You are correct there. Although we register firearms owners through the PAL it stops there. The National Firearms Association submitted a gradual licensing system for firearms years ago. It didnt get a second look from the Liberals. It actually made sense, was it because it came from a pro-firearms group, rather than anti? People want to crack down on legal fireams owners, and then argue that the Conservative government wants to be too harsh on criminals.Nark wrote:Firearms aren't dangerous. I am.
Back to my "I have control" statement, why not register the owner, not all the firearms. That would have eliminated roughly a billion of this boondoggle.
Happy hunting, and skeet shooting.
Katey's Firearms Facts
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
Andy Hamilton
- Rank 1
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:25 am
- Location: YHM
There is a downside to this packing heat about town.
Suppose you come upon two people fighting.
The one on top is beating the shit out of the lower guy.
You, having watched Clint Eastwood movies, shoot the one on top.
Then you find out that the guy on the bottom attacked the guy on top and
then the guy on top got the better of the guy on the bottom who started all this and you shot the wrong guy.
You're the guy that's in shit now.
Suppose you come upon two people fighting.
The one on top is beating the shit out of the lower guy.
You, having watched Clint Eastwood movies, shoot the one on top.
Then you find out that the guy on the bottom attacked the guy on top and
then the guy on top got the better of the guy on the bottom who started all this and you shot the wrong guy.
You're the guy that's in shit now.
If the guy on the bottom's life is in immediate jeopardy, then it's a good shoot.spooky wrote:There is a downside to this packing heat about town.
Suppose you come upon two people fighting.
The one on top is beating the shit out of the lower guy.
You, having watched Clint Eastwood movies, shoot the one on top.
Then you find out that the guy on the bottom attacked the guy on top and
then the guy on top got the better of the guy on the bottom who started all this and you shot the wrong guy.
You're the guy that's in shit now.
"FLY THE AIRPLANE"!
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
I'm taught "escalation of force." So first I yell, "hey stop" then progress to shooting someone.
I've been taught how to control someone, more than beat the shit out of them.
It's amazing how quickly someone looses the will to fight once there elbow is broken. Get the idea?
I know some of you are thinking, shoot to injure. No such thing. I shoot to kill.
Don't confuse me being a cop, (I know, the name Nark doesn't help)
I've been taught how to control someone, more than beat the shit out of them.
It's amazing how quickly someone looses the will to fight once there elbow is broken. Get the idea?
I know some of you are thinking, shoot to injure. No such thing. I shoot to kill.
Don't confuse me being a cop, (I know, the name Nark doesn't help)
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Proper training for the RCMP at one time, in the proper use of a firearm went like this:
1) If you release the hook, safety, or flap of a holster, it is mandatory that you remove the weapon.
2) If, once the weapon is removed from the holster and it becomes necessary to use it, you will aim at the torso and you will shoot to kill. You will NEVER aim to wound, maim or injure. You ARE NOT Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickock and you pretend to be at your own peril. Everything being normal, the one laying down will be the looser.......the one standing up will usually be the winner. The vast majority of any shootings you are involved in will happen in dim lighting conditions and at a distance of 15' or less.
3) If, in your considered opinion, it is not necessary for the subject to potentially die for the offense they have just committed, THEN LEAVE YOUR DAMN WEAPON IN IT'S HOLSTER AND SECURED THERE.
1) If you release the hook, safety, or flap of a holster, it is mandatory that you remove the weapon.
2) If, once the weapon is removed from the holster and it becomes necessary to use it, you will aim at the torso and you will shoot to kill. You will NEVER aim to wound, maim or injure. You ARE NOT Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickock and you pretend to be at your own peril. Everything being normal, the one laying down will be the looser.......the one standing up will usually be the winner. The vast majority of any shootings you are involved in will happen in dim lighting conditions and at a distance of 15' or less.
3) If, in your considered opinion, it is not necessary for the subject to potentially die for the offense they have just committed, THEN LEAVE YOUR DAMN WEAPON IN IT'S HOLSTER AND SECURED THERE.
Well said, LH.
"Shooting to wound" is very simply a recipe for injured bystanders and dead police officers. The only time when aiming for something other than the center of mass makes sense is if you're aiming a rifle for a head shot...or if the center of mass is somehow obscured/protected.
"Shooting to wound" is very simply a recipe for injured bystanders and dead police officers. The only time when aiming for something other than the center of mass makes sense is if you're aiming a rifle for a head shot...or if the center of mass is somehow obscured/protected.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
w squared --------it saves someone getting killed because they are running away from a 7-Eleven after stealing a loaf of bread or a Tootsie Roll. Warning shots do not always go where intended and sometimes people trip while running after said thief. Gun fires accidentally and instead of bullet going over head of thief, it enters his back.......killing him instantly. That person does not get to come back next week on another TV program in another role.........this is REAL life.........they are now gone forever.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764)
I got this from the other blog, I'm old but honest Injun I haven't been around that long.
You gotta read that slowly, then it sinks in.
No mention of crazy people though. I think they sent them out with a dull hatchet to search for Injuns on the reservations. They didn't hold dinner for them. :(
I got this from the other blog, I'm old but honest Injun I haven't been around that long.
You gotta read that slowly, then it sinks in.
No mention of crazy people though. I think they sent them out with a dull hatchet to search for Injuns on the reservations. They didn't hold dinner for them. :(
The point was that the person packing heat (not a cop) comes upon a scene that he doesn't have time to digest, maybe with a crowd screaming that this person or the other is the trangressor.
With no training, or even an officer with training, he/she is going to have to make some hasty decisions.
Switch to: Some people come to your door at night, yelling "open up, police". Do you expect burglars to come yelling "open up, crooks"?
Without a cop car with flashing lights outside (supposing they snuck up on you as would a police raid) how do you determine if they're cops or robbers?
If you hesitate to look up phone numbers to confirm, they break down your door. With this stress, do you shoot the intruders or hope they're really police?
Anyone can buy jackets saying Police, even the band of that name might sell them.
Yes if you recognize Dog the Bounty Hunter, and his camera crew you'll feel at ease. But this is Canada, not Hawaii.
With no training, or even an officer with training, he/she is going to have to make some hasty decisions.
Switch to: Some people come to your door at night, yelling "open up, police". Do you expect burglars to come yelling "open up, crooks"?
Without a cop car with flashing lights outside (supposing they snuck up on you as would a police raid) how do you determine if they're cops or robbers?
If you hesitate to look up phone numbers to confirm, they break down your door. With this stress, do you shoot the intruders or hope they're really police?
Anyone can buy jackets saying Police, even the band of that name might sell them.
Yes if you recognize Dog the Bounty Hunter, and his camera crew you'll feel at ease. But this is Canada, not Hawaii.
-
Andy Hamilton
- Rank 1
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:25 am
- Location: YHM
I think the thread is getting carried away here. You can come up with 'what ifs' and 'how abouts' all day long. If someone is running away, they are not a threat to you, therefore if you fired, you would go to jail. The fact of the matter is individuals can be properly screened, trained and tested to function in society and carry a firearm safely. Warning shots are for the movies, if you are in danger you use appropriate force to protect you life or that of others. Anything else gets you charged..LH wrote:w squared --------it saves someone getting killed because they are running away from a 7-Eleven after stealing a loaf of bread or a Tootsie Roll. Warning shots do not always go where intended and sometimes people trip while running after said thief. Gun fires accidentally and instead of bullet going over head of thief, it enters his back.......killing him instantly. That person does not get to come back next week on another TV program in another role.........this is REAL life.........they are now gone forever.
Andy Hamilton ------depending on the circumstances of the chase, there is no guarantee in law that any policeman will be charged for firing a warning shot in the direction of any fleeing suspect. What happens to that policeman WITHIN that policeman's own force for doing so is a completely different matter though.
An interesting point of view:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct,
but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will
permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will
allow. It is unjust for the law to deprive the innocent of their liberty
because of the behaviour of the guilty. For society does not control crime,
ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behaviour of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing criminals to
accommodate themselves to the expected behaviour of the law-abiding."
-Jeff Snyder
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct,
but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will
permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will
allow. It is unjust for the law to deprive the innocent of their liberty
because of the behaviour of the guilty. For society does not control crime,
ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behaviour of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing criminals to
accommodate themselves to the expected behaviour of the law-abiding."
-Jeff Snyder
OK back to the thread:
Local gunsmith Bruce Montague will enter arguments in Kenora's
Superior Court Monday March 12th to potentially get him off a
10 year prison sentence.
"By challenging the validity of the firearms law itself, I'm asking
the court to acknowledge that the law is criminal, not me" says
Montague.
Montague and his wife Donna were charged in 2004 for their deliberate
refusal to comply with firearms paperwork which they believe to be an
unwarranted threat to their freedom, privacy and property.
Calvin Martin QC will be presenting the Montagues' arguments to
Justice John Wright.
Anyone interested in the area, and has the time, the trial will be in the Kenora courthouse.
Local gunsmith Bruce Montague will enter arguments in Kenora's
Superior Court Monday March 12th to potentially get him off a
10 year prison sentence.
"By challenging the validity of the firearms law itself, I'm asking
the court to acknowledge that the law is criminal, not me" says
Montague.
Montague and his wife Donna were charged in 2004 for their deliberate
refusal to comply with firearms paperwork which they believe to be an
unwarranted threat to their freedom, privacy and property.
Calvin Martin QC will be presenting the Montagues' arguments to
Justice John Wright.
Anyone interested in the area, and has the time, the trial will be in the Kenora courthouse.
-
North Shore
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5625
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
And how is Mr. Montague doing?
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
Wow you really dug deep to bring this one back:)
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
I think what the ex military guy I was flying with said it best, "I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than be carried by 6 of my best friends". Self defence should not have to be justified.
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
Ahhhh, the sweet sight and sound of freedom, as Martin Luther King famously said, "LET FREEDOM REIGN.." In a free society, the only way to stay free, is to have as many guns as those that would oppress you have - that is an age old axiom that will never change, because human nature and the lust for power will never change. That is why gun control is ultimately about people control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pekpo0aPybg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pekpo0aPybg
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
Now do I personally feel the need for a carry permit? no. Do I think you should be able to get them with proper screening? Sure. Do I feel the need to own a machine gun or a howitzer (well ok maybe the thompson)? no. Would I LOVE to go out to a range like that and have the opportunity to go nuts like a kid in a candy shop for a day and try them all? HELL YES!!
If you want to get technical about cops having better armament than the populace. I as a gun owner can only have a handgun able to carry 10 rounds (technically i could also drop one in the chamber for 11) If the gun i bought has a mag designed for more I must get that magazine pinned so it will only hold 10. LE officers have no such restrictions their firearms carry as many rounds as the factory mags can hold.
As for Semi automatic guns. The liberals used this term because for many people you say a semi automatic they think either handgun or they just hear automatic and think machine gun (I have had to clarify what a semi auto is more than once to uninformed friends) Now to clear it up its not the nicest of my grandfathers guns, but it is the newest (and it has a scope so at 75 he prefers it
) This is a BAR (Browning automatic rifle) 
its name is even somewhat of a misnomer, it holds the legal max of 5 rounds (4 in a removable magazine and one in the chamber). It is Chambered in a 30-06 and a beautiful weapon for a deer or a moose. (though my favorite and has been made very clear that i can't have it till he dies, is his 1950's era Marlin 30-30 Lever action with a personally engraved stock, family heirloom passed from his father).
Do I like hunting? Yes. Do I like to go out to a range with a handgun for some fun target practice? Of course. This is what Canadian gun culture is about, fathers and grandfathers teaching their kids and handing down their firearms. Also about the video with the kid, was a bit but not much older when I first learned to shoot, now as stated before that gun was too big for him. I started with a .22 rifle and we were shooting at a paper target nailed to a tree. Licensing gun owners is a great idea, and there have been other great ideas over the years on gun control. The registry was not one of them. To quote my uncle "HA! gun control. I'm from Florida where that means hold it with both hands stupid"
If you want to get technical about cops having better armament than the populace. I as a gun owner can only have a handgun able to carry 10 rounds (technically i could also drop one in the chamber for 11) If the gun i bought has a mag designed for more I must get that magazine pinned so it will only hold 10. LE officers have no such restrictions their firearms carry as many rounds as the factory mags can hold.
As for Semi automatic guns. The liberals used this term because for many people you say a semi automatic they think either handgun or they just hear automatic and think machine gun (I have had to clarify what a semi auto is more than once to uninformed friends) Now to clear it up its not the nicest of my grandfathers guns, but it is the newest (and it has a scope so at 75 he prefers it
) This is a BAR (Browning automatic rifle) Do I like hunting? Yes. Do I like to go out to a range with a handgun for some fun target practice? Of course. This is what Canadian gun culture is about, fathers and grandfathers teaching their kids and handing down their firearms. Also about the video with the kid, was a bit but not much older when I first learned to shoot, now as stated before that gun was too big for him. I started with a .22 rifle and we were shooting at a paper target nailed to a tree. Licensing gun owners is a great idea, and there have been other great ideas over the years on gun control. The registry was not one of them. To quote my uncle "HA! gun control. I'm from Florida where that means hold it with both hands stupid"
- Attachments
-
- 031219l.jpg (88.52 KiB) Viewed 1211 times
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
Now I know MOST people on here know what a semi auto really means, but this was a real conversation with a friend.
"I can't believe they want to ban Semi Automatic weapons"
"So? why does anyone need a machine gun?"
"No, SEMI automatic means every time I squeeze the trigger a round fires. If I hold it down and multiple rounds fire thats an Automatic not a semi auto.
"Oh, well people don't need a handgun then"
"No.... Ok, this is a Browning Automatic Rifle.........."
You guys got the end of the conversation.
"I can't believe they want to ban Semi Automatic weapons"
"So? why does anyone need a machine gun?"
"No, SEMI automatic means every time I squeeze the trigger a round fires. If I hold it down and multiple rounds fire thats an Automatic not a semi auto.
"Oh, well people don't need a handgun then"
"No.... Ok, this is a Browning Automatic Rifle.........."
You guys got the end of the conversation.
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
I'm sure interest in this discussion has evaporated. It has been dragged out for so long that much of public concern for a citizen no longer exists. Bruce montegue was sentenced to 18 months in prison. His sentence is under appeal. His family home is a log cabin built by his own hands is under siezure by the federal government as the proceeds of a crime. Bruce has never broken a law in his life before but just stood up against a tyranical government that attacked its citizens. Stephen Harper tried to end this insanity but couldn't swing the necessary votes. Oh well, just another citizen and a couple billion tax dollars.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Katey's Firearms Facts
It is far more than just another citizen, it is frightening that they can do this to " ANY " citizen.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
