Online Petition to Scrap the Long Gun Registry

[xsbank]

Quite a gun - the elk disintegrated.... mmmmmmm elk.

Sorry, I apologise for calling 'somebody' a doorknob.

If I provide information about how miniscule a problem guns are and I prove that guns do very little to impact our society except in the 'minds' of the media, how much of a total waste and misdirection of a significant lump of money and the audience refuses to see the writing on the wall, then these posts cease to be an argument and turn into ideology or a simple rant and I feel like I've wasted my time, then I am driven to using invective by the tightly closed 'minds' of those I am trying to convince. Oh yeah, did I call you "brain-dead," or something similar? Sorry.

Rex Murphy, while I usually find him entertaining, is a journalist. Look at how journalists report aircraft accidents and remember why they are on their hind legs, to sell something; then you can dismiss most of what they say as biased, towards whatever inflames the populace and sells more of whatever their product is.

[Dex]

If the registry can prove that crimes committed with long guns did not come from licensed firearms owners then that is VERY GOOD for gun owners. We would have documented evidence that Canadian gun owners are not responsible for gun crimes! Would make it very hard to argue that banning firearms from responsible owners makes Canada safer.

The evidence is pretty clear cut that registered firearms are not used in organized crime.

And without the registry you could not make that statement.

So the registry's Raison d'etre is to prove it's uselessness?

In this circumstance I wouldn't call it useless. The registry was used to support your statement: "The evidence is pretty clear cut that registered firearms are not used in organized crime.". The irony is that you are using the registry yourself, yet you call it useless. It can also be a measure of the regulators performance if in the future many registered guns were used in crimes.

Thats funny! I didn't hear anyone complain about the costs or the quality of the restricted firearms registry. This must be evidence that the Federal Government can do it right. If you demand it, they will do it.

That probably has something to do with the concealability and popularity of handguns. The fact that there is a resident danger, and I'm happy they go through further evaluation before handing over handguns.

So firearms registries are ok in your opinion as long as the firearms are concealable and popular?

And firearms owners bi$ch about registering restricted all the time. Why the hell is an AR-15 restricted? Because it looks like an army gun from TV? Yet guns like the M-14 comes from a history of being a standard issue military rifle, is manufactured with a fully automatic capacity, and is capable of doing far more damage, and represents a far greater danger to innocents in a crossfire than an AR-15 ever could.

But the AR-15 looks like the army gun from TV(big and scary), so you can't varmit hunt with it? The Mini-14 is almost an exact replica to the AR in terms of physics, but again, non-restricted.

These things make no sense at all.

Kinda went off on your own there didn't ya? Maybe you didn't understand my point.

Of course a file will render a firearm unregistered. The only way to identify individual firearms is by serial numbers, easily removed. The gun in question could still have a registration in existence, but it is impossible to match the two.

LOL!!! File all you want, as long as there is still metal under the filed serial number............

And changing a bolt does un-register. The bolt is the only part of the firearm that is registered. I could easily order an AR lower from colt or M92 frame from Beretta right now, and not have to register them. It's a piece of plastic and metal that looks like a firearm, but it isn't a firearm. It has no capacity to discharge ammunition. The original bolt may or may not share a common serial number with the rest of the firearm, but that's rather irrelevant.
That's why the CFC asks you to report changes when firearms are modified. (Again, honor system, nobody actually does this.)

I own a bolt-less Remington 700, bought off a US buy & sell. Declared to customs as firearms parts (The same way high capacity magazines are brought across, legally of course, not even smuggled), & duty paid. No requirement of registration.

Where do you come up with this stuff??

The firearm is still registered and if the regulator or police force find you with a modified firearm which you did not report you get spanked. SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT FIREARM.

[xsbank]

From the Economist: "Celia Richardson, the MHF’s (Mental Health Foundation) director of campaigns, thinks that people are responding to the effects of an emotional arms race. Modern media-savvy governments realise that, with so many messages competing for the public’s attention—about benefit fraud, climate change, crime, drunkenness, obesity and terrorism—ramping up the fright factor is the easiest way to make sure individual messages get through. She compares a famous second world war poster that exhorted people to “keep calm and carry on” with modern warnings about smoking or junk food expressly designed to be as terrifying as possible."

[Rockie]

From the Economist: "Celia Richardson, the MHF’s (Mental Health Foundation) director of campaigns, thinks that people are responding to the effects of an emotional arms race. Modern media-savvy governments realise that, with so many messages competing for the public’s attention—about benefit fraud, climate change, crime, drunkenness, obesity and terrorism—ramping up the fright factor is the easiest way to make sure individual messages get through. She compares a famous second world war poster that exhorted people to “keep calm and carry on” with modern warnings about smoking or junk food expressly designed to be as terrifying as possible."

What is this "fear mongering" that you often speak about? I've heard nothing from anybody (including David Miller) about long guns except the desire to know where they are and who's responsible for them. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Armed gangs are a different story, and it seems to me you guys are totally onside with that. In fact most of the rhetoric against gangs has come from you.

So who's ramping up the fright factor?

(I'm talking about fear of guns here, not fear of stormtroopers bashing your door down to take you and your guns away. That's a different topic.)

[niss]

(I'm talking about fear of guns here, not fear of stormtroopers bashing your door down to take you and your guns away. That's a different topic.)

But it does segue to my Red Dawn reference.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooy0GFMYafY

AVEEEEEEENNNNGEEEE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mcrit]

Like I've said before, most gun owners see the gun registry as the first steps leading to a ban, therein lay the opposition. Perhaps they would oppose it less if they had some legal assurance that the government couldn't confiscate guns, a constitutional ammendment perhaps? (This could lead to an interesting discussion)

[Rockie]

Like I've said before, most gun owners see the gun registry as the first steps leading to a ban, therein lay the opposition. Perhaps they would oppose it less if they had some legal assurance that the government couldn't confiscate guns, a constitutional ammendment perhaps? (This could lead to an interesting discussion)

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.

[mcrit]

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.

[NWONT]

Rockie, pull your head out of you tail end. The Liberals have admitted to the fact that they were going to outlaw all firearms. Once registered they were going to confiscate one type at a time. They went for hand guns first and that was as far as they got. This is all public knowledge. Whats the point of going over all this again?

[Rockie]

"Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, speaking in Toronto, went one step further with a promise to introduce legislation to allow provinces to ban all handguns, if re-elected on Monday."

This is the closest thing I could find about the Liberals outlawing guns, and it appeared shortly after Jane Creba was shot and killed on Boxing day in 2006 at the height of anti-gun sentiment. You'll notice it only mentions handguns, not "all firearms" as you contend. Also, this was a PM willing to say anything to prevent the election loss looming on the horizon. We all know how much stock you can put in an eleventh hour election promise.

Maybe you should pull your own head out and stop believing everything that Katey and the Canadian branch of the NRA are telling you.

[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.