Alberta_Ford

As is any safety precaution on anything then. Thats a small percentage of people that fill your concern and their is no way to control something sudden and unexpected unless everyone went to center weekly to have their mental well being checked. You are ridiculous confusing what i wrote with what's in your twisted head. I said criminals should be punished and you interpreted mentally ill.

This is my only suggestion to better solve your dilemma of improving ill people from legally owning firearms. Similar approach to one our military uses for sniper selection. You get profiled by your personality and have to fit certain criteria to be selected not only to do the job but be trusted with the skill set being taught. I can't think of a way that this would efficiently approve people for a gun license in a timely manner and I will leave that up to someone else to figure out. I personally would hate to see it come to that and think our current system would be better. Even more so I think we should not need a license at all and let accidents happen and people be punished. let life play out because having experiences good or bad allow you to appreciate what and who you have in life. Also I think people need to die each year just for population controls sake. In a world that is to controlled and has safety precautions for everything would not be worth living because people need to make choices for individuality, personal growth etc. Next thing you know were just a bunch of communists. But thats my personal opinion which I decided to share and is not the topic of discussion. Eyeball asks for a suggestion and I gave one that could work to serve his purpose but don't think is necessary and explained why. If someone wants to debate my personal opinion on why I don't agree with the license you will not get a response. Any reasoning of mine has been explained and will not be explained any further.

Sar-techs are outstanding. Its interesting as a specialty in the military which does not require much equipment at all. They don't carry weapons or anything. Just a fleet of helicopters is all they really use its not like the army which use dozens of different vehicles. They should have a purpose built all weather helicopter to better withstand storms than the variant of the griffon they use.

I thought it was a good analogy. Informative as well. As I understand it with one engine we have the risk of losing engine power due power failure. If there was a second it would also fail or if it was shot and damaged a second might possibly have a chance of carrying on but the plane is not very mobile and damaged at that point. I guess the designers settled on the extra efficiency gained by less weight and less fuel consumption. Remember in theory it's not suppose to dogfight its supposed to acquire targets from distance without being tracked. If it ends up working that way its sound logic. The f22 has two engines and was there flagship so why would they have changed the format for a similarly intended purposed fighter if it couldn't do the job intended. Possibly it's more effectively with one engine.

Quote eyeball Speaking of shot up stop signs... One day at our place on Yonge St, just up the road from the old 52 Division, my brother popped off a shot with his BB gun at the stop sign across the street. 5 minutes later my poor old sorely tested Mom suddenly found herself speckled with laser beams and looked up to see a SWAT team coming through the back door. My brother probably didn't even chip the paint on the sign he shot and my poor stop sign was clearly DOA with about eight or nine 303 holes through it. Quite the contrast between laser beams and a TO SWAT team and 'there's nothing we can do' from our hick-town cops. I figure we should register ammunition myself. It shouldn't be too much trouble to put a unique chemical marker in the gunpowder in every box of shells so evidence of inappropriate use can be traced back to whoever bought it. I mean if they could bath my Mom in laser beams to catch a dangerous stop sign shooter... Quote An old hole in a stop sign in said hick-town is alot different then someone mistaking a pellet gun for a real gun on younge street. Inappropriate use is the basis of why we should register rounds so we can pull forensic evidence out of old stop signs in the middle of nowhere? Perhaps murders is a valid reason but you failed mention that. Maybe you thought it was obvious but it's hard to tell when your main emphasis is on stop signs. Its not a bad idea to help solve murders i suppose but i don''t like the idea of registering ammo at all. You would still need to find the weapon to get the traces of gun powder, Whatever marking they could put on the bullet would most likely burn off when fired and there probably is too many boxes of ammo sold to differentiate enough chemical markings to record separately for each box.

Said by eyeball As for your damn chickens and as I already told you, build a better coop. It's people like you with lackadaisical food production practices that attract coyotes and bears into conflict with humans in the first place. Now we have to put up with your bullets flying around the neighbourhood too? Thanks a lot. How many people actually shoot deer in their neighborhood? It happens in your subdivision everyday right? Be realistic. I'll bet if he keeps chickens and has coyotes coming he lives in a rural area if not remote and theres coyotes there whether or not his chickens are.

[quote name='Wild Bill' There was a scandal here in Ontario where one of the civil serpents involved in the data management had a Hell's Angel for a boyfriend. How long ago was that?

Just a good selling point to get rid of long gun registry I have yet to here or read is this situation; a family member dies and a antique rifle or collecters item rifle for example is passed on to someone. The rifle was never registered, now this person who accepts this firearm like a gift being passed onto him out of respect is now a criminal under the firearms act for possessing an unregistered firearm. I think we should have the freedom to own a firearm no questions asked, and if someone decides to use it with criminal intentions should then be considered a criminal and charged like one. I hope the conservatives go a step further and get rid of licensing aswell at the federal level because the whole of Canada is not like Toronto or Montreal being busy downtowns. If provinces, regions or municipalities would like to have users be licensed then so be it, but there are entire provinces and territories that you can target shoot in your back yard and not harm or bother anyone let alone by owning an unregistered firearm. Either way these laws are rediculous to be at the federal level being that we are the second biggest country with an astonishingly low population density. So theres no need to regulate this across the board. For example in most areas of the prairies it's a waist of money at the federal level and should only be used at a lower government level only where deemed required for public safety like big cities. Some complain about how this divides urban/rural Canada, they must have no clue about rural Canada because it's as divided as can be at every level and on top of that country folk just don't like city folk and that ain't gonna change. To me it seems pretty divided anyway. So my overall point is that the oppositions points are irrelevant to the majority of Canada by land mass or area, not necessarily by population. As well as there are situations and reasons that this law is unfit to be in place nation wide. Thanks for reading if you made it this far

I think NORAD is worth the money. I used to know a guy who once worked there years ago in the 80's. He never said much about it other than that they see everything and they are always ahead of the times in technology and at times the intensity and stress was so high it would have made a good movie.