Ten Paces then DRAW!

[peapod]

Thats because you can actually think now and than mike and lets face it...the boys in red...well they always get their man..even if they are innocent :?

 

[MMMike]

Thats because you can actually think now and than mike and lets face it...the boys in red...well they always get their man..even if they are innocent :?

Now and then???? :twisted:

 

[Colpy]

Now you're speaking my language.

I'm a gun owner.

I carry a gun every day at work, and I am at risk from an armed criminal element. (I work as an armoured car guard)

A few years ago, I was President of a local gun club. Iknow literally hundreds of gun owners.

They largely ignore gun laws. Now, I'm not talking about Jamaican gang members here. I'm talking doctors, university profs, labourers, military people, armed professionals, bankers, and yes, even peace officers.

The gun registry is a complete waste. I doubt even 70% of the guns held by Canadians are registered. And...one has to deal with the bureaucracy to realize how truly brain-dead the whole concept is.

Tougher gun laws won't touch the real criminal element. All they will do is force the courts to apply mandatory minimums to middle-aged curmudgeons fed up with government intrusion into their lives. Most of these guys have NOT registered all their guns. Nor are they any threat to society.

Add to that that the current laws are a violation of many of our rights, and it becomes even clearer that ONE dollar was too much to spend on C-68.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Add to that that the current laws are a violation of many of our rights, and it becomes even clearer that ONE dollar was too much to spend on C-68.

Which of your rights are violated, Colby?

 

[Colpy]

The Firearms Act allows the police to come in and "inspect" (read search) a gun owner's home simply because he owns more than 10 legal guns. If he refuses, judges are instructed to issue a warrant. Search with no evidence of a crime is a violation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The Firearms Act requires anyone being searched to offer all aid and assistance, including information, to those carrying out the search. That is a violation of the right to remain silent.

The Firearms Act uses reverse onus in several clauses. In other words, if accused of an offense under the clauses, the gun owner is required to prove himself innocent. This is a violation of the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The licensing provisions require a gun owner answer several questions, including questions on job loss, divorce, and mental illness. The office of the Privacy Commissioner has found these to be a violation of the right to privacy.

I haven't argued this issue with anyone in a couple of years. There are other violations, but I'd have to go back and read the damn act again to pick them out. The loss ofv the right to be free from ureasonable search, and the right to remain silent are the most glaring offenses.

 

[missile]

I have always said that any person should be able to own any amount and type of firearms they desire,but,under no circumstances,should they be allowed ammunition.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The Firearms Act allows the police to come in and "inspect" (read search) a gun owner's home simply because he owns more than 10 legal guns. If he refuses, judges are instructed to issue a warrant.

So basically they need a warrant.

The Firearms Act uses reverse onus in several clauses. In other words, if accused of an offense under the clauses, the gun owner is required to prove himself innocent. This is a violation of the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

What offenses are those? Having their gun used in the commission of a crime. Improper storage. Not legally registering a weapon. Owning an illegal weapon.

They are given their day in court. They are considered innocent until proven guilty.

The licensing provisions require a gun owner answer several questions, including questions on job loss, divorce, and mental illness. The office of the Privacy Commissioner has found these to be a violation of the right to privacy.

Those are all factors that have led to shootings on a fairly regular basis. You aren't registering to by a child's toy here, you are buying a machine that is designed to kill.

The loss ofv the right to be free from ureasonable search, and the right to remain silent are the most glaring offenses.

Owning a machine designed to kill puts you at risk of being searched. There is no loss of the right to remain silent.

 

[Colpy]

Wow! How typical of the left.

Individual rights can be dismissed with a casual wave of the hand; " Ah fear not peasants, trust your government to take care of you. These individual rights are unimportant things........."

If judges are INSTRUCTED TO issue a warrant in a case were no crime has been committed, that most definitely IS search without reasonable cause.

You cavalierly dismiss the loss of the right to remain silent. Under the Firearms Act, you can get two years in prison for refusing to answer a question. Please explain how that is NOT a loss of the right to remain silent.

Yes, I believe improper storage is one place reverse onus is used. Also possesion without a license. How can you say the right to be presumed innocent is not violated when one is REQUIRED to prove their innocence, as opposed to the state being required to prove their guilt?

Reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime, and reasonable cause to believe evidence pertaining to that crime is on my property is reason to submit to search. Ownership of perfectly legal devices is no reason to search.

 

[Andygal]

Yes, I believe improper storage is one place reverse onus is used. Also possesion without a license. How can you say the right to be presumed innocent is not violated when one is REQUIRED to prove their innocence, as opposed to the state being required to prove their guilt?

Persumably if you have a liscence you will produce it when asked for it. If you do not produce it then it is reasonable to assume that you don't have a liscence.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Try this, Colpy. The next time you get pulled over refuse to produce your driver's license.

If you refuse the police entry into a house to check that your firearms are being stored securely, then you have created reasonable cause to suspect that they are not.

Would you refuse access to a building inspector after doing renovations? If you do, you will find that your insurance will be cancelled and the police will come back to force you to admit the inspector.

Your objections are spurious distortions too. I know many people with guns. The cops don't come around to do inspections. The only person I know who has been charged with illegal storage had the cops there for another reason. They became concerned when they realized he had a shotgun stored in the open rafters on an unattached garage. Go figure.

 

[Colpy]

The argument you make on licencing almost makes sense. And you are correct, the police are hardly going door-to-door.

Your argument on unreasonable search is nonsensical. If my attempt to exercise my right to be free from seach negates that right, then the right never existed. Your argument is double-think in the grandest Orwellian tradition.

One must remain vigilant in defense of rights. The problem is not that the police are doing door-to-door searches, it is that they COULD legally do door-to-door searches.

I notice you conveniently dropped the "right to remain silent" thing.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I dropped the right to remain silent thing because I wanted to check on it. I talked to a lawyer I know a bit. You've misrepresented that as well. There is no automatic two year penalty unless you are found to have been covering up a crime.

You have no right to remain free from search if the police or courts find reasonable grounds to suspect that you have committed a crime. If you don't like that, then you are free to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The gun lobby is hugely wealthy. I'm sure that if they thought you had a case they would be more than willing to pay the legal costs.

 

[Tresson]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Yep, at least here in Oklahoma. Don't you just love freedom.

Especially when a guy thinks his wife cheating him and goes out buys a gun and then shoots his wife that sameday.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Now you're speaking my language.

I'm a gun owner.

I carry a gun every day at work, and I am at risk from an armed criminal element. (I work as an armoured car guard)

A few years ago, I was President of a local gun club. Iknow literally hundreds of gun owners.

They largely ignore gun laws. Now, I'm not talking about Jamaican gang members here. I'm talking doctors, university profs, labourers, military people, armed professionals, bankers, and yes, even peace officers.

The gun registry is a complete waste. I doubt even 70% of the guns held by Canadians are registered. And...one has to deal with the bureaucracy to realize how truly brain-dead the whole concept is.

Tougher gun laws won't touch the real criminal element. All they will do is force the courts to apply mandatory minimums to middle-aged curmudgeons fed up with government intrusion into their lives. Most of these guys have NOT registered all their guns. Nor are they any threat to society.

Add to that that the current laws are a violation of many of our rights, and it becomes even clearer that ONE dollar was too much to spend on C-68.

Excellent points Colpy. I have always said that the criminal would rejoice at the day when we ban gun ownership from all civilians. Nowadays the average criminal always needs to be on the lookout when committing an armed crime since any civilian who happens to be carrying his gun could very well intervene and put a stop to it.

Here in Oklahoma we don't waste any taxpayer money on uselsss gun registries that the criminal will simply laugh at. Nor do we have gun licensing (unless wanting to conceal your weapon). State law even allows us to bring our guns to work and leave them in our vehicles while at work. I have made use of this law on numerous occassions. This saves the time of having to drive back home to pick up the gun before heading to the shooting range after work. Yep, we don't penalize the law abidng here. As long as you're no criminal you may legally own and carry a firearm. Some places like public libraries require that you check in your gun at the front desk before entering. A reasonable requirement seeing as there are many children in the library. However, most fast food restaurants, department stores and shopping centers allow carrying non-concealed guns (ie holstered).

The gun I use most is my treasured glock 19 (9mm). It is my choice of preference of 9mm's. I've also owned a .45 (glock 21), but prefer the 9mm.

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

...I agree, why go after long gun owners or even law abiding gun owners at all.....I mean how many homicides in Canada are the result of a legal gun owner killing someone else......very very low...almost all gun murders and most crimes come from stolen weapons...the Liberal govern't should be ashamed of this registry... look at the record gun crimes in Toronto......what has this registry done to curb the violence there.... bunch of swine these Liberals are...

I being a new Canadian...have registered all my guns as I have brought most of them in from another country.... but I know soo many people who have not registered their guns here.....it is just a dumb idea.... almost 90% of gun owners would agree with this statement....heck I know a guy who has buried an arsenal of weapons in his back yard because he is worried the government is coming to take his guns away.......hes a nutty guy though.

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

...and we think that the Liberals are insane when it come to the gun registry, can you imagine what the NDP would do if they ever got into power (not that they ever will)........ these idiots would probably require us to store guns at the local police station....and ration ammo...buch of idiots these people are.....well at least it is comforting to know that these people will never win an election.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Wow! How typical of the left.

ahem ... Colpy ... over here. I find the majority of right wing policy borders on criminal. The old reform party was nothing if not a bunch of biggotted hate mongerers and they've carried their poison into the conservatives. By your measure, I imagine I'm probably a dyed in the wool leftard.

But do not assume there is anything "typical" about individuals. As much as it pains me to agree with you on anything, I completely support what you are saying about gun laws. I understand what you are referring to and believe that disarming the people is a huge step toward controlling them. Good ole Hitler knew that technique and applied it to great advantage ... a lot of his "searches and confiscations" of the homes of Jewish people were based on gun laws.

History bears out a tried and true pattern. Governments who have oppression on the agenda tax people beyond their ability to pay (check), disarm them (check), and legislate against them (check). Makes me damn nervous, I'll tell ya.

The fact that I am not allowed to own a family heirloom .22 with a gorgeous carved butt once owned by my grandfather simply because I refuse to leap through burning hoops is absurd. The last thing I'd be using a .22 rifle for is nefarious purposes. Not exactly a "stick in yer pocket" kind of protection. It does have a great deal of sentimental meaning to me, tho.

The people who are going to misbehave with their weapons are hardly the ones who will register firearms. I know ... I used to run with a crowd that not only carried hand guns but were willing to use them, and not a registered gun in the bunch. On the other hand, another friend of mine was a collector of all kinds of weapons (which I'm sure he's lawfully registered) and he would have been the last person in the world to shoot anyone. Who do you think presented the social problem here??

Instead of worrying about who's got a gun, I think the government would do better to put that money into addressing the issue of teen welfare. It's easier for them to have a baby than it is for them to drive a car or carry a gun. Addressing that would serve the social well being much further than worrying about guns. Then again, it wouldn't empower the government but would empower the people, so I don't expect a change anytime soon.

Open yer mind a bit, Colpy. The Rev and I have spent a lot of time discussing this and have never reached agreement, but we both hang out on the left side of the street. Don't be running around tarring everyone with the same brush. I do try to get to know the right leaning folks here on an individual basis and have found that despite their political leanings many of them are fine on an individual basis.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

...and we think that the Liberals are insane when it come to the gun registry, can you imagine what the NDP would do if they ever got into power (not that they ever will)........ these idiots would probably require us to store guns at the local police station....and ration ammo...buch of idiots these people are.....well at least it is comforting to know that these people will never win an election.

Careful, Hank. I'm an NDPer at heart. The difference would be that the government might actually listen to what the people want if they get into power, rather than riding rough shod over them. Don't write them off without proof.

As for calling them "idiots" ... pretty poor manners on your part. Just because you don't agree with the politics, name calling doesn't elevate you above them. I find the right wing contingent a bunch of mindless drones marching in lock step to a regime that would do Hitler proud, but instead of throwing that around I take the time to get to know the individuals. I suggest you pick yourself up off the floor, end your little tantrum, and discuss this like an adult.

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

hey cosmo,

you are right...it's just that the lefties on this forum obviously attack the right people.... when we disagree with the same tone as we are kicked off the forum....no jokes it has happened twice with me....can you say admin abuse.....but I know it wasen't you cosmo :wink:

 

[Cosmo]

hey cosmo,

you are right...it's just that the lefties on this forum obviously attack the right people.... when we disagree with the same tone as we are kicked off the forum....no jokes it has happened twice with me....can you say admin abuse.....but I know it wasen't you cosmo :wink:

Hank ... I hate discussing this in open forum but you initiated it.

FYI ... It wasn't me that banned you, Hank, but I voted against letting you back in. I was outvoted by the mods and Pea is the one who unbanned you. I find your constant ill temper and comments like "admin abuse" tiresome.

Attacks go both ways. As a mod, I just try to stop the hair pulling. I really don't care who started it or whose fault it is, I just want people to act like they've graduated the sandbox while they're here. Don't mistake my gentle reminder as an endorsement of your behaviour in general.

Cosmo / moderator