Stuff I didn't know

[Machjo]

It's ridiculous ot use a 'police officer' as an example in your statement.

I was just taking an extreme example. Certainly the gun manufacturer would expect to be able to trust a police officer for all people. If Liberalman should say the manufacturer is responsible for even that, then we know he's got a special way of rationalizing things indeed.

 

[Machjo]

I could agree with requiring a purchaser to prove a necessity to have the gun. For instance, if he's a hunter, or needs a rifle for organized sport, a police officer or other government agent, etc. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the governemnt to be allowed to ask why a person believes it necessary for himself to possess such a weapon.

 

[JLM]

It's ridiculous ot use a 'police officer' as an example in your statement.

Yes, I would have agreed with you whole heartedly up until the tasering incident at YVR.

 

[Colpy]

I could agree with requiring a purchaser to prove a necessity to have the gun. For instance, if he's a hunter, or needs a rifle for organized sport, a police officer or other government agent, etc. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the governemnt to be allowed to ask why a person believes it necessary for himself to possess such a weapon.

Okay, my reason is as follows:

"To fulfill the requirements of citizenship in a free society, to stand ready to resist the onset of tyranny, the illegitimate interference of government in the exercise of my fundamental rights, and to defend my family and society from violence perpetrated by either a criminal element or the denizens of despotic rule."

Think I'd get a licence?

But that is THE most legitimate reason to own firearms.

 

[Machjo]

Okay, my reason is as follows:

"To fulfill the requirements of citizenship in a free society, to stand ready to resist the onset of tyranny, the illegitimate interference of government in the exercise of my fundamental rights, and to defend my family and society from violence perpetrated by either a criminal element or the denizens of despotic rule."

Think I'd get a licence?

But that is THE most legitimate reason to own firearms.

Are there hordes knowkicng at yor door?

If the government interferes illegitimately, instead of blowing a burocrat's head off, how about taking him to court?

Now the last one about defending your family, I think that would be a reasonable one, but then the weapon should match your claims. A pistol, maybe a rifle, not a machine gun.

Honestly, I don't know where to draw the line exactly, but think it reasonable that the government could ask why you think you need a weapon. Again, as to who shuld qualify, I'd make it broad, including hunting, sports, etc.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Okay, my reason is as follows:

"To fulfill the requirements of citizenship in a free society, to stand ready to resist the onset of tyranny, the illegitimate interference of government in the exercise of my fundamental rights, and to defend my family and society from violence perpetrated by either a criminal element or the denizens of despotic rule."

Think I'd get a licence?

But that is THE most legitimate reason to own firearms.

If you answer "Yes" to the questions on the application:

1) Have you, for any reason, lost a job in the last two years?

2) Have you, for any reason, ended a spousal relationship in the last two years?

Would that yes answer guarantee a "no soup for you" stamp on your application
by the government?

I've had a CSIS application & approval (for previous employment) to decide
if I was trustworthy enough to view confidential financial documents, and the
questions where no where near as intrusive into my personal life as I understand
the firearms possession license to be in Canada. That seems pretty backwards.

 

[Colpy]

[Machjo]Are there hordes knowkicng at yor door?

Not at the moment, but do you wait until your house is on fire before you buy insurance?

if so, Good luck with that, as the time it becomes impossible to buy insurance is when your house is on fire and you need it the worst.

If the government interferes illegitimately, instead of blowing a burocrat's head off, how about taking him to court?

Now that's funny! I can hear it now.....a Jew in Nazi Germany.......a labour leader in Pinochet's Chile........a dissident in modern China........as he is being dragged out the door by gov't thugs... "I'll sue! You'll be dealing with my lawyers!"

Good luck with that one as well.

Now the last one about defending your family, I think that would be a reasonable one, but then the weapon should match your claims. A pistol, maybe a rifle, not a machine gun.

Oh they are all reasonable.......if you are serious about protecting the family you should remember the stats.....gov'ts are the worst thugs and murderers by far......so the focus of our defence should be on that which is most dangerous.

Honestly, I don't know where to draw the line exactly, but think it reasonable that the government could ask why you think you need a weapon. Again, as to who shuld qualify, I'd make it broad, including hunting, sports, etc.

To my mind, reasonably easy access to the vast majority of firearms types is a basic constitutional right. One recognized in the Bill of Rights of 1689....still a foundation of our constitution. I am willing to compromise on licensing......as I don't want nuts with guns any more than anyone else.....but the current firearms laws are way, way too restrictive and are a violation of our rights....in a number of ways.....

 

[Machjo]

To my mind, reasonably easy access to the vast majority of firearms types is a basic constitutional right. One recognized in the Bill of Rights of 1689....still a foundation of our constitution. I am willing to compromise on licensing......as I don't want nuts with guns any more than anyone else.....but the current firearms laws are way, way too restrictive and are a violation of our rights....in a number of ways.....

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the Canadian government is not on the verge of collapse just yet, nor is it a fascist dictatorship. But I will grant you this: perhaps you're right and current rules are excessively strict, and maybe you're right that licencing would suffice.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I've been hunting for a transcript of a radio program I listened to yesterday.

The show was (I believe) Roy Green Saturdays and the guest (whose name
escapes me at this time) is a retired Law Enforcement Officer and current
firearms instructor in BC. This guy (A Canadian, not an American) has applied
for an received four different concealed carry permits in the USA, and due to
reciprocal agreements between states, can legally carry a concealed firearm
in 37 U.S. states....but doesn't qualify to do so in Canada. Isn't that bizarre?

The Radio Show Host is going through the motions of submitting the Application
to see how difficult and intrusive it is in comparison to other countries, and to
other licenses for other things in Canada. Very interesting.

 

[L Gilbert]

gun registry works because the person that owns it can get charged more quickly for the crime

That's so weak as to be not even worth mentioning. I bet at least a third of owners haven't registered all their firearms. People have registered hairdriers, waterguns, paint strippers, pellet guns, etc. to mock the registry. NO crooks register their weapons and if the firearms they use are used to kill someone, they are dropped and left there completely devoid of prints and serial numbers.

 

[L Gilbert]

The gunmaker should be charged with murder if their product is used for a killing of aninnocent person.

That would be a political nightmare because then any golf club manufacturer, auto manufacturer, knife manufacturer, baseball bat manufacturer, pipe manufacturer, pesticide manufacturer, etc. would have to be held accountable for any murder that happened with a product of theirs that someone used to kill someone else.

 

[L Gilbert]

boondoggle


[SIZE=-1]N. Amer.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]informal[/SIZE]
• noun an unnecessary, wasteful, or fraudulent project.
• verb waste money or time on such projects. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] of unknown origin.

If the Oxford doesn't know the origin, nobody does.

Correct. The origin is unknown ....

boondoggle 1935, Amer.Eng., of uncertain origin, popularized during the New Deal as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed. Said to have been a pioneer word for "gadget."

- Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[JLM]

I could agree with requiring a purchaser to prove a necessity to have the gun. For instance, if he's a hunter, or needs a rifle for organized sport, a police officer or other government agent, etc. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the governemnt to be allowed to ask why a person believes it necessary for himself to possess such a weapon.

Suppose he says he inherited it from his great grandpappy and likes it mounted on his wall to look at. ?

 

[L Gilbert]

Tearing Down the Long-Gun Registry - Garry Breitkreuz — THE MARK

CSSA: Police Use Of The Gun Registry Exaggerated. Canadian Shooting Sports Assoc.

FIREARMS FACTS

Garry Breitkreuz: $2 billion worth of police will save more lives than one gun registry - Full Comment

The Fraser Institute: Publications: Fraser Forum: March 2001

You want statistics? Look here: Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament Yorkton - Melville

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/ViolentCrimeinCanada1962_2003.pdf

FOR THE 548 MURDERS IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS SHOW:

• 71% of murders were committed with something other than a gun.
• 29% of the 548 murders were committed with a firearm (6% of the guns used were registered, 26% were unregistered and the government didn’t know the registration status of the other 68%). Makes a sane person ask: “What good is the gun registry?”
• 68% of the 161 firearms homicides were committed with handguns (that the government has been registering since 1934).
• Between 1997 and 2003, the registration status was known for 46% of firearm-related homicides. Of these, 86% were not registered and 80% of the accused persons did not possess a valid FAC or Firearms Licence. Why? Because 69% of murderers were already known criminals including five that had previously been convicted for homicide.

 

[Machjo]

Suppose he says he inherited it from his great grandpappy and likes it mounted on his wall to look at. ?

Good point.

 

[L Gilbert]

Good point.

Crooks could say the same thing even if they did decide to register a firearm. Register one to hang on a wall and keep 2 dozen others as dropguns for crimes.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Suppose he says he inherited it from his great grandpappy and likes it mounted on his wall to look at. ?

Good point.

Great Point & Question. The way I understand things, and Colpy can correct
me if I'm mistaken, if Grandpappy's gun was completely legal in 1990 but
became a restricted weapon with the stroke of a pen and new legislation,
but was Grandfathered in due to his already (previous) legal ownership
of that firearm...upon Grandpappies passing, that firearm would be
confiscated and destroyed. Family heirloom or not, it becomes a
very short piece of a long stretch of pipe somewhere...

 

[Machjo]

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.

But some poor shots might need an automatic assault rifle to make sure they hit that moose.:lol:

 

[Colpy]

Great Point & Question. The way I understand things, and Colpy can correct
me if I'm mistaken, if Grandpappy's gun was completely legal in 1990 but
became a restricted weapon with the stroke of a pen and new legislation,
but was Grandfathered in due to his already (previous) legal ownership
of that firearm...upon Grandpappies passing, that firearm would be
confiscated and destroyed. Family heirloom or not, it becomes a
very short piece of a long stretch of pipe somewhere...

Exactly.

 

[L Gilbert]

Great Point & Question. The way I understand things, and Colpy can correct
me if I'm mistaken, if Grandpappy's gun was completely legal in 1990 but
became a restricted weapon with the stroke of a pen and new legislation,
but was Grandfathered in due to his already (previous) legal ownership
of that firearm...upon Grandpappies passing, that firearm would be
confiscated and destroyed. Family heirloom or not, it becomes a
very short piece of a long stretch of pipe somewhere...

And that is pretty foolish. If it applied to any other thing that could possibly cause death, we would have virtually NO historical artifacts at all. Someone could possibly be bludgeoned to death with Gainsborough's "Blue Boy", or Babe Ruth's favorite baseball bat, or Henry Ford's last car ( a 1942 Ford 4-door sedan), etc.