ya know all that money spent on gun control could really help in strengthing the economy, reducing poverty levels, enhancing education, supporting social programs and the like. i think if we focus on the root of crime, poverty, discrimination, lack of education, alienation from society, maybe there won't be people shooting each other in the streets. i think maybe the reason the liberals don't want to axe the registry is because it would be admitting they made a mistake.
The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
Martin to propose sweeping ban on handguns
A teaser:
In a radical move to combat gang violence in Canada's cities, Prime Minister Paul Martin will propose a ban on all handguns Thursday.
In Toronto, gunfire has killed 50 people so far this year. Martin is expected to make the announcement near the city's violence-plagued Jane-Finch area, at Brookview Middle School. [/teaser]
I say good and give this idea teo thumbs up.
A teaser:
In a radical move to combat gang violence in Canada's cities, Prime Minister Paul Martin will propose a ban on all handguns Thursday.
In Toronto, gunfire has killed 50 people so far this year. Martin is expected to make the announcement near the city's violence-plagued Jane-Finch area, at Brookview Middle School. [/teaser]
I say good and give this idea teo thumbs up.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Can Iget 5 years in prison if I don't register my dog or my car? Does the registration of 10 dogs or cars give the gov't the right to search my home on demand? No. In fact, if I live in a rural area, I don't have to register my dog, and if I don't drive my car on public roads, I don't have to register it, either.
Nor are the possession of dogs or cars recognized as an ancient right.
Wrong. Read the Bill of Rights of 1689. It recognizes the right to keep arms. It is part of English Common Law, and therefore of our law. Not only that, the document does not pretend to grant that right, it recognizes it as one that has existed from ancient times.
Do you like democracy? Freedom? Then historically firearms have been a very good thing.
Its like this. (very much simplified) With ancient edged weapons or the Welsh long bow the man-at-arms had to be a professional. It required an immense amount of time to learn the skill, and then to keep in shape and in practise. An average man did not have the time, he was to busy trying to feed himself. Therefore the only persons capable of expertise with weapons were nobility, or their hired men at arms. Once that expertise was aquired, one man could handle many, many peasants.
It is what made the fuedal system work. There were dozens of peasant revolts in Europe, all of which failed.
Then came firearms. I can teach you to hit a man at 50 yards in an hour. In a year, without practise, you can still do it.
The industrial revolution made guns cheap. Suddenly the advantage of the nobility disappeared.
The first battle of the first successful democratic revolution was fought when British troops went into the American countryside to seize guns. They failed.
Democracy and gunpowder are parallel developments.
Now the elite want to seize our arms.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Can Iget 5 years in prison if I don't register my dog or my car? Does the registration of 10 dogs or cars give the gov't the right to search my home on demand? No. In fact, if I live in a rural area, I don't have to register my dog, and if I don't drive my car on public roads, I don't have to register it, either.
Nor are the possession of dogs or cars recognized as an ancient right.
Wrong. Read the Bill of Rights of 1689. It recognizes the right to keep arms. It is part of English Common Law, and therefore of our law. Not only that, the document does not pretend to grant that right, it recognizes it as one that has existed from ancient times.
Do you like democracy? Freedom? Then historically firearms have been a very good thing.
Its like this. (very much simplified) With ancient edged weapons or the Welsh long bow the man-at-arms had to be a professional. It required an immense amount of time to learn the skill, and then to keep in shape and in practise. An average man did not have the time, he was to busy trying to feed himself. Therefore the only persons capable of expertise with weapons were nobility, or their hired men at arms. Once that expertise was aquired, one man could handle many, many peasants.
It is what made the fuedal system work. There were dozens of peasant revolts in Europe, all of which failed.
Then came firearms. I can teach you to hit a man at 50 yards in an hour. In a year, without practise, you can still do it.
The industrial revolution made guns cheap. Suddenly the advantage of the nobility disappeared.
The first battle of the first successful democratic revolution was fought when British troops went into the American countryside to seize guns. They failed.
Democracy and gunpowder are parallel developments.
Now the elite want to seize our arms.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
no1important said:Martin to propose sweeping ban on handguns
A teaser:
In a radical move to combat gang violence in Canada's cities, Prime Minister Paul Martin will propose a ban on all handguns Thursday.
In Toronto, gunfire has killed 50 people so far this year. Martin is expected to make the announcement near the city's violence-plagued Jane-Finch area, at Brookview Middle School. [/teaser]
I say good and give this idea teo thumbs up.
Explain to me, oh wise one, how seizing my 2 or 3 thousand dollars worth of handguns will solve street crime in Toronto..
I can not express how angry this makes me.
Warning: I have very little patience with those that support gun bans. I will be rude.
It's as if Martin were coming in through my bedroom window to rob me of not only my guns, but my rights.
And all the morons that "support" this are standing on the ground, giving him a boost
RE: The Gun Registry Must
Why do you need a handgun for Colpy? Unless you are in the military, a police constable or an armoured truck/car driver (this group should not be able to take them home or have in possesion off duty, only police or military should), you do not need one. Period.
Fortunatly it is really not a matter of "Constitution Rights" here like it is in crimeville (USA).
If you want a shotgun or rifle for hunting, take the course (I did) register them, pay the fee and you are on your way, provided you have no record.
For the record I do not believe anything that comes out of the NRA's mouth.
Why do you need a handgun for Colpy? Unless you are in the military, a police constable or an armoured truck/car driver (this group should not be able to take them home or have in possesion off duty, only police or military should), you do not need one. Period.
Fortunatly it is really not a matter of "Constitution Rights" here like it is in crimeville (USA).
If you want a shotgun or rifle for hunting, take the course (I did) register them, pay the fee and you are on your way, provided you have no record.
For the record I do not believe anything that comes out of the NRA's mouth.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
He doesn't need a handgun once he leaves work, No 1. His assertion that democracy and guns are somehow related ignores the reality of cheap, easily available weapons all over the planet. Guns end democracy, they don't start it.
He doesn't need a handgun once he leaves work, No 1. His assertion that democracy and guns are somehow related ignores the reality of cheap, easily available weapons all over the planet. Guns end democracy, they don't start it.
Colpy said:
You are right in that this new ban will not curtail gun violence in Toronto or any other major centre. However I do not agree with it. Hunting riles and guns are fine. But handguns, the only reason to have them is to hunt humans.
The average man, women and child do not need to have and carry a handgun. If I want to rob you, do you think that I will abstain because you have a handgun at home? No, it just means that I will have to bring my own better gun.
Rev, No1, dasFX
Can you guys READ!!
Yes, the possession of arms is a RIGHT under English Common Law.
Yes, security of property is a RIGHT under English Common Law.
Das FX especially, who admits this will not curtail gun violence: Do you understand even the SLIGHTEST thing about freedom? If the government wishes to do ANYTHING curtailing my freedom to do ANYTHING, the onus is on them to show that it will do real and demostrable good in society.
Not only that, it is possible to build a very strong case that taking weapons away from people actually encourages criminal activity with guns.
I can show you article after article after study after study that shows gun crime rises after the imposition of tough gun control. It has in Canada. Look at last years stats.
The solution? More of the same.
This is the most unthinking position, that of the anti-gunner.
What it comes down to is you don't give a crap about crime, or murder, or fear on the streets. You just want SOMEBODY to do SOMETHING to help you feel SOMETHING is being done.
Whether it works or not means nothing.
So absolutely typical of the leftist mindset. Usually I can tolerate it. Today, it makes me nauseous.
Guys, this is really, really stupid, on top of everything ELSE that is wrong with it.
Can you guys READ!!
Yes, the possession of arms is a RIGHT under English Common Law.
Yes, security of property is a RIGHT under English Common Law.
Das FX especially, who admits this will not curtail gun violence: Do you understand even the SLIGHTEST thing about freedom? If the government wishes to do ANYTHING curtailing my freedom to do ANYTHING, the onus is on them to show that it will do real and demostrable good in society.
Not only that, it is possible to build a very strong case that taking weapons away from people actually encourages criminal activity with guns.
I can show you article after article after study after study that shows gun crime rises after the imposition of tough gun control. It has in Canada. Look at last years stats.
The solution? More of the same.
This is the most unthinking position, that of the anti-gunner.
What it comes down to is you don't give a crap about crime, or murder, or fear on the streets. You just want SOMEBODY to do SOMETHING to help you feel SOMETHING is being done.
Whether it works or not means nothing.
So absolutely typical of the leftist mindset. Usually I can tolerate it. Today, it makes me nauseous.
Guys, this is really, really stupid, on top of everything ELSE that is wrong with it.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
The ban proposed today isn't a bad on the possession of arms, it is a ban on certain arms, handguns.
With all due respect, when these laws were written, arms meant a musket with maybe a bayonet, not automatic assault rifles and high powered hand guns.
Even hunters respect that that some firearms are simply not necessary. That is why you can't hunt deer with a machine gun.
Also, the laws then allowed people in rural and frontier like settings to defend themselves or hunt since it would take a couple days for the North West mounted police to arrive.
Did you know that under some of the old laws, one could keep slaves, women were not persons, we could tax immigrants based on their origin. Why did we reppeal these items? They were rights and freedom stripped away by the government.
If you want frontier style laws, then go move to Ellesmere island and fend for yourself like they did on the frontier. And I'll through in a musket with some flint.
Colpy said:
The ban proposed today isn't a bad on the possession of arms, it is a ban on certain arms, handguns.
With all due respect, when these laws were written, arms meant a musket with maybe a bayonet, not automatic assault rifles and high powered hand guns.
Even hunters respect that that some firearms are simply not necessary. That is why you can't hunt deer with a machine gun.
Also, the laws then allowed people in rural and frontier like settings to defend themselves or hunt since it would take a couple days for the North West mounted police to arrive.
Did you know that under some of the old laws, one could keep slaves, women were not persons, we could tax immigrants based on their origin. Why did we reppeal these items? They were rights and freedom stripped away by the government.
If you want frontier style laws, then go move to Ellesmere island and fend for yourself like they did on the frontier. And I'll through in a musket with some flint.
You did not address the question.
If this law will do no good, as you stated above, why do you approve of it?
Do you believe everything not mandatory should be prohibited?
If this law will do no good, as you stated above, why do you approve of it?
Do you believe everything not mandatory should be prohibited?
Colpy, shoot the jackbooted gun nazis down like dogs when they come for you. This is *censored* ridiculous. You lefties like to complain about 'creeping fascism' in the US, but welcome it with open arms right in your backyards. Just look at the numbers, the vast majority of handgun owners are law-abiding citizens. This ban will do nothing to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. They'll have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands!!
Ok, I don't have a gun, but maybe I'll go out and get one now!!
Ok, I don't have a gun, but maybe I'll go out and get one now!!
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
For the current situation in Toronto, this new law will not eliminate the problem as about 50% of the guns are brought in from the US and a ban would only cause more to come in. This new law will work if it is complimented with increased scrutiny at the boarder to stop the guns coming in.
I think this law is useful because average members of the public do not need handguns. So if people can’t have them then they can't be stolen, they can't be accessed accidentally by children and so on.
Why have something that is not necessary and potentially could be a liability. The sole purpose of a handgun is to shoot people; there is no other reason for them. Therefore, if they are not available, one would think that people won't get shot.
Colpy said:
For the current situation in Toronto, this new law will not eliminate the problem as about 50% of the guns are brought in from the US and a ban would only cause more to come in. This new law will work if it is complimented with increased scrutiny at the boarder to stop the guns coming in.
I think this law is useful because average members of the public do not need handguns. So if people can’t have them then they can't be stolen, they can't be accessed accidentally by children and so on.
Why have something that is not necessary and potentially could be a liability. The sole purpose of a handgun is to shoot people; there is no other reason for them. Therefore, if they are not available, one would think that people won't get shot.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Read the Bill of Rights of 1689. Okay, I just did. Here is what it say on the right to bear arms.
Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included: freedom for Protestants to bear arms for self-defense, as allowed by law.
Now, if we take the law as it is then it decrees that only Englishmen who are Protestants have the freedom to bear arms for self-defense, as allowed by law.
Okay, so since this law or bill has never been amended, it stands as is. So, are you male and English, as in from England? Are you Protestant? It also says "as allowed by law” meaning the freedom is dependent on the laws of the land. So that means if handguns are illegal, then the right to bear them is not automatic.
Anyhow, this tenant would be struck down anyhow, because it violates the charter of rights of 1982 in that it discriminates on the basis of gender, religion and origin.
Colpy said:
Read the Bill of Rights of 1689. Okay, I just did. Here is what it say on the right to bear arms.
Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included: freedom for Protestants to bear arms for self-defense, as allowed by law.
Now, if we take the law as it is then it decrees that only Englishmen who are Protestants have the freedom to bear arms for self-defense, as allowed by law.
Okay, so since this law or bill has never been amended, it stands as is. So, are you male and English, as in from England? Are you Protestant? It also says "as allowed by law” meaning the freedom is dependent on the laws of the land. So that means if handguns are illegal, then the right to bear them is not automatic.
Anyhow, this tenant would be struck down anyhow, because it violates the charter of rights of 1982 in that it discriminates on the basis of gender, religion and origin.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Don't be obtuse, I'm not in the mood.
Technically, as I live under English Common Law, yes, I am an Englishman to all rights and purposes.
All rights of Protestants were extended to Catholics in 1825, except for the right to sit on the English throne.
Besides, I was raised Baptist.
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.
DasFX said:
Don't be obtuse, I'm not in the mood.
Technically, as I live under English Common Law, yes, I am an Englishman to all rights and purposes.
All rights of Protestants were extended to Catholics in 1825, except for the right to sit on the English throne.
Besides, I was raised Baptist.
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.
oh, BTW, you can't use one part of the constitution to over ride another part of the constitution.
Reverend Blair said:
Stupid, stupid, stupid, Rev.
Besides, is that some kind of crack about my 4" barrel?
And barrels of less than 105mm are illegal in Canada.
I just knew we should never have given women the vote.
