PocketRocket

Well, I'm brand new here as of today. Truth to tell, I didn't even read the rules (blush), but intend to simply do the same as I do in other forums, which is to try contribute intelligently, to not insult anyone, and generally try to be civilized. But I realize that this is not my backyard, and I don't make the rules. Don't read them either, as already stated. I believe most people probably haven't, just like everywhere else. But civilized behaviour has kept me from being spanked anywhere else, so I don't expect any problems here. But if I step over the line, slap me down. This is your yard, your bat, your ball, your rules, and I thank you for letting me play here. If anyone ain't happy with the laws and/or the treatment they receive here, it's like the man said, buy your own bat and ball. And GREG, whoever and wherever you are, thanks for giving us all a place to speak our piece.

Good question DOG. BIG BLUE, can you offer justification as to why pot should not be legalized???

Good point.

Gun Registry. Emotional topic. Those who own guns, and handle them responsibly are either against it, or split on it. Those who don't own any firearms are usually (not always) for it. (Personally, I have no problem with it either way, except for one small thing which I'll get into a bit later) But what both sides fail to consider in recent debates is the fact that gun owners have been legally obligated to have their firearms registered for decades. I remember back in 1980, it was being announced regularly on the news that if you owned an unregistered firearm, you had to have it registered "by november" or some such. A couple years later, same scenario. A few years after that, same again. The only difference is that now the registry is accessible to police nation-wide. But the fact remains that criminals will NOT register their firearms. In fact, I own a couple unregistered firearms. (I do not call them "weapons" as a weapon is anything used with intent to harm another. I have no such intent) The reason they are unregistered is simple. To register them, I need a FAC. (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) Back around 1976, I took a hunter-safety training course. Passed it. Still have the certificate saying I passed. If I had immediately gone out and got a hunting license, and renewed that license annually, I would automatically have an FAC. But I do not hunt. I come from a family of hunters, but it never really struck my fancy. So, here I am, qualified, trained in proper safety and handling, a regular hobby shooter engaging in target practise with friends. After a death in the family, I inherited a couple rifles. They are heirlooms, and quite dear to me. They used to belong to my Dad. But, when I went to get an FAC so that I could legally register the rifles, I was denied. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources refused to hold valid my Hunter Safety Training certificate, even thought they were the ones that issued it to me. They said it was too old, and that those cert's ore no longer valid. What's up??? I paid good money to take that course. Now they want me to pay almost $600.00, to take the same course again before they'll give me a FAC. I asked why I could not simply take the final exam. Logically, if I can pass their test, I should be seen as being qualified. They refused this proposal. To me, this is not acceptable. The Gun Registry, in this regard, is being used to justify a money-grab by certain ministries and governmental departments, and I for one refuse to be bilked out of my hard-earned money, and have to pay for a course which I've already taken and passed. So, my rifles will remain unregistered until they are willing to recognize the fact that I am trained, by their own program. As another observation, I live in a typical, mid-sized Canadian city, about 80,000 population. Even in a center this small, I know of at least 3 sources where I can acquire an unregistered handgun within about 2 days. In fact, if I am willing to wait about 1 week, I could, for less than $1,000, get myself either an AK-47 or an M-16. Unregistered. The registry is doing little, if anything, to stop the trade in unregistered, illegal firearms. It's major benefit is being a "feel good" legislation that allows big-city liberal types to rest a bit more comfortably under the false knowledge that their streets are safer because the police "know" where all the guns are. That being said, the last comment was NOT meant as a pot-shot against liberals, please do not mistake it as such.

It's nice to finally find a decent Canadian-based forum. I've been doing the forum thing for a while now, but mostly on American forums, where there is more partisan bickering and name-calling than there is legitimate debate. After reading some of the stuff here, I've found the level of civility to be truly amazing. I think I've found a new home. I hope you all don't mind me hanging around for a while. To the issue...... As to whether or not Gay Marriage will be legalized across the country, we can still only speculate despite all the info that's in so far. In the wonderful world of politics, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and we won't be sure until all is said and done. But on the issue of whether or not it SHOULD be legalized.... Those against it seem to fall into two camps. One of these is the fundamental religious camp. "It's against God's will", they say. To that, the simple answer is that we live in a country governed by a secular system. To enact a law, ANY law, based on the beliefs of a religion is not only against the whole governmental system, it could also be seen as discriminating against other religious groups. There is no place for religion in our political system, and therefore religion cannot be legitimately used as an argument within that system. The second argument is usually that Gay marriage will "Invalidate" traditional, heterosexual marriage. Again, I have to disagree with this. Those who would use this argument can only be seen as being insecure in their own marriages. When I took my wedding vows, I was making a vow to one woman, and to myself. My vow was not to the minister who performed the ceremony, nor to my family, nor to God. It was to my wife. That vow, and that vow alone, is what constitutes a marriage. As long as a couple, whether gay or straight, hold THEIR OWN vows as being sacred, then no one else's actions can invalidate either those vows, or the marriage they have established.

I couldn't agree with you more. My wife has a condition wherein the use of pot is infinitely more satisfactory than some of the prescription drugs she's been given. But, decent pot is expensive and hard to come by. As a solution, have you considered growing your own??? This has a couple benefits; Inexpensive pot Low risk Controllable quality Not to mention that it's a great hobby. Might be something you want to look into. BTW, to the powers that be here, it's nice to have finally found a decent forum based in Canada. This is my first post here, just found the place. I hope you don't mind if I hang around for a while.