Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png
Down here in Texas and Arizona, most people don't register their firearms anymore.. I know if I lived in Canada, I wouldn't..
There is a shortage of .22 and other ammo, because people are hording.
Guess they don't trust the government.. or something.
Here ya go. Start hiding your weapons because it is true, they are coming for them.
Thank you Cliffy.
It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I saw this coming in the 70s. They are patient and have been pushing their agenda increment by increment. This proves it is world wide and not just certain countries. It also proves that sovereign nations are a myth. Nothing less than world domination is the goal.Thank you Cliffy.
It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Well done, Cliffy! Colpy went for it, hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat!
Always fun making a chump look like a chump.
Always fun making a chump look like a chump.
obviously the gun ban is not driving the murder rate trends. Drawing any conclusions based on the gun ban would be just as incorrect as drawing conclusions based on nationality.
You are completely missing the point.
Gun bans are a severe restriction on a person's individual rights, therefore it is necessary for those that impose them to show that they have some positive effect.
Obviously, they have no positive effect, therefore there is no need to inflict them upon us...............
Oh, and another good reason not to vote NDP.......
You are completely missing the point.
Gun bans are a severe restriction on a person's individual rights, therefore it is necessary for those that impose them to show that they have some positive effect.
Obviously, they have no positive effect, therefore there is no need to inflict them upon us...............
Oh, and another good reason not to vote NDP.......
Agreed.
You are completely missing the point.
Gun bans are a severe restriction on a person's individual rights, therefore it is necessary for those that impose them to show that they have some positive effect.
Obviously, they have no positive effect, therefore there is no need to inflict them upon us...............
Oh, and another good reason not to vote NDP.......
The reply:
"ensuring the ban of automatic firearms..."
LOL Does that mean they support the Harper government policy on automatic firearms?
LOL Does that mean they support the Harper government policy on automatic firearms?
There's two good points in there. Allow me to elicidate:
First, I will speak in U.S. legal and Constitutional terms, because I don't know the Canadian Charter very well. Second, I will do my best to represent the extreme gun-freedom point of view.
1. Who may own weapons? Well, the right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, generally considered the most sacred, dearest, and most inviolable of rights. More important, I would point out, than the right to vote, which is NOT included in the Bill of Rights. So, who gets weapons? I would say ANYBODY, with three exceptions: minor children, convicted criminals WHILE THEY ARE SERVING THEIR SENTENCES, and those who have been judged non compos mentis. I say this because a discharged felon, who is no longer in prison or on parole or probation, is restored all of his Bill of Rights rights. Therefore, a rapist, robber, or killer who has finished his sentence and parole should be allowed to own guns. Ditto the mentally ill. Mentally ill people who have not been adjudged incompetent by a court of law (yet) retain all their Bill of Rights rights. This should include the right to arms.
2. What weapons may a person own? Well, the gun nuts refuse to see the difference between, say, a revolver or shotgun for personal defense, or a rifle for hunting and resisting tyranny, and an M-4 automatic carbine with an M-204 underbarrel grenade launcher. So the "right to keep and bear arms" should include ANY weapon of ANY description or destructive capability. Heavy machine guns. Grenades. Rocket launchers. Anti-tank cannon. Satchel charges. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. After all, we've determined that everybody gets weapons, right? And if they misuse them, the law is there to punish them, right? So how could one possibly object to private ownership of a howitzer and chemical-weapon shells? I'm sure the decent, upstanding citizens would use them only to stop gummint tyranny, like the Moncton Mounties. After all, it's a militia, right?
interesting side point about the legal definition of a 'weapon' in Canada. It involves intent. And without intent, a knife is just a knife and a baseball bat is just a baseball bat. It is a darned good thing that the legal definition specifically includes firearms, because if it didn't, we wouldn't be able to harass farmers, hunters, sportsmen, and collectors. We like to treat them as bad as inner city gang bangers, I can't imagine what it would be like if we gave them some credit for hundreds of years worth of responsible ownership.
That's interesting. Do you have legal references for that?
I'm not saying you're lying or full of it. I think that's a crucial and fascinating caveat, and I'd like to read the authorities on it. If you don't have it immediately available, I'll put on my big-boy pants and do my own research.
Last edited:
first page of google....
Section 2 of the Criminal Code includes the definition of weapon:
“Weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person and,
without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm.
CanLII - Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46