Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Colpy: Would you know where I could find "The Firearms Act Regulations dated March 1998" in PDF format....I have the hard copy all 142 pages in english and 143 in french but it is much easier when looking for something with the search function of pdf..
I tried looking for it on the Canada Gazette site or gov. of canada site but they keep directing me to to the 2010 RCMP evaluation site and I looking for the original document like the hard copy I have. Merci!
I tried looking for it on the Canada Gazette site or gov. of canada site but they keep directing me to to the 2010 RCMP evaluation site and I looking for the original document like the hard copy I have. Merci!
ah Excuse me?
Unfortunately, I am not omnipotent........I do not have the power to search every record in every police dept in Canada. Therefore I can not tell you how many houses have been inspected.....I do know of a couple here in New Brunswick.....so if you extrapolate that to the nation.....a LOT!
Which is ENTIRELY besides the point.
I see no reason why I should be diverted by your straw man.........the point is that the Firearms Act gives that power.....and that is wrong.
People that pursue a perfectly legal past time should not have less rights than the criminal element.
Can you not understand that?
Who are you to tell me what I should use for home protection? A shotgun is not only unwieldy, but also has the potential to cause a lot of collateral damage and injury, as does a rifle. Not only that, but a shotgun loaded with buck shot almost certainly ensures death, and bird shot may not stop the threat. Legally you only want to stop an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm, the Crown could make mincemeat out of someone using such deadly force in the act of defense if any innocents are harmed.
Pistols are designed for use in enclosed spaces, for defense. No amount of regulation will keep illegal arms off the street.
Reminds me of the first time I shot a .357 Mag, couldn't miss, and with a .45 ACP, couldn't hit. I have a .54 Hawken black powder rifle, it really doesn't kick that much, especially compared to my buddy's .375 H&HMag. BTW, that 375 has brought down 2 elephants and 5 cape buffalo and at least one leopard.
Post your T-4 if you have nothing to hide. Wendy Cukier used the same argument, "if yo have nothing to hide..." but would not reveal where her organisation got the $370,000 from. Privacy is a cornerstone of liberty, we all have something to hide, and it is none of anyone else's business until we act in an antisocial manner. We do have the right to be deemed innocent until proven otherwise, we also have the right not to give evidence that will incriminate ourselves, except in the case of the Firearms Act. Hmmmm.
Last edited:
The Judge Taurus Handgun .45 & 410 - Video
The Judge would make a good choice for a women. Judge, comes in ,410 or .45. great little home protector.
The Judge would make a good choice for a women. Judge, comes in ,410 or .45. great little home protector.
But you stated point blank that it's being done. Is a little proof too much to ask. Forget the stats question. Just prove it's being done.
If the potential for a goverment exists to do it, it is wrong. Your goverment, any goverment should not put fear of any kind in its peoples minds. There is no reason for law abiding citizens to have to worry about their goverment. Public records in the U.S. are just that, you can find out almost any thing you want about a neighbor.
What potential? Section 102 applies to businesses and gun collectors, not the citizenry at large and 104 protects them from unwarranted searches of their private dwellings. If there's some loophole that's being leveraged I'm all ears. That's why I asked about current practice.
What potential?
What potential?
Last edited:
Yes, a little proof is too much to ask...........
Once again, whether it is being done is beside the point.
Prove it is NOT being done.
Deal with the actual question at hand.....should gun owners not be entitled to the same set of individual rights as other citizens?????
Not all gun owners are "firearms businesses or individuals in possession of a large number of firearms" so I'm still waiting for proof that they aren't.
Who are you to support an industry that makes possible the violent deaths of thousands of Americans each year?
By your logic get bear spray and a hunting knife, that's what I have here in the city for anyone stupid enough to try and enter my home with hostile intent. I was also taught for both hunting and self defence if you draw a weapon be prepared to shoot and if you shoot you shoot to kill, not even the police engage in shooting to maim, they aim for the center of the person they're targeting. And you think handguns don't kill innocent bystanders?
Handguns are easily transportable, now have very high capacity and with weapons like TEC-10s high rates of fire. The US gun industry likes to present their products as being for the home defence and sporting market and to an extent they are, but there is also a significant proportion of weapons sold every year that end up through straw purchases on the street, this is according to former executives and lobbyists from the gun industry. The industry also uses the NRA as a lobbying group.
Last edited:
For those of you with reading comprehension problems.....
All those things in bolded italics relate to private citizens.
I have prohibited weapons, of which there are some 600,000 legally in the hands of Canadian citizens.
I have more than 10 guns, so do lots of people........and finally.....what exactly is "a gun collection"??
Anything more than one gun?
So much for the right to remain silent......
You see any mention of a requirement for evidence of an actual crime having taken place?
No.
So much for the right to be free of unreasonable search.
Oh please. First you delay mentioning you're not Joe Farmer with a little something handy to take out the fox with and now you think I'm supposed to feel sorry for you because you make the short list. Get real. Restaurant owners give up that much and more the moment they register their business and face the same disparities you do when it comes to black market food services.
You're just reinforcing my opinion.
You're just reinforcing my opinion.
Actually it's the extensive system of checks and balances set up by the original architects of the nation.
The 2nd Amendment was intended for defence of the nation from outside threats, mostly the British Empire which in fact did go to war with the young nation in 1812.
Fine.
First of all, if you'd paid ANY attention to the thread we are in, or much of anything else on this forum, you'd have noticed:
1. I live in a city.
2. I own a bunch of guns, including handguns and prohibited rifles.
3. I have been an instructor for the NB safe hunter program, and an instructor for the Federal Firearms Safety Course......
4. I've been an instructor for an armoured car company, teaching firearms safety and armed self-defense with both handguns and shotgun, and range officer both for instruction and running their bi-annual qualifications.
Yes, I am on the short list for loss of my constitutional rights, as is every other person dumb-ass enough (like I was)to register their firearms.
The fact you can't seem to understand is that a loss of individual rights for any citizen is a loss for all citizens.
Are you really so simple you can't understand the difference you yourself originally pointed out between a regulated business and a private citizen???? To say nothing of the fact I've never heard of a restauranter forced to bear witness against himself.
Try to focus.
It is obvious that when you can not address the facts, you try to deflect the debate on to some irrelevant issue, like restaurants or "proof".
The simple fact is you have been wrong in every aspect of your argument, and I have proven you wrong.
Deal with it.
Game, set, match.
I don't see anyone's rights being violated. I see people who want to be entrusted with items of interest to the public's safety refusing to be reasonably accountable for them. I see people who want me to give up my own right to security so they can have what they want. Nothing new here.