Reverend Blair said:
And I'd rather be shot than stabbed. How is that relevant to the discussion?
You really have to fill in the quotes better, B. The first one is mine, the 2nd is... who knows?
How will a Conservative government be better?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
- Status
And I'd rather be shot than stabbed. How is that relevant to the discussion?
You really have to fill in the quotes better, B. The first one is mine, the 2nd is... who knows?
Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?
No red herring, Kev. My point is that if a person is going to commit a crime, they'll do so, with whatever weapon is at hand.SirKevin said:
Were the police unable to make arrests before the registry? Has there been a spike in the number of arrests since?
Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?
Oh, I see. So, we should make it easier for them and just give them access to guns.
I'd assume they were capable of making arrests before the registry, yup.
I'm not sure...later on Iwill certainly look through that link I posted in more detail to check that out. But I'm having trouble imagining that there wasn't, given the annual number of consultations.
LadyC said:
Oh, I see. So, we should make it easier for them and just give them access to guns.
LadyC said:
I'd assume they were capable of making arrests before the registry, yup.
LadyC said:
I'm not sure...later on Iwill certainly look through that link I posted in more detail to check that out. But I'm having trouble imagining that there wasn't, given the annual number of consultations.
Fair enough... except when you say "The rest of your post is politically immature blather." you really should specify to whom you are addressing your post.Reverend Blair said:
? ? ?
What have I implied? I read back through several posts to see who wrote the quote you were responding to, but I couldn't find it. I'm reasonably certain it wasn't one of mine.
Unless you made up the quote... as a sort of summary of what you assumed I meant?
I'm baffled here.
What have I implied? I read back through several posts to see who wrote the quote you were responding to, but I couldn't find it. I'm reasonably certain it wasn't one of mine.
Unless you made up the quote... as a sort of summary of what you assumed I meant?
I'm baffled here.
RE: How will a Conservati
You keep speaking out against the gun registry. Since the gun registry does keep people from gaining access to guns as easily, it would imply that you feel that more guns will lead to less crime, or at least have no effect.
It is ridiculous to say that more guns will lead to less gun violence, whether those guns are legal or not.
You keep speaking out against the gun registry. Since the gun registry does keep people from gaining access to guns as easily, it would imply that you feel that more guns will lead to less crime, or at least have no effect.
It is ridiculous to say that more guns will lead to less gun violence, whether those guns are legal or not.
RE: How will a Conservati
You have been. This is a non-issue for most Canadians anyway. If you want guns, there is a certain price attached. We spend billions every year so you can drive your car.
You have been. This is a non-issue for most Canadians anyway. If you want guns, there is a certain price attached. We spend billions every year so you can drive your car.
Re: RE: How will a Conservati
I don't think gun in themselves insite violence. I more inclined to believe that the level of education, maturity, and culture of the gun holder has more to do with gun violence. Just a thought
Reverend Blair said:
I don't think gun in themselves insite violence. I more inclined to believe that the level of education, maturity, and culture of the gun holder has more to do with gun violence. Just a thought
RE: How will a Conservati
It's more like the access to guns makes violence easier for those so inclined, Numure. I grew up around guns, so I understand that there's a right way and a wrong way to use them. The registry also came with provisions for storage and reporting gun theft, so it will have an effect on access. As Sir Kevin pointed out, it also helps to keep guns out of the hands of questionable people.
It allows police to know who has what when they are walking a situation of domestic violence as well.
A couple of points...before the recent tragedy in Alberta, the last time there was a multiple murder of RCMP was when they responded to a call for domestic violence. They were killed with a hunting rifle.
The last person killed in a robbery in Winnipeg was shot with a sawed off rifle that had been stolen in a B&E.
It's more like the access to guns makes violence easier for those so inclined, Numure. I grew up around guns, so I understand that there's a right way and a wrong way to use them. The registry also came with provisions for storage and reporting gun theft, so it will have an effect on access. As Sir Kevin pointed out, it also helps to keep guns out of the hands of questionable people.
It allows police to know who has what when they are walking a situation of domestic violence as well.
A couple of points...before the recent tragedy in Alberta, the last time there was a multiple murder of RCMP was when they responded to a call for domestic violence. They were killed with a hunting rifle.
The last person killed in a robbery in Winnipeg was shot with a sawed off rifle that had been stolen in a B&E.
Re: RE: How will a Conservati
I have to jump in here.....
How does the registry keep anybody from buying guns? It doesn't that’s how.
That’s what the FAC is for.
When you buy a gun, you have to wait at least 24 hrs before you can take it home. (This way heat of passion gun violence is reduced).
Sometime before that 24 hrs expires you get a phone call from some branch of the government, affirming your wish to purchase. They ask you a few stupid questions, and then you go and pick up your gun.
Once you have the gun, you then register it.
The safe handling and storage of guns has nothing to do with registering the gun.
The gun registry is, in a nut shell, a list of people with long guns in Canada.
Why is this a left/right issue? The right believes in freedom; they wouldn't keep lists of people with guns, the left is anti-freedom; and they are highly interested in keeping lists of people with guns and worse. It is no different then what any other stupid socialist government would do.
The gun registry cannot inherently prevent crime, because it doesn't have anything to do with crime (unless you didn't register you long rifle, then your breaking the law. In fact logically, the gun registry added to crime, because it is illegal to own an unregistered long rifle, and a certain percentage of people didn't register theirs).
The argument that the police look up an address or name in the registry before they attend a call and prepare themselves accordingly is silly. The police should (if they weren’t so stupid) be prepared for most incidences, at any time or for any call. Does anybody really believe that their dressed in plain clothes and then dress in their gear once they realize there is a gun at the address of the call? They wear their jack boots regardless, and to believe otherwise is silly. I have (as a youth) had the police in my parent’s home questioning me about someone else’s problem. When the 2 cops showed up they had bullet proof vests on and guns at their side. They didn’t remove any of it, and the only thing they could have done to protect themselves further would have been to put on their battle gear, and barricade the house. Is this what they do when they find out a gun might be present at the scene? No it isn’t.
The hand gun laws in Canada are draconian, and the idea you don't have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your property is also draconian. The Canadian government is far more concerned what happens to a criminal at his/her crime scene, rather than what happens to the victim at the crime scene, this is the way the left wants it, and they aren’t done yet.
Registration will lead to confiscation; simple.
This idea that we right wingers, who oppose the registry, didn't offer any alternative to the registry is true. Just because lefties wish to right laws we don't like, doesn't mean we in turn have to come up with another law to calm the lefties down. We shouldn't come into compliance simply to appease the left, sorry.
Allowing people who don’t have anything to do with the matter, such as ill informed urbanites, to write laws about the matter isn't democratic in anyway.
Most gun crime is in the form of illegally obtained hand guns, not long guns, proving the point that this is merely a list of people who have rifles, and the government is scared of us….makes me wonder why. Do they have something planned that they need to be prepared for? NWO maybe?
Reverend Blair said:
I have to jump in here.....
How does the registry keep anybody from buying guns? It doesn't that’s how.
That’s what the FAC is for.
When you buy a gun, you have to wait at least 24 hrs before you can take it home. (This way heat of passion gun violence is reduced).
Sometime before that 24 hrs expires you get a phone call from some branch of the government, affirming your wish to purchase. They ask you a few stupid questions, and then you go and pick up your gun.
Once you have the gun, you then register it.
The safe handling and storage of guns has nothing to do with registering the gun.
The gun registry is, in a nut shell, a list of people with long guns in Canada.
Why is this a left/right issue? The right believes in freedom; they wouldn't keep lists of people with guns, the left is anti-freedom; and they are highly interested in keeping lists of people with guns and worse. It is no different then what any other stupid socialist government would do.
The gun registry cannot inherently prevent crime, because it doesn't have anything to do with crime (unless you didn't register you long rifle, then your breaking the law. In fact logically, the gun registry added to crime, because it is illegal to own an unregistered long rifle, and a certain percentage of people didn't register theirs).
The argument that the police look up an address or name in the registry before they attend a call and prepare themselves accordingly is silly. The police should (if they weren’t so stupid) be prepared for most incidences, at any time or for any call. Does anybody really believe that their dressed in plain clothes and then dress in their gear once they realize there is a gun at the address of the call? They wear their jack boots regardless, and to believe otherwise is silly. I have (as a youth) had the police in my parent’s home questioning me about someone else’s problem. When the 2 cops showed up they had bullet proof vests on and guns at their side. They didn’t remove any of it, and the only thing they could have done to protect themselves further would have been to put on their battle gear, and barricade the house. Is this what they do when they find out a gun might be present at the scene? No it isn’t.
The hand gun laws in Canada are draconian, and the idea you don't have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your property is also draconian. The Canadian government is far more concerned what happens to a criminal at his/her crime scene, rather than what happens to the victim at the crime scene, this is the way the left wants it, and they aren’t done yet.
Registration will lead to confiscation; simple.
This idea that we right wingers, who oppose the registry, didn't offer any alternative to the registry is true. Just because lefties wish to right laws we don't like, doesn't mean we in turn have to come up with another law to calm the lefties down. We shouldn't come into compliance simply to appease the left, sorry.
Allowing people who don’t have anything to do with the matter, such as ill informed urbanites, to write laws about the matter isn't democratic in anyway.
Most gun crime is in the form of illegally obtained hand guns, not long guns, proving the point that this is merely a list of people who have rifles, and the government is scared of us….makes me wonder why. Do they have something planned that they need to be prepared for? NWO maybe?
Better check out Sir Kevin's graphs, Jay.
It includes legislation regarding how guns can be stored and who can handle those guns. This was a major issue for small museums when the legislation came in, even though most of their guns are inoperable.
It isn't.
Like the freedom to marry who yuou choose?
They support keeping lists of all kinds of people they don't like, including activists and protestors who have done nothing more than express their right to free speech.
You'd better check the record for the last several decades. The left has consistently supported individual freedoms while the right has consistently opposed them.
Then why do police forces across the nation consult the database on a daily basis? Are they just killing time between trips to Tim Horton's?
With logic like that we should abolish all laws. There would be no crime whatsoever.
Fine. Better tell them to stop then. I'll bet they tell you to piss off though. The rest of your argument is ridiculous.
What does any civilian need a handgun for, Jay? Other than as a penis extension, I mean?
Has anybody come and taken your guns, Jay? I know a lot of people who own guns. The only one who ever had one confiscated was my great uncle and it was my father who did the confiscating...my uncle was suffering from senile dementia.
Yes it is. You had your chance and you blew it. Too bad, we could have used your help. Then maybe those small museums wouldn't have run into so many problems.
The majority of Canadians live in cities and don't own guns. Guess it's democratic after all.
My buddy is a sysmic surveyor and he needs his hand gun for protection in the bush Rev :x So that blows your therory of the public not needing hand guns . Besides who are you to say I have no right to protect myself and family 8O Thats the problem with this country the criminals get all the rights and we the taxpayers don't get any to protect ourselves.Some crook can break in to my house and if I kick his ass or shoot him guess who goes to jail me .Thats a complete joke 8O
Is the 24-hour law no longer in effect, B? According to Kev's charts, I mean.Reverend Blair said:
We already had laws regarding the storage and safe handling of guns. That the registry also made provisions for it is a moot point.
Then quit talking about how "you" had your chance, etc.
Thank you for bringing that up... I'll get back to it.
This argument is a valid one. We've seen what happens when rights are slowly eroded. Eventually we reach a point where we say "D'oh!" like the frog in the pot of water.
Um, B... you're not making your point here. Consulting the database is done after a crime has been committed, right? So how does it prevent a crime from being committed?
That's the sort of "logic" one hears from a child.
I agree with you here. Hand guns have one purpose only... to kill humans.
Sorry to hear about your Great Uncle, B. but his situation is hardly relevant here. Can you say with certainty that the registry won't ever lead to confiscation? I think it's highly unlikely, but I'm sure they thought so in Germany in the 30s... and the U.S. post 9/11. The government can do whatever they want, they just have to be careful how they go about it. Baby steps....
So.... if the majority of Canadians, who are heterosexual, oppose SSMs, we shouldn't make them legal? That would be democratic after all.
I agree with Jay here. Too often people figure "it doesn't affect me, so why would I care?" We should be consulting more with those the laws DO affect.
What, he can't use a rifle.
Look at the situation in the US, Mom. People get shot for knocking on the wrong door, people get shot for coming home when they weren't expected. A gun kept for protection generally ends up killing a family member before it ever used against an intruder.
No, it isn't.
No, I won't.
No, it is also done before they go on a call.
See above.
my point exactly, C.
It is relevant, C. The government never confiscated his gun.
Can you with certainty that Stephen Harper doesn't keep a goat chained up in his basement?
Are you trying to draw a comparison between homosexuals and gun owners? Will you be drawing a comparison between visible minorities and the free use of cross-bows next?
Again, the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives, who now claim to represent gun owners, chose not to do that. They did not want to be consulted, they wanted confrontation.
no A rifle takes to long to get of your shoulder when your packing explosives and stakes and equipment :wink: His gun has saved him twice from grizzlys charging him .Both times they came out of no where 8O
Reverend Blair said:
And the registry isn't about who will have guns and who will not, as I stated that is what the FAC is for. If your FAC is revoked, you can't own guns, let alone buy one. Simple.
So? This isn't demonstrating how the registry did anything, that is demonstrating how the added legislation is doing something. I have to comply (and I do so willingly) with storage laws. Those laws can exist without registration, and I thought they did, I could wrong, but that doesn't change anything.
Yes it is. The largest voice for registration comes from the left. Those against it, are usually from the right.
Yes like that, except different somehow.
They aren’t saying they will pick partners for you BTW.
Do these ppl have to register themselves as if they are some sort of threat to the nation? Is it official? I bet not.
Oh, well you and the others have a lot of convincing to do, because it isn't how its perceived, besides the type of left you belong to hasn't seen power yet or in some time.
Because it's information. I'm sure the government would like to have all sorts of information to check before doing anything. It simply isn't a luxury they have, until they write draconian laws allowing themselves to have that information.
As true as this is, it isn't applicable across board. The law created the criminal in this case, and the so called criminal isn’t committing a crime buy not registering their guns, they are simply questioning this very stupid draconian law. Aren’t we supposed to question these things? Do you believe in conforming to stupid laws? I did register my guns, because I don’t want the Nazis to take my guns and revoke my FAC if they find out. I like my guns, but I don’t like Nazis, and I don’t like stupid laws, I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.
There not going to stop on my behalf. We need to repeal that registry section of the bill. If the cops don't like it, they can find other jobs.
If you can't see why, that’s not my fault. I can see why, and that’s good enough for me. (PS I think you can see why; I have faith in you)
Not yet Rev, but in time I'm sure they will.
Your uncle isn't the only one who has had a gun confiscated from them. I will allow you to find out on your own who has had one or more guns confiscated for whatever reason.
PS. Your father did the right thing. Our loved ones should be looking out for us when we are incapacitated.
So the museums didn't speak up?
I appreciate the “we could have used your help" line, but I wouldn't have introduced a registry. What are we to do?
You have to be native to have a voice with the left on this issue, everyone else doesn't matter. I liken it to racism, but that is strong language.
So from now on we will allow the laws of the land to be written by people who have nothing to do with the issue. So I guess with that logic the next minister for Multi-culturism and Women’s issues, should be a white male.
- Status