tsk tsk ..... now where have I seen that before :roll: :roll: :roll: man you guys are so bad at this :roll:
The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Yeah well car thieves don't register their cars so we should get rid of vehicle registration!!
Vehicle registration doesn't stop accidents, so we should get rid of it for that reason too...it's a big waste of money!!
Nascar_James said:
Yeah well car thieves don't register their cars so we should get rid of vehicle registration!!
Vehicle registration doesn't stop accidents, so we should get rid of it for that reason too...it's a big waste of money!!
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Whether I am opposed to gun registration is a moot point, because as I pointed out, we had gun registration prior to this piece of legislation. Therefore, my premise is we did not then, nor do not need now the present legislation. Same as car registration, as was pointed out on another response. It is here, so live with it.
What I truly get upset over, besides the redundancy of this legislation, is that the initial cost was to be two million, and is now approaching or over two billion, with no justification for this by anyone in power. There are no grand statistics to prove this works.
In that regard, I was in a doctors office today and happened across a May, 1996 (yes, 1996) Readers Digest article where this topic was discussed. Some information and stats jumped out at me. As you know, Allan Rock was the one who brought this registry in, and he is quoted as saying: "The only people in Canada who should have guns are police and soldiers". Nice theory, but who told the criminals? The article also stated that why should Allan Rocks vision of Canada be one forced upon the rest of Canada, especially for those who did not hold with his very leftist vision?
The stats that are interesting were that, between 1992 and 1996, a woman was shot, not killed, once every six days. In contrast, a woman died every nineteen minutes due to various cancers. In fact, more women died in car accidents and by falling down stairs on an annual basis than were killed by guns. If the intent of the legislation was to prevent the death of women, which has been given as the reason by many, especially on this forum, then why were gun deaths, which were at least fourth on the list of deaths of women, given the most money and attention? Surely the two billion could have been spent better on, say, breast cancer research which kills thousands of women every year, as opposed to the under 100 deaths per year to women caused by guns? And before anyone goes down my throat, it is not my intention to marginalize those deaths. One is two too many, but the point about the differences is valid.
These are reasons I am opposed to this legislation. I am not fundamentally opposed to the regulations for gun control that were already in place when this legislation was introduced, but this new legislation did and does nothing the previous legislation already did, and cost billions of dollars. Waste of time, waste of money. Either that, or it is another Adscam type of thing.
TenPenny said:
Whether I am opposed to gun registration is a moot point, because as I pointed out, we had gun registration prior to this piece of legislation. Therefore, my premise is we did not then, nor do not need now the present legislation. Same as car registration, as was pointed out on another response. It is here, so live with it.
What I truly get upset over, besides the redundancy of this legislation, is that the initial cost was to be two million, and is now approaching or over two billion, with no justification for this by anyone in power. There are no grand statistics to prove this works.
In that regard, I was in a doctors office today and happened across a May, 1996 (yes, 1996) Readers Digest article where this topic was discussed. Some information and stats jumped out at me. As you know, Allan Rock was the one who brought this registry in, and he is quoted as saying: "The only people in Canada who should have guns are police and soldiers". Nice theory, but who told the criminals? The article also stated that why should Allan Rocks vision of Canada be one forced upon the rest of Canada, especially for those who did not hold with his very leftist vision?
The stats that are interesting were that, between 1992 and 1996, a woman was shot, not killed, once every six days. In contrast, a woman died every nineteen minutes due to various cancers. In fact, more women died in car accidents and by falling down stairs on an annual basis than were killed by guns. If the intent of the legislation was to prevent the death of women, which has been given as the reason by many, especially on this forum, then why were gun deaths, which were at least fourth on the list of deaths of women, given the most money and attention? Surely the two billion could have been spent better on, say, breast cancer research which kills thousands of women every year, as opposed to the under 100 deaths per year to women caused by guns? And before anyone goes down my throat, it is not my intention to marginalize those deaths. One is two too many, but the point about the differences is valid.
These are reasons I am opposed to this legislation. I am not fundamentally opposed to the regulations for gun control that were already in place when this legislation was introduced, but this new legislation did and does nothing the previous legislation already did, and cost billions of dollars. Waste of time, waste of money. Either that, or it is another Adscam type of thing.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Gun registration is here, but we don't want to live with it.
Car registration is here, but we have to live with it.
Could you be slightly more clear?????????
Musicman said:
Gun registration is here, but we don't want to live with it.
Car registration is here, but we have to live with it.
Could you be slightly more clear?????????
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
No, gun registration is not here. In Oklahoma, you do not need to register your firearm and you also do not need to obtain any license (unless you want to conceal your gun). In these parts, freedom still prevails.
TenPenny said:
No, gun registration is not here. In Oklahoma, you do not need to register your firearm and you also do not need to obtain any license (unless you want to conceal your gun). In these parts, freedom still prevails.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Yeah...unless you happen to look somewhat, kinda, sorta funny lookin'...then they'll rendition your ass and protection of your right to be tortured in private prevails... :roll:
Nascar_James said:
Yeah...unless you happen to look somewhat, kinda, sorta funny lookin'...then they'll rendition your ass and protection of your right to be tortured in private prevails... :roll:
Nascar_James said:
I've never understood how anyone can equate possession of a firearm with freedom anyway...that's just so pheckin' stupid...
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
If we could go back in time and eliminate it, yes it would be a good way to save some tax dollars.
The US government had decided long ago to implement vehicle registration. Since 1921, all states required vehicle registration of some sort. Back then the registration fee varied from $1 to $2 dollars. Registration and license fees were viewed as a major source of revenue for highway purposes. Until 1929, these sources provided the major share of revenue derived from highway users.
So as I have mentioned earlier, vehicle registration was started for the sole purpose of the goverment having another excuse for collecting more money from it's citizens.
You can read the history of vehicle registration on the link which follows (see the "Vehicle Registration" section).
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
Vanni Fucci said:
If we could go back in time and eliminate it, yes it would be a good way to save some tax dollars.
The US government had decided long ago to implement vehicle registration. Since 1921, all states required vehicle registration of some sort. Back then the registration fee varied from $1 to $2 dollars. Registration and license fees were viewed as a major source of revenue for highway purposes. Until 1929, these sources provided the major share of revenue derived from highway users.
So as I have mentioned earlier, vehicle registration was started for the sole purpose of the goverment having another excuse for collecting more money from it's citizens.
You can read the history of vehicle registration on the link which follows (see the "Vehicle Registration" section).
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
Vanni Fucci said:
Well, if you eliminate gun ownership for private citizens, then only the police and criminals will have guns. This gives a hell of an advantage to the criminal and the average citizen is powerless. We should all be free to defend ourselves against any criminal with whatever force is required.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
No such thing. We are not living in a third world country here. Everyone is given due process.
Vanni Fucci said:
No such thing. We are not living in a third world country here. Everyone is given due process.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
That's a load of bullshit and you know it... :roll:
What due process was there for Jose Padilla?
Nascar_James said:
That's a load of bullshit and you know it... :roll:
What due process was there for Jose Padilla?
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Really slow now:
1. We had regulations regarding the ownership of handguns and rifles before Bill C68 which Allan Rock brought in. Not many reasonable people had serious problems with this, and most thought this was satisfactory. Given the very low incidents of death by guns in Canada, they were probably right.
2. C68 was brought in for one reason only. A political reaction to a horrible event by one lone idiot. The legislation did and does nothing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
3. So, we had gun registration which we could live with, but C-68 is costly and ineffective and is something we could live without, given the previous regulations.
4. Car registration is here. Live with it.
Clear enough?
TenPenny said:
Really slow now:
1. We had regulations regarding the ownership of handguns and rifles before Bill C68 which Allan Rock brought in. Not many reasonable people had serious problems with this, and most thought this was satisfactory. Given the very low incidents of death by guns in Canada, they were probably right.
2. C68 was brought in for one reason only. A political reaction to a horrible event by one lone idiot. The legislation did and does nothing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
3. So, we had gun registration which we could live with, but C-68 is costly and ineffective and is something we could live without, given the previous regulations.
4. Car registration is here. Live with it.
Clear enough?
You're splitting hairs. We had gun registration, but the new gun registration is bad....but since we don't like the new gun registration, it's wrong, whereas we've had car registration for a long time, so it's okay.
Whatever. Have a nice Harper life.
Whatever. Have a nice Harper life.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Perhaps a case of remedial understanding is in order for you.
Simply put (just for you), C68 was not required because we already had gun registration. We did not need more. And yes, because we had gun registration for quite some time (handguns since the 1930's) it was okay. What is not okay is a redundant piece of legislation that had no improvements over the previous regulations regarding gun ownership, and which cost two billion instead of two million.
Of course, if you would like someone to give you a quote for a house at $150,000.00 and then present you with a bill for $15,000,000.00 which you pay without question, then I can understand why you have no problem with C68.
And you, too, have a nice Liberal math way of life. :roll: :roll: :roll:
TenPenny said:
Perhaps a case of remedial understanding is in order for you.
Simply put (just for you), C68 was not required because we already had gun registration. We did not need more. And yes, because we had gun registration for quite some time (handguns since the 1930's) it was okay. What is not okay is a redundant piece of legislation that had no improvements over the previous regulations regarding gun ownership, and which cost two billion instead of two million.
Of course, if you would like someone to give you a quote for a house at $150,000.00 and then present you with a bill for $15,000,000.00 which you pay without question, then I can understand why you have no problem with C68.
And you, too, have a nice Liberal math way of life. :roll: :roll: :roll:
I had posted this earlier from a May, 1996 copy of the Readers Digest which had an article about gun control, just when Allan Rock was bringing in C68. However, my posts were not formatted correctly, and may have been missed. So, here it is again.
There were stats in that article as follows:
The stats that are interesting were that, between 1992 and 1996, a woman was shot, not killed, once every six days. In contrast, a woman died every nineteen minutes due to various cancers. In fact, more women died in car accidents and by falling down stairs on an annual basis than were killed by guns. If the intent of the legislation was to prevent the death of women, which has been given as the reason by many, especially on this forum, then why were gun deaths, which were at least fourth on the list of deaths of women, given the most money and attention? Surely the two billion could have been spent better on, say, breast cancer research which kills thousands of women every year, as opposed to the under 100 deaths per year to women caused by guns? And before anyone goes down my throat, it is not my intention to marginalize those deaths. One is two too many, but the point about the differences is valid.
There were stats in that article as follows:
The stats that are interesting were that, between 1992 and 1996, a woman was shot, not killed, once every six days. In contrast, a woman died every nineteen minutes due to various cancers. In fact, more women died in car accidents and by falling down stairs on an annual basis than were killed by guns. If the intent of the legislation was to prevent the death of women, which has been given as the reason by many, especially on this forum, then why were gun deaths, which were at least fourth on the list of deaths of women, given the most money and attention? Surely the two billion could have been spent better on, say, breast cancer research which kills thousands of women every year, as opposed to the under 100 deaths per year to women caused by guns? And before anyone goes down my throat, it is not my intention to marginalize those deaths. One is two too many, but the point about the differences is valid.
Ceremonies mark 16 years since Montreal Massacre
A teaser:
MONTREAL — As Canadians paused Tuesday to remember the victims of the country's worst mass shooting, the sister of one of the 14 women who were killed said she hopes tougher gun laws will become an issue in the federal election.
Catherine Bergeron said a lot has been done to tighten gun laws since her sister Genevieve was slain in gunman Marc Lepine's rampage at the University of Montreal's engineering school on Dec. 6, 1989, but more is needed.
"I think it's an important message that all the politicians get, that it's an important law,'' she said at a commemorative service to remember the slain women. [/teaser]
That is why we need a Gun Registry or Gun control.
I too hope we have tougher gun laws and tougher penalties for people who use guns in crimes.
I believe the Gun Registry was and still is a good idea, but it was not well thought out and cost a lot more money by far. It needs to be revamped and made tougher.
A teaser:
MONTREAL — As Canadians paused Tuesday to remember the victims of the country's worst mass shooting, the sister of one of the 14 women who were killed said she hopes tougher gun laws will become an issue in the federal election.
Catherine Bergeron said a lot has been done to tighten gun laws since her sister Genevieve was slain in gunman Marc Lepine's rampage at the University of Montreal's engineering school on Dec. 6, 1989, but more is needed.
"I think it's an important message that all the politicians get, that it's an important law,'' she said at a commemorative service to remember the slain women. [/teaser]
That is why we need a Gun Registry or Gun control.
I too hope we have tougher gun laws and tougher penalties for people who use guns in crimes.
I believe the Gun Registry was and still is a good idea, but it was not well thought out and cost a lot more money by far. It needs to be revamped and made tougher.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
Carrying guns has become trendy, Vancouver police fear
A teaser:
Vancouver police say they're worried that packing a handgun appears to have become an "in" thing among young men with minimal gang or criminal connections.
They've seen an increase in gun seizures and shootings, a spokesperson said on Tuesday.
The warning followed the city's latest shooting death, when Lee Matasi was killed outside a Vancouver nightclub over the weekend. [/teaser]
Well another reason to legalize drugs as I am sure these guns are being exchanged for drugs going down to the states and are used to protect drug caches and grow ops.
Carrying guns has become trendy, Vancouver police fear
A teaser:
Vancouver police say they're worried that packing a handgun appears to have become an "in" thing among young men with minimal gang or criminal connections.
They've seen an increase in gun seizures and shootings, a spokesperson said on Tuesday.
The warning followed the city's latest shooting death, when Lee Matasi was killed outside a Vancouver nightclub over the weekend. [/teaser]
Well another reason to legalize drugs as I am sure these guns are being exchanged for drugs going down to the states and are used to protect drug caches and grow ops.
I agree that the current gun registry has not been run effectively or efficiently, however I think the existent of such program is merited. Canadians have no problem and don't think twice about registering their cars, pets and themselves, why is the thought of registering a device whose sole purpose is to kill or cause bodily harm to people or animals so preposterous?
Why do people not want the government to know it has guns and how many? I mean they know far more important information about you. The goal of the registry wasn’t to criminalize gun ownership; it was just to keep track of them.
The government knows that criminals won’t be registering their illegal guns from the States. I think guns ownership should be monitored at the very least. This isn’t the United States; there is no right to bear arms. In the end, has the existence of guns been overall beneficial to humankind? I think not!
Why do people not want the government to know it has guns and how many? I mean they know far more important information about you. The goal of the registry wasn’t to criminalize gun ownership; it was just to keep track of them.
The government knows that criminals won’t be registering their illegal guns from the States. I think guns ownership should be monitored at the very least. This isn’t the United States; there is no right to bear arms. In the end, has the existence of guns been overall beneficial to humankind? I think not!
