The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
This is BS.
There is no "right not to be shot"
There is never any "right to be free" from ANYTHING!!!
And it is not that we have not presented the evidence, it is that you refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't fit your lefty ivory-tower view of the world.
I'm gonna come back and chew up your Brady Centre argument in awhile. Gotta go now.
Reverend Blair said:
This is BS.
There is no "right not to be shot"
There is never any "right to be free" from ANYTHING!!!
And it is not that we have not presented the evidence, it is that you refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't fit your lefty ivory-tower view of the world.
I'm gonna come back and chew up your Brady Centre argument in awhile. Gotta go now.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
There is an human right to a reasonable expectation of safety of the person. That right is infringed on when the presence of guns takes away that expectation, Colpy.
Your rights do not trump mine.
By the way, since Harper said that he'd consider a handgun ban as well, doesn't that mean that you guys have to find somebody else to support? You wouldn't want to be hypocritical, after all.
There is an human right to a reasonable expectation of safety of the person. That right is infringed on when the presence of guns takes away that expectation, Colpy.
Your rights do not trump mine.
By the way, since Harper said that he'd consider a handgun ban as well, doesn't that mean that you guys have to find somebody else to support? You wouldn't want to be hypocritical, after all.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
True.
The question is whether the presense of guns infringes on that, and whether a ban would actually remove the guns that do infringe. That is what the whole argument is about.
One could easily argue that laws which deny me the tools to defend myself (a RIGHT) infringes on my "right to a reasonable expectation of safety of the person."
Yep.
He also voted for Bill C-68 (the Firearms Act) as he believed his constituents wanted it.
Scary, eh?
His constituents don't want this so-called handgun ban.
And I would hope my representatives would "consider" any proposal.
BTW, Rev. I'm interested in the militia/Ruby Ridge/Waco thing.
Have you read Gerry Spence's book From Freedom to Slavery?
It might open your eyes to what happened at Ruby Ridge. I went looking and could not find my copy, but you can read the first chapter at http://www.gerryspence.com/fromfreedom_chapter.html
True.
The question is whether the presense of guns infringes on that, and whether a ban would actually remove the guns that do infringe. That is what the whole argument is about.
One could easily argue that laws which deny me the tools to defend myself (a RIGHT) infringes on my "right to a reasonable expectation of safety of the person."
Yep.
He also voted for Bill C-68 (the Firearms Act) as he believed his constituents wanted it.
Scary, eh?
His constituents don't want this so-called handgun ban.
And I would hope my representatives would "consider" any proposal.
BTW, Rev. I'm interested in the militia/Ruby Ridge/Waco thing.
Have you read Gerry Spence's book From Freedom to Slavery?
It might open your eyes to what happened at Ruby Ridge. I went looking and could not find my copy, but you can read the first chapter at http://www.gerryspence.com/fromfreedom_chapter.html
This is legaleze. Taken out of context it means absolutely nothing. Lott's study was not MEANT to include every variable, it could not. All the study did was take crime and murder rates from every single county in the United States over 15 years, and compared them to the rates of gun ownership in the same counties.
Guess what? More Guns, Less Crime
Colpy said:
Situational variables do matter, though. Try taking a more 'international perspective' on this issue, and you'll find the conclusion is: More Guns, More Dead People
Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide; An International Perspective
Those variables matter very much, which is why Lott and others like hime try to leave all such variables out of any studies that they do. It's the same tact that the far right has taken on global warming and that the automakers used to counter Nader's work on automobile safety...they pick and choose data and then hope that the average person doesn't notice what they are doing.
Switzerland - population 6 million
- # of publicly owned firearms - 2 million!
this includes approx. 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols;
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
- in addition there are few restrictions on buying guns;
- the government even sells off surplus firearms to citizens when new weapons are introduced;
- violent crime is very rare;
- there are minimal controls on public buildings;
- politicians rarely have police protection;
- gun crime is so low that statistics are not even kept.
+++++
Dated 2003. Recent firearms regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer either:
-The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again;
-Over the past 6 years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase; robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise with armed robbery increasing 166% nationwide.
In contrast, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990’s.
+++++
A ban on all private ownership of handguns in Gresat Britain became law in November 1997. Based on factual research conducted in Great Britain since 1997, consider the following, all of which I have taken from the internet almost word for word. I take no credit for the hard work of others.
A study released in July 2001 by researchers at King’s College in London found “The use of handguns in crimes rose 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned.” The study also found that “It’s crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place. Policymakers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tightening laws, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. The study concluded that Britain’s experiment with gun prohibition has followed the same path as other government attempts at prohibition. Ever since guns were banned, every criminal has seen the merit of having one. In contrast, the U.S. has among the world’s lowest ‘hot’ burglary rates - defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building - at 13%. Compare that rate with GUN-FREE Great Britain’s rate, which is now up to 59%.
It’s logical. An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars NOT to enter an occupied building was “I might get shot.”
“Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they’re not crazy enough to hurry the trip.”
“In June 2003 a CBS News report labelled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world”.
BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime in 1998 to the present (2001).” Statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs found that crime in Great Britain in 2001 was at epidemic levels, 60% higher per capita than in the U.S.”
Since the ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in 1997, handgun offences have risen each year since then. Overall, violent crime has spiked since that act of parliament.
A word of caution. It would be simplistic and dangerous to place all of the blame for this crime wave on the 1997 handgun ban. But it certainly has not “ended violent crime” as its supporters predicted. Illegal guns continue to flood the country. Young hoodlums and career criminals have no problem obtaining the firepower they need.
British social policy analyst, Michael S. Brown, O.D., sums up his government’s gun-ban implications for future generations of Britons. “It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their rights to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control only goes on way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right of armed self defense.”
- # of publicly owned firearms - 2 million!
this includes approx. 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols;
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
- in addition there are few restrictions on buying guns;
- the government even sells off surplus firearms to citizens when new weapons are introduced;
- violent crime is very rare;
- there are minimal controls on public buildings;
- politicians rarely have police protection;
- gun crime is so low that statistics are not even kept.
+++++
Dated 2003. Recent firearms regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer either:
-The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again;
-Over the past 6 years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase; robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise with armed robbery increasing 166% nationwide.
In contrast, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990’s.
+++++
A ban on all private ownership of handguns in Gresat Britain became law in November 1997. Based on factual research conducted in Great Britain since 1997, consider the following, all of which I have taken from the internet almost word for word. I take no credit for the hard work of others.
A study released in July 2001 by researchers at King’s College in London found “The use of handguns in crimes rose 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned.” The study also found that “It’s crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place. Policymakers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tightening laws, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. The study concluded that Britain’s experiment with gun prohibition has followed the same path as other government attempts at prohibition. Ever since guns were banned, every criminal has seen the merit of having one. In contrast, the U.S. has among the world’s lowest ‘hot’ burglary rates - defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building - at 13%. Compare that rate with GUN-FREE Great Britain’s rate, which is now up to 59%.
It’s logical. An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars NOT to enter an occupied building was “I might get shot.”
“Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they’re not crazy enough to hurry the trip.”
“In June 2003 a CBS News report labelled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world”.
BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime in 1998 to the present (2001).” Statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs found that crime in Great Britain in 2001 was at epidemic levels, 60% higher per capita than in the U.S.”
Since the ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in 1997, handgun offences have risen each year since then. Overall, violent crime has spiked since that act of parliament.
A word of caution. It would be simplistic and dangerous to place all of the blame for this crime wave on the 1997 handgun ban. But it certainly has not “ended violent crime” as its supporters predicted. Illegal guns continue to flood the country. Young hoodlums and career criminals have no problem obtaining the firepower they need.
British social policy analyst, Michael S. Brown, O.D., sums up his government’s gun-ban implications for future generations of Britons. “It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their rights to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control only goes on way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right of armed self defense.”
I think they want to ban guns because they are afraid the public will soon say enough and start a revolution in this country.
We are the highest taxed population on earth and our government is the most corrupt per capita (# dollars stollen/citizen) on this or any other planet known to man.
This is the only reason they can have to ban citizens from arming themselves since there is no other known reason to do it based on all data avaiable on the results of gun control.
Law abiding citizen need six shots in the bullseye at 100 yards as their gun control.
We are the highest taxed population on earth and our government is the most corrupt per capita (# dollars stollen/citizen) on this or any other planet known to man.
This is the only reason they can have to ban citizens from arming themselves since there is no other known reason to do it based on all data avaiable on the results of gun control.
Law abiding citizen need six shots in the bullseye at 100 yards as their gun control.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
:lol: What? Michael S. Brown the 'social policy analyst' from keep and bear arms.com?
:roll:
If only we were all more like the Swiss, eh? :lol:
iamcanadian said:
:lol: What? Michael S. Brown the 'social policy analyst' from keep and bear arms.com?
:roll:
If only we were all more like the Swiss, eh? :lol:
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Answer - That is a ridiculous set of restrictions that do not reflect in anyway my previous postings. Did I say anything about "battled a State backed force to defeat" - no I didn't. I may have implied that resistence has usurped governments. Absolutely. Also never passed on the idea of "no outside source of weapons" either. you don't whittle rifles.
But to answer to this challenge. How about Bolivia last year. The Ukraine. Greece in 73. India. How about Cuba in 59. China. How about Iran in 79. South Africa. Kenya. The ouster of Amin from Uganda. The list is long and you can go do your own reading on such people as Henri Christophe who led the Haitian people against the French.
There comes a time in the history of nations that people get so oppressed that they must rise up against tyranny. In fact, it's the basic tenet in the Declaration of Independence. Some such usurpations are bloodier than others, but in most, the tipping point is when factions of the military start to ask themselves, 'why are we killing our own people?' and join the resistance.
pastafarian said:
Answer - That is a ridiculous set of restrictions that do not reflect in anyway my previous postings. Did I say anything about "battled a State backed force to defeat" - no I didn't. I may have implied that resistence has usurped governments. Absolutely. Also never passed on the idea of "no outside source of weapons" either. you don't whittle rifles.
But to answer to this challenge. How about Bolivia last year. The Ukraine. Greece in 73. India. How about Cuba in 59. China. How about Iran in 79. South Africa. Kenya. The ouster of Amin from Uganda. The list is long and you can go do your own reading on such people as Henri Christophe who led the Haitian people against the French.
There comes a time in the history of nations that people get so oppressed that they must rise up against tyranny. In fact, it's the basic tenet in the Declaration of Independence. Some such usurpations are bloodier than others, but in most, the tipping point is when factions of the military start to ask themselves, 'why are we killing our own people?' and join the resistance.
Here it is folks, from the National Post:
"Australia saw its crime rates rise 32% and its armed robbery rates rise 74% in the six years following the nation's adoption of tougher gun control in 1996"
That included a handgun ban, on which pattern Martin intends to base Canada's ban.
"........in 1996 Britain banned the sale of handguns. But 5 years after the ban, the number of crimes involving handguns had doubled, from 2,636 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002."
They didn't mention that Britain seized all handguns in private hands.
And these two places are islands, without the longest border in the world with the USA.
All this is simply harassment of good people to gain a vote or two in Toronto.
Martin is scum.
"Australia saw its crime rates rise 32% and its armed robbery rates rise 74% in the six years following the nation's adoption of tougher gun control in 1996"
That included a handgun ban, on which pattern Martin intends to base Canada's ban.
"........in 1996 Britain banned the sale of handguns. But 5 years after the ban, the number of crimes involving handguns had doubled, from 2,636 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002."
They didn't mention that Britain seized all handguns in private hands.
And these two places are islands, without the longest border in the world with the USA.
All this is simply harassment of good people to gain a vote or two in Toronto.
Martin is scum.
Registering guns and banning guns are two different things. That being said....I think it is obvious that the pro gun club have not met any innocent bystanders that have ever been shot and wounded. Nor do they seem to know anyone who has been killed by a bullet, at least not in a warzone. No one wants to take away your right to own guns. We just want to know what you have.
I know of a collector where I had lived in Canada. He was robbed three times. His guns did absolutely nothing to protect him from this. Now they are on the streets where they can harm innocent people.
I know of a collector where I had lived in Canada. He was robbed three times. His guns did absolutely nothing to protect him from this. Now they are on the streets where they can harm innocent people.
The gun registry is full of holes, just like the Liberal Party. I grew up with guns, guns are tools, nothing short. You cannot compare a ghetto and a country farm and come up with a solution. These are two different worlds bar none. Anti gang units, border protection, and more funds given to anti crime task forces are needed. To burden another law-abiding citizen with more rules and regulations, and the possiblity of having there house searched, is only going to breed animosity. (I wonder why there is such deep sediment against Ottawa?) You tax the poor to death, clamp down every regulation known to man, and treat the law abiding like criminals.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
I grew up with guns too and have no problem registering them, I may not like it, but I know why it is needed to be done.
The main problem people have with this issue is not loss of freedoms but how the cost over runs became so very high. As long as you have no criminal record you will get to keep, buy any rifle or shotgun you need. No big deal.
Why would you need a handgun on a farm anyways? Police, military and some security guards need them but other than that who does? No one.
I wonder how many "law abiding" citizens that have pistols have failed to register them? I would say quite a few.
I grew up with guns too and have no problem registering them, I may not like it, but I know why it is needed to be done.
The main problem people have with this issue is not loss of freedoms but how the cost over runs became so very high. As long as you have no criminal record you will get to keep, buy any rifle or shotgun you need. No big deal.
Why would you need a handgun on a farm anyways? Police, military and some security guards need them but other than that who does? No one.
I wonder how many "law abiding" citizens that have pistols have failed to register them? I would say quite a few.
This is not true.
Neither is this.
Who told you these things, iamcanadian? Whoever it was, you should stop listening to them because they are lying to you.
Henry said:
:lol:Keep and bear arms said:
Colpy said:
Nope. The revolutionary army had help from the French, including supplies of arms. I believe there were also German mercenaries fighting on both sides.
Gee, a right-wing newspaper spewing the same innaccurate numbers from the same twisted studies that you've already used. Sorry, doesn't work.
Riverbank erosion?
That reads like a how-to manual from the Republican/Conservative Party.
Reverend Blair said:
I learned these things from experience in Canada and elsewhere in the world from my travels to many (perceived more) corrupt countries than Canada.
You do the math...you will see I am right.
One scam in Canada can involves more money that an entire third world's effective economy.
When calculating your actual taxes, add up all forms of taxation and government user fees for public service of typical Canadians. Not just Income tax, which is less than all other taxes combined for the average Canadian family.