Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
CDNBear said:
Ya, the MNR still has that one locked up.
Click to expand...

I'm missing some context, sorry. Natural Resources in Ontario can enter people's homes without warrant?

Ok, I see they are claiming they can search without warrant for situations requiring immediate action... but I am confused here. If it is immediate, don't they know what crime has been committed which requires immediate action? In that case are they not able to make an arrest and search based on the arrest.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Niflmir said:
I'm missing some context, sorry. Natural Resources in Ontario can enter people's homes without warrant?

Ok, I see they are claiming they can search without warrant for situations requiring immediate action... but I am confused here. If it is immediate, don't they know what crime has been committed which requires immediate action? In that case are they not able to make an arrest and search based on the arrest.
Click to expand...
Wild game is perishable, can be destroyed, tampered with to hinder ID, consumed or discarded in short order.

They don't require the same stringent basis for probable cause as most LE.

I actually have no problem with that by the way.
 
Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
CDNBear said:
Wild game is perishable, can be destroyed, tampered with to hinder ID, consumed or discarded in short order.

They don't require the same stringent basis for probable cause as most LE.

I actually have no problem with that by the way.
Click to expand...

Wacky. I can see that going haywire, though. It is a dangerous power to give.

I too can agree with certain aspects of warrantless entry where immediate action may be required. Just was not able to really think why natural resources would need it.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
bluebyrd35 said:
I am always astounded how easy it is for lobbiests to sway the weak minded into supporting their product. ie.....the gun manufacturers and the oil men as just two examples. They have the.ability to control the laws of the countries they inhabit, to the detriment of the citizens. It has nothing whatever to do with human rights. It is all about the almighty buck and how to get more than their fair share.

Better hope they never get control over production of nuclear materials for producing bombs. I can just see numbskulls of every ilk insisting that they have the right to their own personal nucluear weapon!!
Click to expand...

The weak minded are swayed by the NIMBY's and NOPE's of the world. Most of the rest of us understand about personal rights and the economy. BTW do you drive? If so you NEED the oil companies.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Niflmir said:
Wacky. I can see that going haywire, though. It is a dangerous power to give.
Click to expand...
Around here, although I've seen it used, they don't abuse it.

I too can agree with certain aspects of warrantless entry where immediate action may be required. Just was not able to really think why natural resources would need it.
Click to expand...
But it makes sense when you think about it.
 
Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
CDNBear said:
Around here, although I've seen it used, they don't abuse it.

But it makes sense when you think about it.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. There are times where the only reasonable thing to do to uphold laws against actual wrongs is to enter someone's home without permission.

In other news, you should check out the movie Elite Squad. Its Brasilian, and its really cool. I'm watching the second one right now. For some reason, I thought the denizens of this thread would like it.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Niflmir said:
You do like to spread FUD, don't you?

They can only arrange an inspection if you sell guns or own more than 10 guns. They expressly cannot open any container or demand any information. What they can demand you do is to "Unlock that cabinet for me," while information they can demand is of the sort "Where is your registered handgun?" They cannot open your fridge, for instance.

Which is actually quite reasonable.

But hey, don't let you misunderstandings stop you from feeling persecuted. At least you aren't claiming that they can enter your house without a warrant anymore.
Click to expand...

Is owning more than 10- guns a crime?? Or a prohibited weapon???

No.

Therefore any search is unreasonable, as there is no cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Section 102 (1) (a) An inspector may;
(
a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;
(b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;
(c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and
(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.
Click to expand...

Any crime committed??? Are they looking for evidence of a crime committed?? No? Unreasonable search.

103. The owner or person in charge of a place that is inspected by an inspector under section 102 and every person found in the place shall
(a) give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable him or her to carry out the inspection and exercise any power conferred by section 102; and
(b) provide the inspector with any information relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations that he or she may reasonably require.
Click to expand...

111. Every person who commits an offence under section 110 or who does not comply with section 103
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Click to expand...

So much for the right to remain silent.

I'm not making this stuff up.
 
gopher

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I realize many of you are right wingers who don't believe in government involvement in expanding or providing health care to the poor or those in need. But the recent Frontline series on "Raising Adam Lanza" provides proof that gun control is useless and that there just isn't enough preventive health care in the USA:

FRONTLINE - Documentary films and thought-provoking journalism | PBS


I haven't watched all of it but even though it does not advocate limiting access to weapons, it succeeds in convincing a viewer that all the gun control in the world is of no value if society fails to take proper steps to prevent sick minded people from getting their hands on weapons. From what I saw, if some of the mass murderers hadn't gotten guns, they would have resorted to bombs or some weapon that could inflict mass murders quickly. Some of the violence that took place could have been prevented if people would only take steps to inform authorities that some one is out to commit violence. Others could have been prevented from committing horrendous anti-social actions if they had been given proper medical help. Still others could have been prevented from committing crime if society had been wiser in teaching children that violence is an unnecessary evil and not one to be viewed as honorable such as through violent video games. A wholistic approach to violence prevention is what society needs. There simply is no evidence that taking weapons away from law abiding people reduces or prevents crime.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
This is the United States of course....but is very interesting, as gun laws in the USA are much LESS restrictive now than they were in 1970
 
DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Colpy said:
Good Lord, I haven't seen people shoot in the old one-handed target stance in 30 years!!!

:)

Kinda neat.
Click to expand...
That was only about ten twelve years ago at a local competition in 20 yds slow, timed and rapid fire and in .22 and center fire ...... I only won first prize in .22 and I kinda felt bad about it because I won against a cop who came second and he had his son with him, but he won in rapid fire.
That stance is only used by some for slow fire.......

We don't have competitions for two handed combat shooting....every member has a key to the shooting range and those who want to practice that type of shooting go on their own.
We have a security system, that nobody can can come in and surprise you and steal your guns when you are alone
The winner of center fire using a .44 Magnum full load....I distorted his face so he can't be recognized :lol:


A few of his guns that he used that day..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom