Ten Paces then DRAW!

[I think not]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

I don't think it comparable.

Do governments keep list of people who are diabetic? I don't know. I thought your doctor kept a file on you.

OK, how about this, keeping a list of gun owners in Canada (let's say 5 million?) would require the government an impossible number of resources to confiscate all the guns required, if the government was up to something. And even if they were, everybody would know about it. So I really don't see any problem with a registry in terms of rights violations.

 

[Jay]

They will go about it slowly. You have X gun, and the left leaning government decides this is just too much, so they ban the weapon. They know who has them. If they aren’t turned in, there are confiscated.

The government decides they don't like X person for their politics, X person has their guns confiscated.




"The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America...."

http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm



You gotta love the JPFO.

 

[I think not]

Everybody just loves equating everything to Hitler, the personification of evil.

 

[Jay]

Well, in this case it is applicable. With the amount of people who don't understand the issue, we have to speak in low common denominators.

 

[Colpy]

All this hype about the gun registry in Canada, if you register a gun, doesn't that mean you basically have the right to bear arms?
You can't walk out of a gun shop in the US without a background check anyway. So I see no "practical" difference.

The registry is simply useless.

Imagine what would have to happen for the registry to solve a crime. The criminal would have to use a gun registered to himself (or someone close), and he would have to leave it at the scene of the crime. This simply doesn't happen. I don't think the registry has solved a single crime. So why spend $2 Billion?

Usually pro-control people at this point in the argument claim the registry is to make people keep their guns safe. I usually make the point that if that wasthe governments concern, they could have bought every Canadian gun owner an 8 gun safe, and spent less than half the money.

The problem with the Firearms Act is;

It removes your right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

It uses reverse onus in a number of places, i.e. you are considered guilty unless you prove yourself innocent.

You can get two years for refusing to answer a question put to you by an official searching your house. So much for your right to remain silent.

I always consider open and easy gun ownership to be the "canary in the mine". When governments start making it difficult to own guns, all your rights are at risk, and it may be time to stock up on ammunition.

 

[I think not]

The problem with the Firearms Act is;

It removes your right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

It uses reverse onus in a number of places, i.e. you are considered guilty unless you prove yourself innocent.

You can get two years for refusing to answer a question put to you by an official searching your house. So much for your right to remain silent.

I always consider open and easy gun ownership to be the "canary in the mine". When governments start making it difficult to own guns, all your rights are at risk, and it may be time to stock up on ammunition.

OK, I wasn't aware of The Firearms Act. Nevermind then.

 

[Jay]

"I always consider open and easy gun ownership to be the "canary in the mine". When governments start making it difficult to own guns, all your rights are at risk, and it may be time to stock up on ammunition."


Well put, Colpy.

 

[I think not]

I've trying to find a link on The Firearms Act, anybody know where I can find it? I have interest in it. Thanks.

 

[Jay]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/

 

[I think not]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/

Thanks.

 

[zenfisher]

We register vehicles, we register for building permits, we register for licences, we register pets...we register for almost everything...why should guns be any different?

If your guns a registered and stolen and are used in a crime and you report it....It takes you off the suspect list. That is an advantage to registration. It also gives the police a heads up ...if a burglary in progress is reported at your home.

How many innocent people have to end up in wheelchairs, or permanently lose use of there arms or end up in a pine box ? ...Just so you can own an assault rifle. Unreasonable search and seizure ...a lawyer can deal with. A lifelong disability, which in many cases is inoperable just places more burden on the social,medical and econmic system.

Colpy you suggested trying to get the act change a while ago. There is a far more effective tool. I think the insurance companies raising the rates of those homeowners chosing to have guns is a far more effective process.

 

[Colpy]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/

Thanks.

What you are looking for is the section on inspection.

You will notice as you read down that judges are instructed to give out warrants for houses if the owner does not allow the "inspector" (always a police officer) to enter.

As no crime has been committed, and there is no reason to believe there is evidence of a crime on the premises, this is unreasonable search.

You will also notice, as you read down, that the owner is required to give information to the inspector,

AND that failure to do so can lead to a 2 year jail sentence.

 

[zenfisher]

And a bullet can do a lifetime of damage.

 

[Colpy]

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Reverend Blair]

No point trying to reason with him, Zen.

 

[zenfisher]

But registering your guns isn't giving up liberty. You accuse the Rev of avoiding the issue...sheesh he could take lessons form you. Maybe you should go out and talkto someone who has been shot...not in the line of duty, but minding their own business. No real reason just cause they were there.

Whoever wishes to quickly afford protection
To Himself and others
Should practise the holy secret:
The exchanging of self for others. - The Tibetan Book of the Dead

Or....

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky
How many years must one man have
Before he can hear people cry
How many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind - Bob Dylan