[Perturbed]

I couldn't resist. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

[canuck]

The notion that an armed populace is the best defense against tyrannical government has been long out-dated. <br /> <br />However, I agree that long-barrel, single-shot or small internal magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles are practical tools which should not be so strictly controlled. Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.

[z_whalen]

[QUOTE]However, I agree that long-barrel, single-shot or small internal magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles are practical tools which should not be so strictly controlled. Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />"If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the army." - Wesley Clark

[canuck]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] [QUOTE]However, I agree that long-barrel, single-shot or small internal magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles are practical tools which should not be so strictly controlled. Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />"If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the army." - Wesley Clark[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Definitely the most affective recruiting ad. Especially if it's nothing but dumb, trigger-happy, gun-nuts the US wants in uniform.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] [QUOTE]However, I agree that long-barrel, single-shot or small internal magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles are practical tools which should not be so strictly controlled. Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />"If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the army." - Wesley Clark[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Yeah but the T-shirt is still funny.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Canuck] The notion that an armed populace is the best defense against tyrannical government has been long out-dated. <br /> <br />However, I agree that long-barrel, single-shot or small internal magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles are practical tools which should not be so strictly controlled. Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Well, assault weapons are legal again in the U.S., but stricly banned in Canada IIRC. <br /> <br />My main argument is I disagree with the gun registry in theory and practice. What was wrong with the situation beforehand? Didn't we already have "Gun control"? <br /> <br />Isn't it telling that a government would spend 1 billon+ on a spy-on-your-citizens idea when people in this country are living on the streets? Are we supposed tp believe they did this "by accident," or are they trying to locate pocket sof possible opposition? Or is this simply a cash hand-out to whoever did the computer statbase deal? <br /> <br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Canuck] The notion that an armed populace is the best defense against tyrannical government has been long out-dated. <br /> <br />However, I agree that long-barrel, single-shot or small internal magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles are practical tools which should not be so strictly controlled. Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />I would agree that an armed populace doesn't exactly breed a mentally-healthy society, but although arms are a bad defence against tyranny--what is better? A swiss-army knife? <br /> <br />Obviously the world is so complex that it's often hard to know when to use force, but in some other countries arms are a necessity, not even a option, but a need. <br /> <br />Hopefully Canada remains a country where weapons are a problem, rather than a solution.

[Crankster]

Gun Control.Hmmmmm... Not something I have even bothered to loose sleep over. <br /> My neighbor has severl types of guns,all dully registered.Cost him about $4000.Yeah.Nice.He has two rifles and a hand gun or two.You tell me,Is it a frigging cash grab? Or just a huge Canadian brain fart?

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Crankster] Gun Control.Hmmmmm... Not something I have even bothered to loose sleep over. <br /> My neighbor has severl types of guns,all dully registered.Cost him about $4000.Yeah.Nice.He has two rifles and a hand gun or two.You tell me,Is it a frigging cash grab? Or just a huge Canadian brain fart?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />It's Orwellian, AND a cash grab.

[Kory Yamashita]

Some cash grab... it cost us over a billion bucks!!! For a database? Christ, they should have used MS Access <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br /> <br />It might be a brain fart. Or maybe it's yet another method of transferring money from people struggling in rural Canada to those rich folks living in the big towers in the great cities. Or rather, in the big mansions that have the great views of the big towers in the great cities. <br /> <br />The way I see it, criminals won't register guns. Hunters WILL register guns, but it alienates them by making them feel like criminals. So we've effectively just paid a billion dollars to hurt the feelings of a bunch of hicks. Good job, Chretien/Martin. Wait, on THAT note, maybe the Gun Registry is a mess Chretien made for Martin to clean up. They ARE both very petty men.

[Calumny]

The gun registry is an expected outcome from budgeting a bunch of cash, to fulfil an election promise that played on fear, to a project that some would see as as an opportunity to enhance their reputations. <br /> <br />As Dr. Caleb has pointed out, provincial and federal public services have access to a number of similar databases that could have been utilized. But, that wouldn't have been flashy enough for some. <br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Canuck] Rather, handguns and semi-automatic/automatic rifles rightly deserve to be banned from private ownership... if for no other reason than being utterly useless.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I quite disagree. Automatic rifles have been banned for quite some time and are useless in most every situation (even combat), but semi-auto and handguns have very specific uses. <br /> <br />Semi-autos, for those that don't know, use the exploding gas from the cartridge to expel the spent bullet, and load the next bullet. The rifle/gun don't need to have a bolt pulled back to do this, and it takes less time. Bolt-action is more accurate, and therefore preferred for hunting. Semi-auto is preferred for close (>300m) target shooting. <br /> <br />There is nothing better for personal defense than a handgun. Now, it is illegal for a civillian to carry a handgun in public, I regularally carry one while hunting. No, not to defend myself from humans, but from <u>bears</u>. (although, I do have a human story involving stupid 'merican hunters for which I nearly needed personal defense . . .). <br /> <br />In the bush, when you are in Moose or Elk country, you are usually in Grizzly country as well. When you bring down a moose, the smell can travel for many kilometers when you are dressing the animal, and can attract bears. A long gun is mostly uselss in close quarters, such as thick brush, which 50% of the time a moose will die in (the other 50% is deep in muskeg, far from any trail . Plus, if you are skinning and gutting an animal, your rifle is usually over there against a tree, or back in the truck. Most bolt action rifles don't fire at any significant rate of fire to be used for personal defense against a bear anyhow. So, I carry a large calibre 15 shot automatic for just such an eventuality. (Automatic <u>guns</u> are not the same as automatic <u>rifles</u>, they do not shoot more than one bullet when the trigger is squeezed) <br /> <br />Most of my hunting however is done by bow, which makes the sidearm much more welcome. I would rather not kill a hungry bear looking for an easy meal. But I would also rather not wound a bear with a bow, or a missed shot because I slipped on my own urine and feces. I would rather pop a couple shots in the air and survive with both of us intact, or with large holes in the bear. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

[Calumny]

Something tells me you wouldn't be that easy of a meal...probably pretty tough to swallow. <br /> <br />On the other hand, guess bear(grrrs) can't be choosers.

[Dr Caleb]

(*Collective Groan*) <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br /> <br />Yea, I'd be a little too salty, and my horns would probabally get stuck in his throat . . <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'> <br />

[canuck]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] <br />There is nothing better for personal defense than a handgun. Now, it is illegal for a civillian to carry a handgun in public, I regularally carry one while hunting. No, not to defend myself from humans, but from <u>bears</u>. (although, I do have a human story involving stupid 'merican hunters for which I nearly needed personal defense . . .). <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />I agree that attmempting to shoot a bear that may be threatening your life is reasonable, but would the lethality of a handgun be enough to incapacitate a bear? <br /> <br />Since bears don't naturally prey on humans, would the sound made by gunfire (blank) be a similarily effective deterent or would bear spray be a more effective incapacitant if one strays too close? As for encounters with belligerant Americans, I'm not certain bear spray would be strong enough... <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>