Iggy to Whip Gun Registration Bill
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Yes it does, it is against my second Amendment. Nobody mess's with my Amendments. We fought a war of Independence because a country wanted to much control over us, not much has changed, we just have to keep the Federal goverment in their place, we run the country, not them. The individual States can handle gun control well enough.
1. The ownership of cars has never been considered or inshrined in any constitution as a basic and ancient right of man.
2. As long as I don't drive on a public road, I don't have to register my car.
3. I can't get 5 years in jail for failing to register my car.
4. There is not a clear history of the government first registering my car, then seizing it without compensation,.
5. The registration of cars is done under provincial legislation, as all regulatory law should be, thus is subject to the wishes of provincial populations.
6. The registration of cars has not cost the taxpayer 2 billion dollars.
7. The car registration system is actually accurate enough to be admissible as evidence in court......unlike the firearms registry.
8. If I have a registered car, and I forget and let my driver's license expire, the Police Special Weapons team does not arrive at my house, kick in my doors, and seize all my vehicles.
Any other stupid questions????
Well - we never fought a war of Independance - nor do we have any Amendments. This is not the USA - it's Canada - a seperate country.
There are countries that let me beat my wife, and allow me to sell my daughter too - that doesn't give me the right to do that in Canada.....
Ooohhh. Well, then you wouldn't mind showing us how the numbers on how much of the registry budget concerns long guns? Where does the other $2.58 go?
Last edited:
Oh.
Well, I disagree. I am pretty sure there are a lot of long gun owners that felt free to keep their rifles/shotguns in spite of the registry. I think there are a lot that only registered SOME of their long guns.
I agree.
The big deal is that the registry is a massive waste of money and does little or nothing that it was supposed to do and previously criminalized good people. DUH Haven't you been following the discussion?
Ummm, unfortunately governments have capitalized on the fact that the property rights provision of the 1960 Bill of Rights was deliberately omitted from the Charter, (which actually strengthens your case considerably). We now have plenty of provisions in statutes whereby vehicles, and other property can be forfeited to the Crown; hunting or fishing in contravention to regulations, certain HTA infractions etc. Vehicles, vessles and other property have been seized upon suspicion and forfeited after conviction without compensation or consideration even if it was someone other than the owner using it, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Anyone who thinks this firearms legislation was put in place without confiscation as the ultimate goal just isn't paying attention.
But our laws descend from English Common Law. In 1671, "guns" were removed from the list of items the commoners or poor couldn't own, and in 1681 protestants were allowed to bear arms for defense of self as written in the English Bill of Rights. The Americans only re-stated a right they already had under law. We in this country also had that freedom but neglected to codify it in our repatriated constitution, our bad, another freedom lost.
Rights and freedoms can be different things; under common law we have the freedom to do that which is not prohibited by law. Under civil law, such as in France, (and Quebec to a certain extent), we are granted the right to do that which is allowed by law, and the differences aren't that subtle. You did have the freedom, if not in this country, other British colonies to to beat your wife or sell you daughter at one time until it was prohibited by law, not so long ago really. But comparing this to the firearms legislation is somewhat irrelevant, because in your case while not necessarily unlawful (at the time) it is at best committing a tort, at worst an assault against another. The ownership of firearms is neither.
Absolutely, I also know many who did likewise, or conformed completely. But the point is that there are many who were either too scared or just not bothered to have to deal with the red tape involved. I did aquire a number of firearms at fire sale prices, but so what. The eventual aim is to either make firearms as socially unacceptable as smoking, or just ban them outright. Either way, we will eventually be submissive to either our armed masters or armed assailants, just as they are in other countries that have disarmed their citizens.
Tried to give you a greenie....but I'm not permitted yet.
This is it exactly.....any 10 year old could figure out that the current laws have nothing to do with crime....and everything to do with culture and social engineering.
Personally, I can think of nothing governments like less than people with the following attributes: "boldness, enterprise, and independence (of) mind"
OH I LOVE THIS!
kinda puts the entire debate to bed........Dr. Gary Mauser did a little research, comparing murder rates and all ....and found the following....
Between 1997 and 2005 there were between 7 and 17 persons with some form of firearms license arrested for murder annually.
There were slightly under 2 million licensed owners in that time.
That means licensed firearms owners committed homicide rate of between 0.35 and 0.85 per 100,000.
The national homicide rate in that period varied between 1.74 and 2.06 per 100,000.
Considering the fact that the national rate includes all persons in the 100,000, including children.....and the licensed rate consists solely of licensed owners.......you are several times more likely to be killed by someone without a firearms license than by someone with a license......kinda kills the old "guns cause murder" thingy, doesn't it"
SO WHY THE HELL ARE THEY HARASSING US?????
All those cops that are consulting records to see if there are firearms in a house they are visiting.......should breathe a sigh of relief if they come up with a licensed shooter.....because he is LESS apt to kill them......
The anti-gun culture's basic premise is a lie.
kinda puts the entire debate to bed........Dr. Gary Mauser did a little research, comparing murder rates and all ....and found the following....
Between 1997 and 2005 there were between 7 and 17 persons with some form of firearms license arrested for murder annually.
There were slightly under 2 million licensed owners in that time.
That means licensed firearms owners committed homicide rate of between 0.35 and 0.85 per 100,000.
The national homicide rate in that period varied between 1.74 and 2.06 per 100,000.
Considering the fact that the national rate includes all persons in the 100,000, including children.....and the licensed rate consists solely of licensed owners.......you are several times more likely to be killed by someone without a firearms license than by someone with a license......kinda kills the old "guns cause murder" thingy, doesn't it"
SO WHY THE HELL ARE THEY HARASSING US?????
All those cops that are consulting records to see if there are firearms in a house they are visiting.......should breathe a sigh of relief if they come up with a licensed shooter.....because he is LESS apt to kill them......
The anti-gun culture's basic premise is a lie.
@ bobnoorduyn - you misunderstand me. I am not anti-gun - not even pro-gun registry - to be honest.
My point is - no where in our constitution does it say that "to bear arms" is a fundamental right. Because other countries deem it so, does not mean that we can import their standards.
If gun ownership is a basic right, then it should be codified. If not (a basic right), then they should be controlled and registered.
My point is - no where in our constitution does it say that "to bear arms" is a fundamental right. Because other countries deem it so, does not mean that we can import their standards.
If gun ownership is a basic right, then it should be codified. If not (a basic right), then they should be controlled and registered.
The Bill of Rights of 1689.......part of Canada's constitution....
My emphasis....
Of course, all rights were later extended to Catholics by later statutes....
And please notice that the gentlemen that penned the above did not pretend to grant these rights, or pretend that they existed at the pleasure of government, they are merely vindicating ancient rights already in existence.....
Again I say, rights are given at the pleasure of the government of the day. As Colpy noted this one already exists in common law and codified in the English Bill of Rights which makes up part of our constitution (sorry I made a typo regarding the year, it was in fact 1689). The fact that the US codified it in their constitution to only make it stronger did not make it impenetrible; many states, counties, and cities restricted or banned certain or all firearms within their jurisdiction. Their fight is still ongoing. We are not importing the standards of the US, they are using the standards of the British Commonwealth.
The people who want you registered are the ones who want to control you, they know they cannot control the criminals, It is us they want control over, open your eyes. The fact that our freedom to own arms has not been recently codified in our constitution may work to our advantage, provided we still are governed under English Common Law.
Do you know what happened 160 years ago this SPRING... back in 1850?
• California became a state
• The people of California had no electricity.
• The state had no money.
• Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
• There were gunfights in the streets.
So basically nothing has changed.
• California became a state
• The people of California had no electricity.
• The state had no money.
• Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
• There were gunfights in the streets.
So basically nothing has changed.
Then why did you answer my question ; "You don't think a lot of long gun owners feel free enough to keep them? " with the following reply?