Online Petition to Scrap the Long Gun Registry

[Rockie]

I can't believe the pro-gun crowd is accusing the anti-gun crowd of fear mongering when this kind of paranoia is alive and well. No one wants to take your guns away from you. They want you to be responsible for them.

I suggest you take a closer look at some of the anti-gun crowd (the fact that they are called anti-gun is a pretty good indication of their sentiments). There is a very strong faction in that movement that wants guns gone. If someone where to put a muzzle on them, I think you'd gain ground with gun owners on the issue of the gun registry.

"Anti-gun" is my term, used only because it seemed an appropriate opposite to the pro-gun crowd. The majority of people don't care about your hunting rifles. Having someone register it, and therefore assume full responsibility for it is enough for most people. Restricted weapons and hand guns are a different matter though, and if it means stricter rules on hand gun ownership, storage and transport then so be it. In the big scheme of things it's not worth grinding your teeth down to the bone over.

[yfly]

Interesting. I wonder if people can own cars there?

Exerpt from knol beta:

"NB: This article is summarised in bullet points at the foot of the page.

When it became obvious that the motor car was here to stay, and that its popularity was rapidly growing, the British government took various steps to introduce regulation and control. It also recognised the need to be able to identify and trace vehicles in the event of accidents, their being used in the execution of crime or their being stolen."

[mcrit]

"Anti-gun" is my term, used only because it seemed an appropriate opposite to the pro-gun crowd. The majority of people don't care about your hunting rifles.

I'm going to have to disagree on that point. There is a large faction within the anti-gun groups that wants a complete ban. Here's a question. How many gun owners would drop their opposition to the gun registry if there were a constitutional amendment that protected their right to own a firearm, (or property in general [thanks Trudeau, may you roast in hell])? How far would such an ammendment make it before Taliban Jack and his lower than average IQ wife were jumping up and down?

[Dex]

If our federal government wanted, or even could for that matter, ban firearms the long gun registry would not give them any special enabling powers to ban them. They could ban firearms just as easily without the registry.

The registry is staying. Deal with it, get used to it, and start demanding the federal government fix the damn thing!!!!!!! If the Conservatives even had enough seats to abolish the Registry you can guarantee the Liberals will fight back with a ban. Keep the registry and show the Canadian public firearms owners are responsible and are not the cause of guns used in crime, blah blah blah.

[mcrit]

If our federal government wanted, or even could for that matter, ban firearms the long gun registry would not give them any special enabling powers to ban them.

.....but it is the thin edge of the wedge that leads to a ban.

[Rockie]

"Anti-gun" is my term, used only because it seemed an appropriate opposite to the pro-gun crowd. The majority of people don't care about your hunting rifles.

I'm going to have to disagree on that point. There is a large faction within the anti-gun groups that wants a complete ban. Here's a question. How many gun owners would drop their opposition to the gun registry if there were a constitutional amendment that protected their right to own a firearm, (or property in general [thanks Trudeau, may you roast in hell])? How far would such an ammendment make it before Taliban Jack and his lower than average IQ wife were jumping up and down?

I've already stated my opinion of the polarized extremes of this, and any other debate. Would you like me to start showing you examples of the extreme end of your argument?

As for a constitutional right to own a firearm, look how that has been distorted in the United States. The constitutional right down there was written at a time when a strong civilian militia was required to repel the British from exerting their control over a new republic that recently declared independence from them. How does that translate into the deformed definition commonly used today?

[Rockie]

If our federal government wanted, or even could for that matter, ban firearms the long gun registry would not give them any special enabling powers to ban them.

.....but it is the thin edge of the wedge that leads to a ban.

Fear mongering at its best.

[NWONT]

I swear this is my last. The reason registration is so important to confiscation is that the powers that be must first find out who has the firearms, where they are,the exact type you have, etc. Then the hand guns must be collected first, then the semi-autos, then the repeaters and so on til they are all removed. I give up. If you nare too stupid to see what is happening here at least look at what has happened elsewhere the same way. Every time there is a crime commited in that sewer known as Toronto and the surrounding area those in power head on up north and enact some moronic law to try to rectify the situation. Locking up guns or confiscating guns in Nakina will never fix the black gang problem on Young Street. I firmly believe that a border should be put in place just north of Sudbury, where most of the f#@ktards of Toronto think Northern Ontario is anyway. Then install the governing body in Thunder Bay, then we will decide whether or not there should be a long gun registration or a black bear hunt. In this way the next time some drug dealer gets a cap busted in his ass you won't be able to try to remedy the situation by registering some trappers rifle in Pickle Lake. I realize the gun registry is federal not provincial but it would be a start. What a laugh it was to see Mel Lastman begging with tears running down his face, when the sars scare was on, please come to Toronto and spend some cash to save us. I got a better idea, comon up north, spend some money and shoot a bear, the damn things are in my garbage can again. So long.

[rigpiggy]

As for a constitutional right to own a firearm, look how that has been distorted in the United States. The constitutional right down there was written at a time when a strong civilian militia was required to repel the British from exerting their control over a new republic that recently declared independence from them. How does that translate into the deformed definition commonly used today?

That's funny, because the recent ruling quoted something to the extent that it was a safety mechanism to keep the government from seizing power from the people.

[Rockie]

As for a constitutional right to own a firearm, look how that has been distorted in the United States. The constitutional right down there was written at a time when a strong civilian militia was required to repel the British from exerting their control over a new republic that recently declared independence from them. How does that translate into the deformed definition commonly used today?

That's funny, because the recent ruling quoted something to the extent that it was a safety mechanism to keep the government from seizing power from the people.

Man, you guys live in a world of fear and paranoia.

[Dex]

I swear this is my last. The reason registration is so important to confiscation is that the powers that be must first find out who has the firearms, where they are,the exact type you have, etc. Then the hand guns must be collected first, then the semi-autos, then the repeaters and so on til they are all removed. ............

Again!!!! If the government wanted to ban any firearm a registry would not give the government any special powers to do so. Most would turn in their firearms. The firearms would be illegal if kept and pretty useless to keep; a liability even. The very small minority of "keepers" would keep them regardless of a registry or not.

P.S. you know they are watching you from a van across the street? Its true!!!

[mcrit]

Fear mongering at its best.

If our federal government wanted, or even could for that matter, ban firearms the long gun registry would not give them any special enabling powers to ban them.

.....but it is the thin edge of the wedge that leads to a ban.

Fear mongering at its best.

Nothing wrong with fearing a genuine threat.
I take it from your other post that you are unwilling to provide legal gun owners with any sort of protection of their property, (a position common to the anti gun crowd). If you're not willing to compromise, why should they? If you're not willing to get the 'extremists' on your side of the debate under control, why should gun owners trust you?

[Rockie]

Gun owners already enjoy the same protection of property everyone else does and don't require special mention of their hunting rifles in the constitution. Is there a provision in the constitution that guarantees your right to own a boat?

If a weapon is restricted then you can't have one. If it is a handgun then you have to comply with regulations in order to have one. If you have a hunting rifle or shotgun then you have to register it. If you think the government is ever going to make hunting rifles and shotguns illegal to possess then you are reading way too much NFA fear mongering propaganda and your guns are the least of your worries.

[niss]

Then the hand guns must be collected first, then the semi-autos, then the repeaters....

Then they will come after your knives and your hatches, then after your baseball bat, then after your pointy stick, then after your toothbrush that you heated up and ground to a point.......

The registry should be removed so NWONT can keep his toothbrush.

[Doc]

Gun owners already enjoy the same protection of property everyone else does and don't require special mention of their hunting rifles in the constitution. Is there a provision in the constitution that guarantees your right to own a boat?

If a weapon is restricted then you can't have one. If it is a handgun then you have to comply with regulations in order to have one. If you have a hunting rifle or shotgun then you have to register it. If you think the government is ever going to make hunting rifles and shotguns illegal to possess then you are reading way too much NFA fear mongering propaganda and your guns are the least of your worries.

I see you're stil fighting then fight there, Rockie. That's good.
What "protection" are folks "enjoying" of their property in ghe gang infested areas of the larger cities? Now, I sure as hell am not advocating a ".44 under every pillow", but what protection are these people getting?
Some really do feel that registration is the first step in the banning process. It has happened in other countries. It could very well happen here. You get the right (wrong?) combination of lobby groups in the big cities, the right politicians, and voila.....all guns become illegal! Don't stick your head in the sand, and pretend "it can't happen here..." because, it sure as hell can.
And, once something is gone (by the hand of government) it's gone forever.

[Rockie]

Gun owners already enjoy the same protection of property everyone else does and don't require special mention of their hunting rifles in the constitution. Is there a provision in the constitution that guarantees your right to own a boat?

If a weapon is restricted then you can't have one. If it is a handgun then you have to comply with regulations in order to have one. If you have a hunting rifle or shotgun then you have to register it. If you think the government is ever going to make hunting rifles and shotguns illegal to possess then you are reading way too much NFA fear mongering propaganda and your guns are the least of your worries.

I see you're stil fighting then fight there, Rockie. That's good.
What "protection" are folks "enjoying" of their property in ghe gang infested areas of the larger cities? Now, I sure as hell am not advocating a ".44 under every pillow", but what protection are these people getting?
Some really do feel that registration is the first step in the banning process. It has happened in other countries. It could very well happen here. You get the right (wrong?) combination of lobby groups in the big cities, the right politicians, and voila.....all guns become illegal! Don't stick your head in the sand, and pretend "it can't happen here..." because, it sure as hell can.
And, once something is gone (by the hand of government) it's gone forever.

Tell you what Doc, at the first sign of the government banning hunting rifles I will begin a letter writing campaign to stop it. But something tells me that won't be necessary. Protection from gangs comes from effective laws specifically combatting those gangs, not from arming the population. Taken to extremes that's how anarchy starts, and I prefer a nice civilized society that creates and enforces laws over running gun battles in the streets.

And mentioning laws, wouldn't your efforts be better spent lobbying the government for effective laws and a court system that upholds them? I think we can all get onboard that train.

[NWONT]

Good one Niss. There was once a poem of sorts that went " when they came for the Jews I did not speak because I was not a Jew" and it goes on through the different races etc. Well its the same thing with guns. " When they came for the hand guns I did not speak because I had only a lever action and so on. In hindsight maybe Hitler had the right idea. I guess we'll never know.

[Rockie]

Good one Niss. There was once a poem of sorts that went " when they came for the Jews I did not speak because I was not a Jew" and it goes on through the different races etc. Well its the same thing with guns. " When they came for the hand guns I did not speak because I had only a lever action and so on. In hindsight maybe Hitler had the right idea. I guess we'll never know.

If I'm not mistaken they haven't come for the handguns and you can still own one. If that isn't correct then I had better tell my friend the police officer who owns two of them.

[mcrit]

If you think the government is ever going to make hunting rifles and shotguns illegal to possess then you are reading way too much NFA fear mongering propaganda and your guns are the least of your worries.

Did you ever get a chance to read Allen Rocks comments when he introduced the gun registry? Also, I don't see that there is any need to ban hand guns. It is interesting to note that there is a total handgun ban in Japan. The only people with handguns there are the Yakuza.

If I'm not mistaken they haven't come for the handguns ....

.....yet. But they want to. That's why gun owners are fighting.

And mentioning laws, wouldn't your efforts be better spent lobbying the government for effective laws and a court system that upholds them? I think we can all get onboard that train

.

Such laws would be more effective than any registry or ban.

[Rockie]

Did you ever get a chance to read Allen Rocks comments when he introduced the gun registry?

Who's Allen Rock? Oh yeah, he used to be a politician. I wonder what he's doing these days?

The only people with handguns there are the Yakuza.

I'm pretty sure the police have them as well, along with lots of bigger firepower. Do you honestly think having a handgun is going to defend you from the Yakuza?

[HS-748 2A]

Gun owners already enjoy the same protection of property everyone else does and don't require special mention of their hunting rifles in the constitution. Is there a provision in the constitution that guarantees your right to own a boat.

My understaing of Bill C-68 was that there were certain search and seizure provisions which circumvented normal protocal for a warrant if there were thought to be firearms on the premises. A clear violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is this errosion of civil liberties that must be gaurded against by us all.

Anybody who thinks Big Brother has our best interests at heart, has his head where the enima tube goes, never mind the waste and expense of this useless 'registry'.

http://www.rkba.ca/c68_charter_violations.html

[rigpiggy]

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Rockie do you agree with this quote?

[Siddley Hawker]

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Who made that quote, Peter Pan or Dorothy?

[Rockie]

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Rockie do you agree with this quote?

Nope. Why?

[Rockie]

Gun owners already enjoy the same protection of property everyone else does and don't require special mention of their hunting rifles in the constitution. Is there a provision in the constitution that guarantees your right to own a boat.

My understaing of Bill C-68 was that there were certain search and seizure provisions which circumvented normal protocal for a warrant if there were thought to be firearms on the premises. A clear violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is this errosion of civil liberties that must be gaurded against by us all.

Anybody who thinks Big Brother has our best interests at heart, has his head where the enima tube goes, never mind the waste and expense of this useless 'registry'.

http://www.rkba.ca/c68_charter_violations.html

This is a quote from this link that is the basis for your belief:
"The Firearms Act interferes with this liberty by making illegal the mere act of owning a firearm inside one's own home."

It is patently false because as you know it is perfectly legal to own a firearm inside one's own home.

The first thing you need to do when reading this kind of crap is consider the source and what their motivation is. As an example, I was going to post a government study that looked very scientifically at gun control worldwide (minus statistics) because it seemed very logical. I didn't because when I googled the author it turns out she is a university professor with a long history of activism for gun control. While I personally couldn't find anything obviously biased or misrepresented, her activism made me at least suspicious that some of it may have been so I stopped reading it. It would be nice if gun advocates stopped taking for gospel everything the firearms equivalent of CommunityAir says.