping charges on those they manage to intimidate, it's only fair to give no quarter to any that slip a toe out of line. That starts from the Chief down.
You would have to deliberately not renew a medical license and practice fraudulently because no hospital would grant O/R privileges. Again, a deliberate act and/or reckless disregard, and harm or a reasonable threat of harm is generally required before criminal charges are laid or a custodial sentence is considered, i.e. actus reas and mens rea. A firearm is an inanimate object that cannot do harm until in a person's hands, (unlike explosives), and while it may be reasonable for you to curse the hammer that hits your thumb, it is pure idiocy for anyone else to also curse that hammer rather than the hand that wields it. There are all kinds of things we can own that can be used for nefarious purposes, there are already remedies under law for those who use them improperly. It is the fault of the user, not necessarily the owner, and definately not the object itself.
You make it sound like you are okay with that. Police still need reasonable grounds for a search. Something in plain view will give them that. But you can still demand a warrant. Police can make your life miserable for a short time, but submitting to a search and having them find something you didn't know was there, can make your life miserable for quite a lot longer, sometimes a lifetime. The double insult would be that you voluntarily let them do it and it was unjust. Allowing a search voluntarily gives them carte blanche, a warrant defines the scope of the search, it is meant to protect your Charter rights.
Yes Miller is gone, but the same sheriff is still in town, and King Dalton is still in Queen's Park, and a lot of the same attitudes still prevail, with Ford there is hope. How do I feel about the police action? One word, disgusted. You don't understand me at all. The protest may have been justified, the hooliganism wasn't, they are two distinct and separate groups with different motives and actions. The hooligans destroyed private property and terrorized other citizens, I will never condone that. While I don't support the protesters' cause I do support the right for them to protest. I am disgusted with the official response to them just as I was with the APEC summit in Vancouver, (in that case I was also anti Suharto). If people want police with that kind of authority I suggest they move to Cuba or China. But the shoe is really on the other foot; how many of them support me and the ones fighting for our individual rights, while I voiced my condemnation to my elected representatives denouncing the violations of theirs?
Again, you miss my point, or are ignoring it to make yours. A person living a productive life will break at least three otherwise enforceable laws before lunch. People have to be responsible for their actions, but setting traps for them is not acceptable in a free society. Guns don't have problems associated with them, the actions of certain people who use them are the problems, which already had remedies under existing law. And until Bill C-68 came into law we did have the right to own arms, again a right affirmed by kings since at least the 13th century.
You don't have the right to own a gun. You never have. This isn't America and you're not an American. Nor is it the wild west where you have to abide the rules of the times.
Sorry, I didn't realize you can't comprehend what I wrote, I'll write slower. I never mentioned anything about armed resistance to police, it is about police being able to search your house without a warrant and without cause, other than the fact you own firearms, and in the case of Toronto you happen to be over 75, under threat of criminal liability if you refuse, and you have to assist them in finding evidence against you.
This is really simple. I know I've told you a dozen times already but I am a patient man. I'll say it again. If you don't want the inspection, don't own the gun.
The majority of illicit firearms are smuggled, I live near a port city, even people are smuggled, only about 2% of containers are inspected, ( I have friends who are stevedores and longshoremen), organized criminals obtain illicit firearms, among other things, from the easiest sources, which are rarely domestic. Laws meant to trip people up are unjust and unacceptable in a free country. Just laws are meant to deter antisocial behaviour and have legal redress for it. But in a free country you still have to behave badly first.
Well, a bat can be just as lethal Do you think a shopkeeper should have to get up close and personal to defend himself or should he be able to do it from a distance? What happens if there are more than one or two assailants? What if they are armed? I know he was using the bat for defense, that was obvious, he was using the only tool allowed to him by law. Do you suggest registering and regulating them too?
The incidence of that happening is rarer than random or targeted violence, and in fact women are twice as likely to use a weapon as men in the heat of passion. Men prefer fists and feet. If people have the criminal intent or are unbalanced no amount of regulation is going to stop them anyway, and disarming potential victims certainly isn't going to help either.
Provided you never go outside, and windows can be broken. A dog may be a good alarm, it gives you time to armour up, but the last call my wife made to 911 the RCMP response time was 4 hours. Even where we live now we cannot expect a response in less than 15 minutes, and that is only if the Tim's down the highway is still open. Ask any LEO, (an honest one anyway), they will not enter your home if they know there is an armed assailant in there, you're on your own there buddy. Even they will tell you, "police take pictures, not action".
Sorry, not entirely true. There are plenty of cases where intruders and assailants have been shot by defenders and no charges were laid. There are also many cases where charges were laid and the Crown decided not to proceed. There are also many cases where the defender was acquitted. Then there are the cases where the defender acted inappropriately and was convicted. There are those who lack proper training in armed self defense and our laws are complicit in fostering ignorance and inappropriate behavour.
So even you have to admit, then, that what we have now is unnecessary and ineffective. Crime rates wax and wane like economic cycles. Crime rates were dropping each time before more restrictive legislation was enacted, which would make a reasonable person question the motives behind such legislation.
Gangbangers killing each other effects all of us, but all the firearms legislation has done nothing to prevent that. Those from the demographic you describe are more likely to perpetrators than victims. You know little about me, random violence is hard enough to protect against, but my family was targeted for the better part of a decade. A senior police member in SK told my wife, (the prime target) that they could not possibly protect her or our children. His honest suggestion was to arm and learn how to defend ourselves. The police could not take action unless and until someone actually did something even though we were under a credible and identifiable threat, and they knew the party. Even after we moved thousands of miles away, and the threat was ultimately eliminated he still kept in contact, I appreciate that.
While I am sorry you and your family had to bare such undue burden, it doesn't mean anything in this discussion. The police can and will make life seriously hard on people if they wish. Those prone to violence as you make this person or group out to be, have a difficult time not hanging themselves quickly given the opportunity. So it's no excuse to allow everyone and their dog to load up on any sort of weapon under the guise of protecting themselves.
It doesn't matter how many guns I have because I can only use one at a time anyway. No normal person is going to do what you say could be done, and if anyone were to do what you say could be done no amount of regulation could stop you or anyone else from doing it, I know that first hand. Any law that disallows me from having the tools and means to legally stop you is perverse. In essence, the law is vicitimizing law abiding citizens. That being said, I don't imagine you as a spook, you know a only bit of my history, you would have a hard time getting that kind of a drop on me. But that's me, there are plenty of others out there with no chance at all. BTW, if I had a gun on my hip you would not get very close to me, unless of course you do happen to be a professional.
I do, I am, and I did. I have been trained by an SAS instructor's instructor, ( he taught the teachers for the British version of what Delta Force and our JTF2 are modeled after), passed the FBI certification, (for what that's worth) and am reasonably competent. That is manageable, what isn't is the unreasonable maze of unintelligible and contradictory legislation that goes with it. It is not that simple, and, really, what you think doesn't matter when it comes to my right to life liberty and the security of person.
Gun owners did try to work with government, but in the adversarial arena of politics the Wendy Cukiers of the country had the lectern, and wouldn't give it up, (nor would the Liberals make them). Firearms laws had no effect in reducing the murder or violent crime rate in this country, nor did they have any effect on the suicide rate, only the method. Accident rates though, did go down. On the other hand, where firearm laws were relaxed in the US the rate of violent crime did decrease. The highest violent crime rates are in cities and states where firearm use and ownership is strictly controlled. The gun lobby did not create this environment, it is strictly the doing of the disarmament movement. It was such bad legislation that even the then commissioner of the RCMP denounced it. It was and still is all about disarmament, had they worked with the "gun lobby" we would have respectfully workable legislation.
Firearms have been vilified by Hollywood since the production of Bambi. The misrepresentation and exaggeration of the use of firearms is lapped up by the simple public. A gun in someone's hand will no sooner turn them into John Dillinger than a hammer will turn them into Mike Holmes, unless they are already predisposed. The movies will have you believe otherwise, and make no mistake, while guns make for good action flicks, the film industry is extremely pro disarmament, and are very good a P.R. The fault for the "gun wars" can be laid directly at the feet of the abolitionists, compromise does not exist in their vocabulary.
Am I to assume these are illicit drugs? If so, tell me, do you register them? Can the police, by law come into your place of residence and check that they are kept safe and secure? Do you have to show them your stash even if they show up with a warrant? Do you have to let them in without a warrant? Unless you have bail conditions to abide by the short answer is no. I don't really care what you do, it is none of my business. But if in your quest to have your recreation legalized you are acting illegally, that would make your entire position on firearms legislation disingenuous.
Drugs are well regulated in this country. For example, you have to go to someone who is a proven master when it comes to knowledge of drugs and their uses. That person has to agree that you need this or that drug and sign off on it so that a record is kept that you are legally allowed to have the prescribed drug for a period of time. Then you have to take that to a second expert who also has had to prove they are a master of the knowledge of drugs and that the prescription is in fact in order, that the doctor who issued it is in good standing, and that the drug is what it is supposed to be. That you only get the amount of that drug you are prescribed and that you know how to take it, and if any, what to avoid while on the drug. If you are found with a drug that you are not prescribed, then you can be criminally charged for it. For drugs arbitrarily classed illegal, you can have all you want, it is readily available are market prices no questions asked. No age limits are in place and there is no education or certification to having, selling or providing these drugs to anyone anywhere. You can even get them in prison high school, and sometimes even the police. Of course depending on who you are, being caught with them can be used as leverage against you to make you do something you other wise would not do. Kinda like guns actually.
I will tell you that a majority of break ins, home invasions, muggings, are perpetrated by those involved in the drug trade. Just as when I lived in the north and people wanted goods they could fence to buy booze, and the stuff was even legal. You want to enjoy your drugs, others want to enjoy their booze, I want to enjoy and defend the security of my self and those under my care, as well as my property from those who would threaten it.
I have several friends and relatives on various forces, some I am quite close to, you can be very cordial while still asserting your rights under the Charter, but bending over and being submissive helps no one, especially yourself.
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.
Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than in Iran; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.
But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia. and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four States alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting - It's not just a way to fill the freezer, It's a matter of national security. There you have a small example of our well regulated Militia.
Do not let them regulate you.