Death of Long Gun Registry

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
MikeyDB said:
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

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
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.
Good point Bear!
Thanx Mikey.
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

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
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

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
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...

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.

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.
Thanks for the different perspective...
Not a problem, anytime.
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...:lol:
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
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.

:read2:(this studious little asshole is really starting to bother me now!!!)
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
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.



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?

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.

She's a cruel, cruel women, but I love her, lol...:lol:
Aren't we all?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
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

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
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.

Um, I have this neighbour bugging me...errrrrr...probably not kosher eh?
lol...probably not...
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.
I know I am dreaming, but out of such fragile things, come miracles they say.
Very true.
Aren't we all?
Even more true...;-)

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

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
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.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
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.
Wow that is huge and rather frightening actually. I will check out your link Colpy.

I can't imagine living in a country though which is supposedly so unsafe it requires one to carry a gun in order to keep peace. I think that is sad and may reflect the inequity in that society. Not to mention it's inability to protect it's own citizens.

Will have a look later today.
 

ottawabill

Electoral Member
May 27, 2005
909
8
18
Eastern Ontario
The only thing the long gun registry has done around my area is to arrest Farmers for having unregistered rifles in their homes. Rifles that are really there to either get rid of groundhogs, or to protect livestock from wolves, bears etc...

How many cops could we have had for a billion dollars? Has even one life been saved because of this program? All the violent firearms crimes I ever hear of are with handguns..already banned in most cases, and if they are committed with long barrel weapons, those weapons have either been registered or where already illegal..so what had that program ever accomplish?
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
The only thing the long gun registry has done around my area is to arrest Farmers for having unregistered rifles in their homes. Rifles that are really there to either get rid of groundhogs, or to protect livestock from wolves, bears etc...

How many cops could we have had for a billion dollars? Has even one life been saved because of this program? All the violent firearms crimes I ever hear of are with handguns..already banned in most cases, and if they are committed with long barrel weapons, those weapons have either been registered or where already illegal..so what had that program ever accomplish?

Well said sir, am in total agreement with ya.
 

ottawabill

Electoral Member
May 27, 2005
909
8
18
Eastern Ontario
It's amazing to me how many times common sence does NOT prevail...It's just common sence to scrap the Gun registry..it never worked....

Now before someone jumps on me......

It's common sence to ban ownership of high powered weaponty in the U.S. as well..The U.S. contituiton in regards to arms was to protect against invaders....that could still be considered armed robbery or home invassion , but where do anyone get off thinking it meant weapons that were meant for mass killings..and nothing else??

I see no reason that a hunter or farmer needs to have his gun registered..it makes no sence, but notr does it make sence that an average person could own an AK47..registered or otherwise!!
 

jwmcq625

Nominee Member
Sep 14, 2007
95
1
8
Hooray, and it's about time! The Liberals I'm sure had in mind at some future point to confiscate all guns in Canada so that the people would not be armed, as did Australia. The problem with that is we would have a society where the pblic at-large was disarmed and teh only prople with firearms would be the police, military and the criminal element, because let's face it people, the criminals have no intentions of registering any guns they have.

If the Liberal and rthe NDP had their way our military would be disarmed as well, and when we send them into harms-way they could ask the people shooting at them on these peace missions, to Please Stop Shooting, or we'll stop talking to you. What a bunch of pansies we have as politicians is all parties except the Conservatives.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
67
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
How many of the pro gun right wingers here believe folks in New Orleans should have the right to arm themselves against the brutal police and politicians who denied them the right to vote on that housing issue discussed on my other thread?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
How many of the pro gun right wingers here believe folks in New Orleans should have the right to arm themselves against the brutal police and politicians who denied them the right to vote on that housing issue discussed on my other thread?

Me.

One of the most disgusting parts of the New Orleans hurricane disaster was the police seizing weapons, leaving folks defenseless......

Besides, the premier reason for the right to keep and bear arms ias for use against oppression by the government.......the Second Amendment to the US Constitution ain't about duck hunting, it isn't even primarily about personal self-defense, it is about shooting the authorities when they over-step their bounds. As Mao said "An armed people cannever be oppressed" (Of course, he disarmed the Chinese people :))
 

warrior_won

Time Out
Nov 21, 2007
415
2
18
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.

And a gun registry would have changed that by... ???