Stuff I didn't know
- Thread starter Nuggler
- Start date
Rights aren't granted, privileges are. First, the right to carry a pistol was taken away and it was made a privilege. Then in the late '70's the right to "buy or aquire" any firearm was taken away, but we still had the right to own them. In the 90's even the right to own firearms was taken away.
You don't need a license to drive a car on your own property, or to own one. The practises of medicine or law have their own governing bodies, not the government. A license granted by the government can be suspended without due process, your driver's license can be suspended immediately in some provinces for blowing over .05, there is no due process, no evidentiary hearings, nothing, you can be left stranded on the road. The CFO can revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a firearm license and you have to fight to get it back.
Again, privileges are granted, rights and freedoms have to be fought for.
I would quote the stat on that but don't have it handy, but it was substantially higher, if I remember correctly it was about .03%. But these are for "firearm offenses", that could mean anything from improper storage to the RCMP member who had a hissy fit and emptied her Glock into her bedroom wall, (yes that did happen), to the guys jacking deer while drunk and accidently shot one of their buddies. They didn't elaborate.
But still, .03% is a miniscule number.
Another thing that people miss, the registry and license are different. Though there is a push to end the registry it is not the most sinister part of what the Liberals put into place, the licensing is. The law is full of "gotcha's", no one understands it, it was enacted to control Kim Campbell, not guns. No one ever believed it would reduce crime or get illicit firearms off the streets, it was meant to flabbergast ordinary citizens into disarming themselves. If there were any validity to it the Liberals would not have had to pay a lobby group, the Coalition for Gun Control, to doctor the stats to make a case for their cause, a cause Trudeau tried to push 20 years earlier. So wrong were the stats espoused by the CGC and Liberals that the then RCMP commissioner, (whose name escapes me) wrote a letter of protest. It is a bad and unjust law now being disrespected by many who see it for what it is and just aren't renewing their licenses. A law that makes criminals out of people who do nothing and cause no harm can only be supported by those with totalitarian leanings.
"The gunmaker should be charged with murder if their product is used for a killing of aninnocent person."
And let us not forget the mining company who produced the iron ore for the manufacture of the gun. The steel company who produced the steel. The company who produced the cars that the workers of these companies used to go to work.
And let us not forget to charge the companies that produced clothes these people wore. How about charging everyone except, of course, the one who actually pulled the trigger. In most cases it would be RACIST.
LIBERALMAN, recently you tried to fool us that you are a conservative. But your quote above clearly indicates that you are a totally unrepentant LIBERAL.
And let us not forget the mining company who produced the iron ore for the manufacture of the gun. The steel company who produced the steel. The company who produced the cars that the workers of these companies used to go to work.
And let us not forget to charge the companies that produced clothes these people wore. How about charging everyone except, of course, the one who actually pulled the trigger. In most cases it would be RACIST.
LIBERALMAN, recently you tried to fool us that you are a conservative. But your quote above clearly indicates that you are a totally unrepentant LIBERAL.
Yep. That's right.
IF he uses a registered gun, which hardly ever happens.
And IF that gun can be matched to one in the registry......quite unlikely, surprizingly enough.
And IF, on the rare occassion that the gun used is actually registered, it is registered to the person that actually used it! An occurance practically unheard of!
And IF the registry is accurate enough to hold up as evidence in court, which is EXTREMELY doubtful.
The registry is simply NOT USED to solve crime mysteries.
Full stop.
Yeah right.
What stupidity!!!
If I stab somebody with a butcher knife, should the knife manufacturer be charged?
How about if I get drunk, get in my car, and run down an innocent.......should all involved be charged? The booze maker, the Liquor Control Board, the car manufacturer, the gas station..........
Idiotic in the extreme.
we are responsible for our own actions.
The most important thing about gun registry is that it may stop some psycho from getting a gun. If they are smart they will get one anyway or steal it from a registered user. Registration only gives law enforcement a place to start looking. Colpy is right very doubtful that a registered user would use a gun during the commission of a crime.
No it won't, it only records the firearms registered by legitimate owners, it matters not if they are psycho, or if they are even in posession at the time. Vehicle registration only tells who owns the thing, not where it is, who is driving it, or what their intentions are.
They don't even need to be smart for that.
Yup, and the first thing they do is blame the owner, if they started doing that with the owners of stolen vehicles there would be rioting in the streets. This law is about disarming citizens, period. We are being threatened with criminal prosecution unless we disarm or keep our firearms rendered unuseable in our own homes while punks run amok on our streets, and in our homes. The government wants us defensless, dependent upon it which cannot defend us, but will control us none the less. We are a sorry lot.
Believe it or not, a buddy of mine used to give away golf balls with his company logo on them but quit after he received three calls from people (yes that's right...three) wanting him to pay for their broken windows because one of "his" balls met one of their windows. So, I'm really not surprised that some folks are just looking for somebody...anybody to blame. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to locate and deal with the real culprit. I guess a few people are just too lazy.
A gun is registered to an individual who usually is registered to posses it. Those registration processes usually check the individual for any criminal activity, psychiatric history and pretty much their overall wellbeing. That is what I meant by my answer. Registering a gun by its self does nothing. By the way the law in the various United States pertain to handguns only at this time, Vermont is the only state where anything goes, no registration required.
Yes, some people in the goverment would like you defenseless, but others would see a revolution first. If all the Obama gang seeks to ban are assault rifles there probably will not be much of a outcry, but if they try and ban all weapons there will be a tremendous outcry.
Yes, some people in the goverment would like you defenseless, but others would see a revolution first. If all the Obama gang seeks to ban are assault rifles there probably will not be much of a outcry, but if they try and ban all weapons there will be a tremendous outcry.
Just out of curiosity does anyone know if an educated population has less shootings than one with a lesser standard of education without any poverty or gun availability data overlapping??
No I don't know that, but I'd say the more educated they are the more different ways they can think of to kill you.
I agree with all you say above, but isn't it sensible to be very strict, and hold
manufacturers/gun stores responsible when assault rifles/military guns, and
such are sold to anyone and everyone. What about the big gun shows where
they have 'said' weapons on display trying to sell them to 'anyone', isn't there
a law prohibiting that practice. The types of guns that are made and sold for
the killing of 'people', how can that be controlled, surely your arguement
doesn't include those guns.
Can a gun seller actually sell a gun made for the killing of people, to whomever
he wishes, and then use the excuse that he takes no responsibility, if the person who
bought the gun used it to murder someone, because it's not the 'guns' fault?
That pure nonsense. Let's say I'm a gunmaker and I sell pistols to the police. One day a police officer goes berzerk and murders someone. So I should go to jail for that? You're kidding right? Are you sure you're not paid by an enemy of the Liberal Party's to try to tarnish its name among us?
Everyone's pounding on Liberalman right now so I'll play Devil's advocate so that he has at least one ally.
What he might have meant was something parallel to the following:
Let's say someone from the Liquor manufacturer should tie me down and inject the alcohol into me intravenously not realising that my mind reacts violently to alcohol, so when he then releases me and I go on a killing spree, clearly since I didn't consume the alcohol of my own free will, he along with the manufacturer who hired him to force the alcohol down my veins should take the fall for this, and not me.
Extending this to guns, if the manufacturing company puts a Voodoo curse on the gun to cause me to go insane as soon as I touch the gun, then who should take the blame for my killing spree, huh? Beat that argument.
Huh! How were the balls affected? Any scratches, dents, anything? If so, I'd sue the guy whose window caused such damage.