Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on December 08, 2005, 10:43:47 AM
-
"Liberals vow to ban handguns
Last Updated Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:34:04 EST
CBC News
The Liberal strategy for making the streets of Canada's cities safer begins with banning all handguns and getting tougher on crime. Paul Martin announced the ban in a troubled Toronto neighbourhood on Thursday."
The rest of the article can be found below, but really...what more needs to be said?
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/elxn-martin-guns.html
The guys who said that confiscation would follow registration where right. Everyone else was wrong. Some idiot gangbangers in Toronto kill each other, and I have my freedom restricted. Damn but I am really really pissed.
Cripes, well the Conservative Party just got my vote and I really really hate Harper. :(
-
Move to Amreeka, you can lead the liberation force when we invade.
-
I thought there was virtually no gun violence in Canada? The fact of the matter is that the socialists are scared of an armed populace.
-
Thrawn
What, precisely, is going on up there? I'm not savvy with Canadien politics but read that the goverment has been dumped and everything is up for elections in about a month.
They had to get permission from the Queen of England to do so?
How's that work?
Just wondering. I dont know how Parliament, etc work up there.
-
****...well, no matter how much harper is a ****head, looks like he just got another vote, i might not exactly be pro gun, but im not for thje general banning either...
-
You only register and or license the things the things that can be can taken away by those requiring the registration and licensing.
-
Don't worry Canada, I'll be starting the revolution soon.
If you guys should so want, I can liberate canada while I'm at it.
-
Every Canadian I know has more guns than I do. Heck I bet every 3rd guy in Alberta has an old WWII rifle of some sort.
-
public service homicides, is there a down side?
-
I'm kinda suprised; there's some folks in this thread that aren't Yanks that are sounding like Yanks, eh?
-
The fact of the matter is that the socialists are scared of an armed populace.
That fact is brown and stinky because it was pulled right from your ass. Finland has a huge number of registered guns and we're about as socialist as it gets.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Thrawn
What, precisely, is going on up there? I'm not savvy with Canadien politics but read that the goverment has been dumped and everything is up for elections in about a month.
They had to get permission from the Queen of England to do so?
From the Governor General.
How's that work?
There was a vote of non-confidence in out House of Commons (like your House of Representivies). The governering party (Liberal Party), didn't have a majority of seats in the House so the opposition parties united against them. When the majority of the House doesn't have confidence that the governing party can no longer government they have a vote. If that vote of non-confidence passes than parliment is desolved. The Prime Minister than goes to the Queen's viceroy (the Governor General) and asks her to call an election.
The Governor General can tell the Prime Minister to go **** himself. But that happens rarely and makes people nervous when it does. We generally don't like our Governor General to use the discretionary powers they have.
Skilless,
"The fact of the matter is that the socialists are scared of an armed populace."
Perhaps, but this is a political manouver. The Conservative Party has been dictating this race, and the Liberal Party has been reacting. This has been a no-issue bull**** election, that would have probably ended up being a repeat of the last one. With the Liberals winning an minority government again.
Paul Martin and the Liberals, are trying to take back the initiative and polarize the electorate, by manufacturing an issue. They are gambling because they want to have a majority government. I'm hoping it will blow up in their faces.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
That fact is brown and stinky because it was pulled right from your ass. Finland has a huge number of registered guns and we're about as socialist as it gets.
:rofl
:D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You only register and or license the things the things that can be can taken away by those requiring the registration and licensing.
The purpose of registration is so the government has a record of who has weapons and what type.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
The purpose of registration is so the government has a record of who has weapons and what type.
And so they know what they're up against when they come to take them away.
-
i dunno Canadia politicks but is Canada still part of the *Commonwealth*? Do king/queens still have big influence there?
-
The purpose of registration is so the government has a record of who has weapons and what type.
Why does any government need to know about something that I have right to own???
CAVALRY
-
The gun boards here in Canada are going beserk. This law will put me and thousands others out of business, as well as confiscate billions of dollars of property that Canadians have paid tax on. It also opens a pandora's box when it comes to gov't seizing things they don't like, or consider "contrary to the common good", ie SUV's, stuff like that.
The NRA is making BIG noise about trying to get involved up here in this election, but it's too late, the Liberals will win, so say all the polls, and this law WILL be passed, as average Canadian in Ontario, where most of the votes are, are ignorant to the fact that there is over 1.5 million handguns registered in this Country, and I can count on my hands how many of those have been used to shoot somebody this year.
Toronto has had 70+ murders with guns this year, and ALL the handguns used that they have recovered are un-registered smuggled from the USA guns, and nearly ALL of those shot are...BLACK. Maybe we should ban black people in Toronto instead, as stupid as it sounds, I bet it would work better than what the Liberals are proposing, to confiscate everything, INCLUDING all semi auto military style rifles, non bird gun shotguns, etc.
I know a lot of people that WILL fight if (more like when) the poor RCMP guys come around to take away their stuff.
Me, I'll just frickin move and work for a US private military company instead of a Canuck one.
-
I hate butting in to political discussions pertaining to foreign issues because it's none of my business but it seems to me that people generally deserve the government they have. if you people are indeed a free people then the will of the people will prevail. personally I see you canadians as the guinea pig wards of a whimsical nanny state. it's a shame really because all the canadians I know seem like really nice folk, of course most of the canadians I know are now residents of United States of America. here's a deal, all you normal canadians that want to, move down and we'll send up all our pony tailed balding ward churchill type liberals, homosexuals, miscreants and the people from california. that should make both groups of people happy. If you like cold weather the states of montana, north dakota, minnesota and michigan's upper peninsula are very canada like and under populated.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
The purpose of registration is so the government has a record of who has weapons and what type.
The only purpose to require registration and licensing is to be able to restrict or deny the ownership of that object requiring registration. Licensing is lending the weight of law on the side of those requiring the license. When you have an object that is licensed there is legal justification to deny the license if the issueing authority wishes to do so. Look at the locations that require a permit to own, not carry a weapon. You must provide documentation satisfactory to the issuing authority to own it. The same for even mundane objects like vehicles.
If anything is licensed, it is subject to terms of use or ownership at the discretion or satisfaction of the isuing authority. It is not a right.
Example:
You must own a permit (license) to operate the vehicle. To own it you must have a registration and documentation for fees paid to have it. Failure to have the required documentation will result in loss of the property if you use it. Failure to comply with a time period for transfer of ownership is also a violation of licensing laws. A mechanics affidavit is required for even an inoperative vehicle to give an extension on the licensing time period.
In some cases merely storing the vehicle without current registration on your premisis is sufficient to have a summons issued and later the property removed. It will be returned after you pay the required fees and maintain it in running condition as if it sits idle for a stipulated time ON YOUR PROPERTY it will again be towed. When this little law was passed it was on the basis of "neighborhood beautification".
No I'm not kidding, this is the crux of abandoned or junk vehicle statutes currently in force.
Here is a definition for license:
liĄPcense [ lÇ|ss'nss ]
noun (plural liĄPcensĄPes)
Definitions:
1. permit: a printed document that gives official permission to a person or group to own something or do something
2. U.S. law legal authorization: official permission to do something, either from a government or under a law or regulation
3. U.S. chance to do something: the opportunity to do something, especially when this goes beyond normal limits
a license to print money
-
The handgun ban is a pig in a poke. In Martin's "plan" provinces will be able to opt out if they so choose. The handgun ban idea was floated for political reasons, to whit:
- Bring the Alliance party extreme right nut-cases to the surface in the Conservative Party to scare the left-wing nut-cases into voting liberal and pull the centrist vote away from the tories;
- Push the champagne socialist and his spineless party even further to the left.
Does that mean the handgun ban is all smoke and mirrors and won't really see the light of day in the new parliament? No.
It will absolutely be brought up in the house regardless of who wins the election (if you can call having the largest minority in the house a win) and it will fail regardless of who sits in the PM's chair in the new parliament (barring of course, a liberal majority gov't). Whoever runs the gov't must contend with the block-quebecois and they most likely won't support a handgun ban unless it applies to all provinces, excepting of course quebec.
And while it is mostly smoke & mirrors (the provinces will be able to opt out which means quebec, BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan right off the bat won't be getting involved in this stupidity) it will have some teeth:
The current handgun restrictions (since 1934-ish IIRC) already impose a ban on owning them legally for most people. To legally acquire and retain ownership of a handgun in this country requires that you as an individual have a legally acceptable reason for it and there are only 2 acceptable reasons under the law: being a registered target shooter (& belonging to a registered gun-club IIRC) or being a registered collector. Martin's plan removes the collector catagory and supposedly limits target shooters to five weapons (I'm not 100% sure of the last clause).
Ultimately, even if it does wind up being law it won't reduce the number of handguns on the streets of Canada. The last time I put 1 or 2 milliseconds of thought into it I came to the conclusion that criminals and those not currently in compliance with existing gun laws probably tend not to be too interested in registering their weapons with the authorities voluntarily. It will however turn current collectors in the provinces that do involve themselves in this into liars or law-breakers.
asw
-
"- Bring the Alliance party extreme right nut-cases to the surface in the Conservative Party to scare the left-wing nut-cases into voting liberal and pull the centrist vote away from the tories;"
actual result will be the loss of all seats west of winnipeg to the conservatives, the potential for a few losses in quebec and the maritime to NDP or bloc, and the solidifying of there choke hold in urban ontario and quebec
-
Originally posted by vorticon
actual result will be the loss of all seats west of winnipeg to the conservatives, the potential for a few losses in quebec and the maritime to NDP or bloc, and the solidifying of there choke hold in urban ontario and quebec
True enough as far as the west is concerned but when you look at how many seats the liberals currently have in the west it really isn't much of a loss. From Martin's POV it's good political strategy to limit the oppo's gains to where they are strong anyway. Elsewhere in the country I think Martin's going to make gains. There are left-wing constituencies to be had and potential tory wins to be blocked in central & eastern Canada and in montreal and that's what he's after IMO. The liberals also seem to be making a little progress elsewhere in quebec which none of the talking heads expected. Put it down to the current trend of rising popularity for the pq if the liberal gains in quebec wind up being real.
Unless Martin steps on his tongue between now and the election I think the division of spoils will likely be very similar to what we had in the last parliament - a liberal minority gov't, probably slightly larger; a tory opposition, possibly slightly larger, possibly smaller; and, the NDP pushed further into irrelevance.
The only reason we're having this election is that the champagne socialist got his panties in a twist when Martin wouldn't let him play at being the power behind the thrown anymore. And by getting pissy and jumping the fence Layton might have actually (although almost certainly accidentally) done some good for the country in the long run. If the tories don't win at least a enough seats to cut into the minority the liberals had Harper is going to be looking for a job. And that will finally remove the last real hold the Alliance have in the halls of power in the tory party. And that means that the "Reform/Alliance/CRAP" episode will finally start to fade into obscurity.
One can always hope...
asw
-
Originally posted by storch
I hate butting in to political discussions pertaining to foreign issues because it's none of my business but it seems to me that people generally deserve the government they have. if you people are indeed a free people then the will of the people will prevail. personally I see you canadians as the guinea pig wards of a whimsical nanny state. it's a shame really because all the canadians I know seem like really nice folk, of course most of the canadians I know are now residents of United States of America. here's a deal, all you normal canadians that want to, move down and we'll send up all our pony tailed balding ward churchill type liberals, homosexuals, miscreants and the people from california. that should make both groups of people happy. If you like cold weather the states of montana, north dakota, minnesota and michigan's upper peninsula are very canada like and under populated.
If every Ward Churchill type was moved to Canada the United States university
system would implode... We would get over it though, and be better for it...
TJ
-
No news actually...the only thing that has changed is stiffer penalties for being in possession of an unregistered handgun...you can still own a handgun and go the the range.
but gun collectors are sure to be in a rage cause they gotta turn them all in...or go to jail.
now all the conservatives gotta do is promise madnatory 10 years prison for using a gun in a crime and they will win this issue(and perhaps the election)
leave the possession penalties pleadable(don't want cops to have to much power..ie planting guns)
-
There are something like 520,000 legally owned handguns in Canada, with a population of 35 million people, so, thats a lot of legal handguns.
They ain't getting mine, I already have plans for confiscation day.
The trouble with us is that we have no real body of governement above the Parliament at the federal level, the Senate here is not elected (they are appointed), and the Senate is more of a "rubber stamp" group for the party in power at the time. This causes laws to go through with no real "2nd look" that can raise regional concerns.
We need an elected Senate with teeth in this country, that can act as a filter and as a check to majority rule in our House of Commons.
The only real check to bad legislation we have is the Supreme Court of Canada, which, as in the case of the USA, can strike down laws that breach our rights, but courts here are notoriously skewed in favor of anti-gun laws of any kind.
We have one Criminal Code, that is nation wide, the Provinces can also pass laws, but in areas regulatory in nature, unlike the USA where each state also has its own criminal statutes, so a criminal law passed here applies to all Provinces.
Thats my Canadian political lesson for today. There will be a test next week!
PS, do us all a favor Ontario, and stop electing those clowns. The Liberals need to be booted to the curb this time around. :(
-
Well, let me be the first to say it.
If this law passes, revolt. Start a revolution.
No person should stand idly by as their rights are wittled away.
-
We'll take care of you citizens, cradle to grave"
Said the Parliment to their now-unarmed slaves
"Trust us, if fewer of you carry arms,
The world will be safer from those who do harm"
"But what of Americans?" bleated the sheep
"What of the arms that they get to keep?"
"Don't worry", said Parliment, "Try not to be vexed."
"Our Democrat friends tell us they'll soon be next"
Sirloin, the Liberal definition of "target shooter" is somebody who competes in the Summer Games or Olympics with single shot pistols, that's on the books with this proposal. FYI, EVERY single person who owns a handgun in this country is either a licensed collector (very few of these around, you have to sign away your rights to unwarranted searches, ie the cops can come anytime and check you storage facility/house), and "target shooters", which is the only other reason you can tell the Firearms Center why you need to possess a handgun or restricted rifle like the AR15.
Also, there are 1.2 million handguns registered, the other 1/2 from that 520,000 figure are 12-6 class (anything with a barrel shorter than about 4.25 inches), and there is already crap coming down previous to this recent crap ( I know a lot of crap) to make those "turn in for destruction" class, so, the Liberals are just subtracting that number in order to make it look more appealing to the taxpayers who will have to pay for the buyback. Sort of like how they said there was 4 million handguns back in the 90's when they were trying to pass this abortion law we have now (C-68 under the firearms act).
GOOD NEWS: My Premier (like a governer to ya'll down south) just told the feds they could **** their hats, and he would opt out of any law (we have legal ability to do this, called the notwithstanding clause of our charter of rights (or lack there of) ) that seizes handguns that are in legal possesion of us good common folk. YAY!
I feel bad for the rest of the country though.
-
They taking it away from target shooters?...That is total BS...Nice how they hide that fact in smoke and mirrors.
holy cow!:mad:
-
".......No you won't fool the Children of the Revolution."
Karaya
-
This is typical Canadian Liberal bull****.
Rather than identify the problem is criminals in Toronto using unregistered ilegal guns they decide to take away the registered guns from legal owners. How will that stop the violence?
Our Liberal press knows this but you never hear it discussed or pressed with the Liberals.
If they wanted to stop the gun violence they could say they are increasing the penelties for people having an unregistered gun. Say life in prision.
But that goes against the Liberal mentality of poor criminals should not be held responsable for what they do. It is society's fault. Our fault.
-
You would never have known there was a way to own legal handguns in canada anyway...
A decade ago I accidentaly smuggled a stainless 4" Ruger 38 special across the border to canada (it was in the car and I forgot about it) I was telling my brother who is a citizen of BC and he told about a dozen of his friends who all wanted to shoot it.
It was pitiful.... a dozen grown men who had never fired a handgun! they knew nothing about them. They belived that such a short barrel would not be able to hit anything at more than a few feet.. I had only one box of 38's... I filled the cyl and shot 5 out of six beer cans off the fence post at about 25 yards....
It was like xmas to these guys when I let em all shoot a few rounds each till the I was out of ammo.
I was saddened by the whole affair and I learned from it... There is a huge difference between "legal" and.... being available to the average man...
Handguns must be legal and easxily obtained by the average man lest they be in effect.... banned..
Like in england... when they finaly did ban em... there was nothing really left to ban. History just repeats itself here. It is what is planned for the U.S. by the socialists and UN a holes.
ripley.... I bet if you had a large black population offing each other regularly with handguns you would see a ban in socialist finland too... What is there to stop the ban? What protection do you have?
That is why it is so important to get conservative constitutionalist people on the supreme court and... the only real important thing that Bush will probly ever do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Habu
Our Liberal press knows this but you never hear it discussed or pressed with the Liberals.
I saw plenty of press about critisizing the ban the day after it was announced.
-
About 2 years ago I read a detailed analysis of the historical effects of restrictive and liberal (I use this word in the correct sense...not the way our politicians do) laws over the past century.
England has some of the most restrictive laws, the first of which was put in place in the early 1900s. Over the century these laws became much more restrictive (i.e., the "slippery slope"). The analysis tracked violent crime rates in relationship to the passage of these laws.
Most would assume that the laws were passed during times of increased violence and represented society's response to a problem...this is what gun control advocates claim. It is however, completely false. In every single case there was a sharp INCREASE of violence FOLLOWING the implementation of more restrictive gun laws and this increase still continues. England actually has a higher violent crime rate than the US, despite claims by liberal's and the press.
Compare these results to the US in which many states have enacted concieled carry laws allowing freer use of handguns. Guess what? In every one of these cases violent crime DECREASED following implementation of more liberal laws. Florida, where I live is a case in point. It's also interesting to see the response of gun control advocates when states relax their laws. Florida made some adjustments to our current laws which clairified when a gun could be used in self-defense. The Brady organization actually took out ads in the UK warning them not to visit Florida claiming we natives now have the legal right to chase them down in the streets and shoot them. This despite one of the most improved crime rates in the US (a rate much, much better than the UK's).
Granted, violent crime has been declining in the US for over twenty years, but those states with the most liberal laws have had a far greater rate of decline that others. Another case in point is Washington DC. Probably the most restrictive in the US...and one of, if not the most, violent towns.
Also, I thought it was pretty amazing that following Hurricane Katrina one of the first things the NO police attempted to do was confiscate all firearms. If these were ever a time that the general populace needed to protect itself, this was it.
Best of luck to Canadians...you're going to need it.
Mace
-
Originally posted by Habu
If they wanted to stop the gun violence they could say they are increasing the penelties for people having an unregistered gun. Say life in prision.
Habu, that won't work. First of all you have to find a judge in this country who isn't guided by his or her sympathy for the poor, victimized criminal and I'll bet that won't be easy. Second you've got to convince the criminals that it's in their long-term interest to stay out of jail and I don't know too many thugs who are any good at thinking on the long-term.
What will work is the possibility that their intended victims will defend themselves and be able to do so effectively. Thugs don't understand 20 years but they do understand dead.
Mace, ty sir. We are going to need all the luck we can get.
asw
-
We are from the same history of a frontier/hunting culture especially out west, for the same reasons as the USA.
We dont have as many handgunners because they are more restricted, true, but we are in no way like England or Europe, at least we weren't...
My uncle in the interior of B.C. owned six handguns, and they have a large # of target shooters there, in places like Toronto, and other large cities, as in the USA, shooting sports are not as common. Its like comparing Boston city dwellers to rural New Mexico. Same diff.
Thats the heart of my beef with this, because its the Big City problems that cause the governments (in both Canada and the USA), to pass draconian bills (or at least try), rather than address the real issues.
As if the Hells Angels up here will start protecting their pot grow-ops with legal guns now...or the wannabe gangsters will go and register their black market hand guns.
Its sad to see us go from sensible laws concerning guns to outright raving foolishness. I mean, as if you can walk into a 7-11 and buy a .45 auto with your milk or something, thats how the Liberals talk about guns up here. "We must stop the slaughter", please.
-
Originally posted by detch01
What will work is the possibility that their intended victims will defend themselves and be able to do so effectively. Thugs don't understand 20 years but they do understand dead.
you're off the mark more than the gliberal's gun ban faux pas. they're gang-bangers killing each other over turf and noodle wars and both are armed.
huba is right tho, don't give the judges an option, the sentence should be life, i'd prefer deportation.
-
Originally posted by Torque
you're off the mark more than the gliberal's gun ban faux pas.
No, actually I am not off the mark. In TO you've got a population terrified of the gang-bangers, which by the way is pretty much the same as every other problem area in the major cities in this country. In fact they are so terrorised and frightened by these gang-bangers that they don't want to be seen or heard talking to the police. The police can't and won't be there 24/7 to protect them and they know it as well as the gang-bangers do. These thugs aren't strong in the thinking department and they're also not much interested in anything other than now or the very near future. Whether it's the next fix, the next deal, theft or their "rep in the hood" it's all short term.
The facts are none of these thugs would be thugs if they thought they wouldn't get away with it, so whether the possible sentence is 2 years or 50 it doesn't matter a bit. Prison sentences have no appreciable or measureable deterrent affect. That doesn't mean I'd like to see our judges tied tightly to mandatory stiff sentencing, because I'd rather see this kind of people behind bars than armed and on the street.
As for deporting them - to where? And why? If they are here they are our problem, not somebody elses. If they commit the crime here, they do the time here. To do otherwise is merely making them someone else's problem and a copout.
One final question: would you rather your last thought on this earth to be "at least he'll get life in prison for this" or "I wish I hadn't had to kill that man 40 years ago"?
asw
-
Been reading this thread and feel very badly for you guys up in Canada.
-
ripley.... I bet if you had a large black population offing each other regularly with handguns you would see a ban in socialist finland too... What is there to stop the ban? What protection do you have?
People are getting 'offed' all the time down here. We don't have much of a gang problem though and even less of a minority problem. That's mostly because our givernment was wise enough to limit the immigration with a hard hand. Most gun related havoc is being created by motorcycle gangs shooting eachothers. The most typical murder in Finland is a drunk wife/husband or a party of people getting drunk and ending up killing someone.
If you stay out of the vicinity of alcoholics you have an extremely low chance of getting whacked here. I think over 90% of cases the murderer is a close friend or a relative of the victim. The police has an exceptional rate on solving the crimes too.
Last new year a neighbour of mine from 1 mile away got shot dead to his front yard. He was always bullying people when he was drunk and he got to an argument with his neighbour. Little did he know this guy had a history of mental problems. He just said 'I'll show you who is who' and went home to pick up his sawed off shotgun. He came back and shot the guy dead in the chest and wounded another bystander.
The victim was a devoted hunter and owned several large caliper rifles and handguns. Didn't do squat to help him.
-
Originally posted by detch01
No, actually I am not off the mark. In TO you've got a population terrified of the gang-bangers, which by the way is pretty much the same as every other problem area in the major cities in this country. In fact they are so terrorised and frightened by these gang-bangers that they don't want to be seen or heard talking to the police. The police can't and won't be there 24/7 to protect them and they know it as well as the gang-bangers do. These thugs aren't strong in the thinking department and they're also not much interested in anything other than now or the very near future. Whether it's the next fix, the next deal, theft or their "rep in the hood" it's all short term.
The facts are none of these thugs would be thugs if they thought they wouldn't get away with it, so whether the possible sentence is 2 years or 50 it doesn't matter a bit. Prison sentences have no appreciable or measureable deterrent affect. That doesn't mean I'd like to see our judges tied tightly to mandatory stiff sentencing, because I'd rather see this kind of people behind bars than armed and on the street.
As for deporting them - to where? And why? If they are here they are our problem, not somebody elses. If they commit the crime here, they do the time here. To do otherwise is merely making them someone else's problem and a copout.
One final question: would you rather your last thought on this earth to be "at least he'll get life in prison for this" or "I wish I hadn't had to kill that man 40 years ago"?
asw
we don't fear gangbangers here. in fact it's quite the opposite. especially since the implementataion of the new florida law allowing us to shoot first if we feel threatened. sadly the only real deterrent to being a victim of violence is by one being willing to ramp up the violence in the appropriate moment. gangbangers here are keeping their little wars in their squalid neighborhoods and carjackings are all but a thing of the past. on another note we are still waiting to turn into "dodge city" as the handwringing freedom hating liberals all predicted. I don't recall who coined the term "an armed society is a polite society" but my beloved florida has become exponentially more polite.
-
Ok... so we do have laws that treat colored people different than whites right now... Affirmative action.... Hate crimes (committed by whites against non whites)...
Why not just prohibit colored people from owning firearms? Whites do not shoot colored people... colored folk shoot each other. The remaining firearms problems would be very small.
As for canada... If you can't keep a pistol on your own property and shoot it in the back yard when your back yard is 500 acres and it is safe as hell to do so... And if you can't get ammo or components cheaply and if you can't reasonably expect to get a permit to carry one... you really have no handgun rights. My guess is that if you take 100 canadians you won't find 2 that have fired a civilian handgun in the comfort of an outdoor setting at someones home.
Or... we could send all undesirables away and limit immigration like finland.
lazs
-
detch01
The person that shoots the gang-banger will go to jail and the gang-banger will go free (if still living) because of the bleeding heart judges.
The gang-bangers will then sue the shooter.
-
"If you can't keep a pistol on your own property and shoot it in the back yard when your back yard is 500 acres and it is safe as hell to do so... "
in some spots, ,you cant even shoot your rifle in your own big back yard, municipal bylaws against noise or some crap like that...
"And if you can't get ammo or components cheaply "
http://www.milarm.com/
you tell me if ammo and components can be cheaply obtained.
-
vort... those seemed really expensive to me and... I couldn't find any 44 mag stuff at all... no 10mm or 357 sig stuff...
Why would you have a noise regulation out in the country? Aty my brothers place there wasn't another house for a couple of miles.
Powder should be about $100 for 8 lbs... primers $15 a thousand.. slugs.. $30-80 a thousand. delivered to your door. Handguns should be kept in your home or on your person or in your car.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
detch01
The person that shoots the gang-banger will go to jail and the gang-banger will go free (if still living) because of the bleeding heart judges.
The gang-bangers will then sue the shooter.
Even in Canada juries decide guilt or innocence, unless of course the accused opts for a trial by judge instead of by jury. Judges can't yet get away with over-riding a jury decision and make it stick. Provided you or your lawyer can convince a jury that you didn't mean to actually kill the bastard, did only what was absolutely necessary to protect your own life, you were 100% convinced the guy was going to kill you and you had no way to get away, the theory is, is that you'll be fine. Of course to make that work you've got to be in a part of the Country where common-sense overrides political ideology and be able to afford a high-quality lawyer. If you're unlucky enough to be tried in an area left-wing ideologs infest, or you have to put up with the legal-aid deadhead issued to you, you are essentially screwed. Even then being in jail and/or broke is better than being dead. Jail time is temporary but once your dead it's kind of game-over.
If you didn't kill or cripple the guy, or use your own weapon, and what you tell the police makes sense to them you most likely won't be accused or tried for it - at least that's my theory.
asw
-
Originally posted by storch
we don't fear gangbangers here. in fact it's quite the opposite. especially since the implementataion of the new florida law allowing us to shoot first if we feel threatened. sadly the only real deterrent to being a victim of violence is by one being willing to ramp up the violence in the appropriate moment. gangbangers here are keeping their little wars in their squalid neighborhoods and carjackings are all but a thing of the past. on another note we are still waiting to turn into "dodge city" as the handwringing freedom hating liberals all predicted. I don't recall who coined the term "an armed society is a polite society" but my beloved florida has become exponentially more polite.
Storch you and I have disagreed on many things but we do agree on this one. Predators by nature go for easy prey, it's safer that way. When the prey isn't easy they relocate or go hungry.
Cheers,
asw
-
and yet there are still people who think that "liberal" does not mean "gun ban crowd"
lazs
-
OK I've read all this about handguns being banned in Canada and everything, and Gangbangers in the large citys pretty much having their way with the general population.
What about long guns??? Rifles and more important...shotguns??? Are these illegal to own also?
As a gun owner, avid shooter, and holder of a conceled carry permit in the state of Virginia, if someone where to come into my house the weapon of choice for me is my trusty Remington 870 12 gage pump action shotgun. #8 game loads will drop anyone if their within 20 feet, but won't over penatrate walls and such. I can't think of a better weapon for home defense than a shotgun except maybe a flame thrower.
They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand.
-
I can't think of a better weapon for home defense than a shotgun except maybe a flame thrower.
ROFL! Now there's a sight I'd like to see.. Explaining to the firebrigade on the smoldering ruins of your house and wearing a flamethrower. :D
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
OK What about long guns??? Rifles and more important...shotguns??? Are these illegal to own also?
Long guns aren't illegal yet but long guns have legally had to be registered in this country since the early/middle nineties and a person must have a valid FAC (firearms acquisition certificate) to buy a weapon and ammunition.
asw
-
Well there you go. Buy a pump shotgun and the first person that walks through the door uninvited, let em have it.
Specs on my baby: Remington 870 Express Magnum. 20 inch smooth bore slug barrel with rifle sights and integral modified choke. Also have a 28 inch barrel with vent rib button front sight with threaded bore for choke tube replacement for bird hunting. Remington extended magazine tube (7 rounds total). Wilson tactical combat sling. Bushnel 4X scope on Weaver 870 scope mount (for deer hunting).
The beauty of a pump is most of the time you don't even have to pull the trigger to stop someone in their tracks. Rack the slide on one of those things and everyone KNOWS they are on the wrong side of the fence and they're pretty much screwed if they don't do what they're told.
Peace through superior fire power!!!:aok
-
Political notice.
This is not a message pointing at any person or government. It is for educational purposes only.
Becarefull what you wish for.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, or police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler 1935
-
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, or police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler 1935
You do know that's a made up quote, don't you? The Nazis didn't introduce any firearms legistlation until 1938, the Weimar republic passed the previous laws in 1929.
See for example guncite, or Lazs's favourites Jews for preservation of firearms ownership.
-
I'll verify the source or retract it. I would rather be right than wrong.
OK,
I found both sides of the coin. Progun have many links and data that say it is true and the Antigun have many links and data say it is false.
ug.....Punt:rolleyes:
-
Phaser11 said:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, or police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler 1935
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For future refrence, its not perfect, but it does have some good ones.
The Quote Cache (http://quotes.prolix.nu/Authors/?Adolf_Hitler)
you may have to search in different ways ex: Hitler, adolf or adolph Hitler or hitler etc
-
whoops