Liberals and Gun Control

[Goat Boy©]

I think this whole "police want it" debate is hilarious. I work with about 11 ex-cops (RCMP, K Division, drug squad...and highway enforcement - including my boss, 23 years RCMP), and every time this conversation comes up (when it hits the news) they all agree on one thing:

When checking on a scene, they want to know one thing - are the people that are identified to be inside likely to have guns. They also agree that the registry does not accomplish this. A properly maintained criminal records system does. Previous charges (who cares about convictions) say a lot about an individual. During one conversation, one ex-member said he wished that all Conditional sentances and aquittals would show on their mobiles.

Now THAT would be useful for cops. Registries do nothing.

Someone made the statement that they should be regulating ammo sales. Now THAT makes sense (as I've said before). Bullets will still be smuggled into Canada, but if they were to properly track sales within our borders, at least they would have a reasonable idea who is an ACTIVE gun user. If someone starts buying rounds for a Glock, you may have a problem on your hands.

To further on this:

Heaven forbid the cops ever show up at my place;

My PAL is registered to an address in another city. No penalty for failing to keep it up to date, 'Hey, I've still got my paperwork.'

If they did manage to draw a correlation between my drivers license and PAL, they would then learn that their are no firearms on the property. They are evenly distributed between my brothers house, and my friends house. Alas, I don't have a safe, and as a responsible firearms owner, more responsible than the federal government, I feel it necessary to go above and beyond the regulation of, 'One secure barrier.' IE: Locked plastic gun case. This is legal, never mind the fact that you can just pry it open.

On top of which, I own two additional guns registered to my brother, which belong to me, which are stored in my friends safe, and we are all in 3 different cities.

The extent of the 'Zero penalty honor system' applied to this registry is just absolutely amazing. For two billion dollars you would think that they could at least consider enforcing the rules as they are. Not to mention, that in my case as with many other friends, the registry does absolutely nothing to accomplish it's intended purpose.

It also never ceases to amaze me that the gun-control crowd is up in arms over something as ridiculous as this registry, but utterly silent and ignorant to the actual policies that could use some help, such as storage, transportation & ammunition.

Walking down the street with an empty 30/30 in your left hand, and a box of ammo in your right.....awwww, that's ok, it's legal. Heck even if you put the rounds in the tube, that's ok, we'll just confiscate your firearm, don't worry, you aren't to be punished. We don't punish people, or even try and enforce the law before attempting to add new laws too it, or reform it. And don't you dare try and mock our registry, it's a nice registry, what has it ever done to harm you.

[M.Dancer]

There's no justifiable reason for killing it either. If the cops want it, give it to them until we have the statistics to prove otherwise. To kill it because you THINK it won't have any results is assinine. That's just justification for anyone not to do anything. No one has a clue about anything until they do it.

As for my statement, it wasn't illogical. The only thing illogical is to assume that guns aren't weapons. They were first designed to kill people. Sure people have found uses for them afterwards, but they're still designed to kill people. Boots weren't originally designed to keep people's feet warm, there still continues to be a HUGE difference. If people truly need firearms then they shouldn't mind going through background checks and licensing to own them due to the fact that they need them. As for the rest, it's just a bunch of people getting pissed off because they can't legally use their rifle the day they get it. People take it for granted that these things are used criminally in cities where a vast majority of people live. Just because they have no reason to use these weapons criminally doesn't mean others don't as well. As I mentioned before, it should be about safety first. Who cares gets inconvenienced if it helps people stay safe. If there's something illogical about that, I guess I'll never understand.

1)Most firearms aren't desoigned to kill people. That is a fact. Just like most hammers are designed to kill people. The fact that you think they are shows just how distanced you are from the reality and instead of logic, you are emoting.

The registration, background checks etc etc I have no real problem with. I do have a problem with the collosal fraud and boondoggle with the long rifle firearms registration. It has little value ,costs millions and has not resulted in one single arrest or the removal of one undergropund weapon . Like many liberal government laws and actions, it had only one real purpose, political optics with costs to be borne by Canadians.

[Goat Boy©]

I have a hammer. I could bash someone's brains in tomorrow. Perhaps we should have a hammer registry.

I wish this was my work, sadly it isn't, but worth publishing:

ToadBrother, that would only be the case if the victim was from a minority such as women, gays, lesbians, sex trade workers, trans-sexuals, anyone with ADHD, MS, ALS, people of colour, criminals with poor upbringing, UAW members who have suffered under the heavy hand of management, anyone from the politically correct crowd, an anti-nuke demonstrator, a G8 summit protester, a welfare recipient who has been cut off from buying shaving lotion, PETA members, World Wildlife Fund types, contributors to the Sea Shepard Fund, or a .... well, you get the idea.

If only there were no handgun owners in Toronto, there would be no need for anyone to pick up an axe and try to cleave open someone's chest in a rather amateurish attempt at becoming a thoracic surgeon.

Now, we move onto the Molotov Cocktail ... if ever something needed to be registered, it is a Molotov Cocktail. You should be required to have a special permit to buy any product that comes in a glass bottle, because after all, a having a good glass bottle is key to an operational IED.

Further, rags are far too commonly available. We need to put a stop to that right frigging now! All fabrics should be banned and person's only allowed one pair of underwear and one set of clothes. After all, those cloth fuses are needed to make this work.

Gasoline .... pound for pound, more powerful than dynamite.

The local service station may appear to be an innocent enough place on the surface of things ... but next time you are in one, have an analytical look into the shifty eyes of the gas jockey. They will almost never let you look 'em dead centre in the pupil because he is a terrorist. He's just waiting to bomb you and your little tramp, slutty-dressed girlfriend out of existence so they can take the world back 400 years.

Here is some education on Molotov Cocktails by a genuine Russian ... Ms Marina Orlova .... founder of "Hot For Words." Might I recommend the HQ version and view full screen.

http://www.hotforwords.com/tag/molotov-cocktail/

[Goat Boy©]

Skeeter and Jim Bob are legitimate names. Whether you think it's an insult is up to you. As for the rest of your post, it shows why firearms are totally unnecessary. If they're damned handy, they're not necessary. If they are necessary or next to necessary, then you can go through hell to get it. As for the hammer example, we both know its ridiculous. You could argue that about a fork. Guns have one purpose and that is to kill. End of story.

Really?

This device's purpose is to shoot targets at the olympics. Given the nature of it's .22 barrel diameter, somebody would have to be shot a few dozen times for a fatal injury, heck that would be one heck of an accident.

http://www.altiusguns.com/images/custom/08152006.jpg

Will a ban inconvenience criminals? Considering around 40% of criminals steal their weapons from legal gun owning Canadians, then yes, the outright ban of firearms will make it significantly more difficult to get firearms. In Toronto the past few years, homicides caused by guns were in the majority and there were hundreds of shootings. Just because I experienced one doesn't make it "anecdotal evidence."

Do you also fully support banning all drugs? While we're at it, let's ban tobacco and booze as well.

You can also make fun of "navel gazing urbanites" but 89% of the Canadian population lives in a large town or city; most of which suffer from gang violence and gun crime. Just because you may be a law abiding gun owner doesn't make you special. If taking your gun away (if you even have a gun, I guess it's a bit presumptious to assume) under an outright ban saves just 1 life, then its worth it.

What about all of the lives lost in Urban Canada? If it saves 1 life, but takes 2 in grizzly attacks, is it still worth it?

Edited September 25, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Goat Boy©]

There's no justifiable reason for killing it either. If the cops want it, give it to them until we have the statistics to prove otherwise. To kill it because you THINK it won't have any results is assinine. That's just justification for anyone not to do anything. No one has a clue about anything until they do it.

As for my statement, it wasn't illogical. The only thing illogical is to assume that guns aren't weapons. They were first designed to kill people. Sure people have found uses for them afterwards, but they're still designed to kill people. Boots weren't originally designed to keep people's feet warm, there still continues to be a HUGE difference. If people truly need firearms then they shouldn't mind going through background checks and licensing to own them due to the fact that they need them. As for the rest, it's just a bunch of people getting pissed off because they can't legally use their rifle the day they get it. People take it for granted that these things are used criminally in cities where a vast majority of people live. Just because they have no reason to use these weapons criminally doesn't mean others don't as well. As I mentioned before, it should be about safety first. Who cares gets inconvenienced if it helps people stay safe. If there's something illogical about that, I guess I'll never understand.

Sound logic. The infared transmitter on your television was originally designed to send signals that kill people.

Let's ban television remotes. Besides, you know.....cancer.

[Goat Boy©]

Registry continues to shine....aiding telemarketers now.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/24/...n-response.html

The federal government has asked Canada's privacy commissioner to look into whether the RCMP should have passed on personal information from the national gun registry to a pollster.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan called the RCMP's release of information to the EKOS polling firm "offensive and inappropriate" and said it would not have been approved if the ministry had been consulted, said ministry spokesperson Chris McCluskey.

McCluskey said the RCMP decision to not consult the government was contrary to policy.

"The government is referring the matter to the privacy commissioner to determine whether law-abiding citizens' personal information was misused," he said in a statement.

Some Canadian gun owners were upset after personal details, such as names, addresses and phone numbers, from the gun registry were given to the research firm.

Tony Bernardo, who does legal work for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, said members were outraged when they received calls from the polling company.

"This information is absolutely privileged and encoded," said Bernardo. "It should have never been released beyond the confines of the RCMP."

McCluskey said the minister hopes the incident persuades the other federal parties to stop blocking the government's efforts to repeal the long-gun registry.

[Goat Boy©]

Oooh, Juicy! Although, admittedly one sided. Have to wonder if true, I wouldn't be in any way surprised.

http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislatio...rViolations.htm

......“The policy wasn’t meant to control guns,” Dixon wrote in the January 8 (2003) Globe and Mail. “It was designed to control Kim Campbell.”

Dixon relates how in the run-up to the 1993 federal election, Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party were keen to make then Tory Prime Minister Kim Campbell look “soft on guns.” As Justice Minister, Campbell had championed tough new gun control legislation in the wake of the Montreal massacre.

Worried that this would boost her electoral appeal, the Liberals decided to outbid her by proposing a much more draconian system. The key to this political strategy was “to find a policy that would provoke legitimate gun-owners to outrage.” The Liberals’ answer was a policy of universal registration.

Dixon relates how Justice Department officials warned the Liberals that universal registration would be ineffective, wildly expensive and incite strong opposition from firearm users. They did not care, Dixon writes, because effective policy was secondary to their primary political purpose.

“The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver,” explained Dixon. “Nothing would better convince the Liberals’ urban constituency that Jean Chretien and Allan Rock were taking a tough line on guns that the spectacle of angry old men spouting fury on Parliament hill.” And so Bill C-68 was conceived and passed into law.

[M.Dancer]

Say what you will about Phaedra Campbell...she passed tough effective gun legislation.