[Brent Swain]

Allan Rock the author of the registry asaid that his goal was to outlaw anyone except police and military owning any kind of gun, long guns included.Registry simply enables them to sieze any kind of gun anytime they wish. it was the Liberals who set up the registry so that it could be changed and any kind of gun could be arbritarily banned without a debate in the house of commons.Thus , one type of gun at a time all long guns could be banned. When they say this is not the agenda , Bhould we believe anyone who told us that it would only cost a milluion dollars.<br /> The registry lets anyone with a grudge make up a story about you , and have your guns siezed abritarily, leaving you to be considered guilty until proven innocent.This could eliminate your ability to feed your family and protect your children and persue your livlihood arbritarily. Thus those who claim it's a simple matter are totally ignorant of what the registry entails.<br /> Registering a gun gives permission for police and bureaucrats to probe into your personal life, invade your home and take whatever they want and send you to jail for a couple of years by simply accuseing you of failing to answer extremely intrusive questons about your personal life.<br /> brent

[Marcarc]

Firearms stolen from Department of Natural Resources office, Sackville, N.B.<br /> Sackville RCMP is investigating a break, enter and theft that occurred Monday morning, February 6th, 2006, at the Department of Natural Resources office, 6 Milton Lane, Sackville, N.B. The culprit or culprits forced open filing cabinets and a gun vault, stealing two Smith and Wesson ,Model 10, 38 special service revolvers, two speed loaders, two Police expandable batons, a bullet proof vest, three rifles and ammunition.<br /> Anyone with information is asked to contact the RCMP at 506-536-0830 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS(8477)"<br /> <br /> <br /> I hope the government registers their own guns!<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[badsector]

Dr. Caleb's usual:<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]No, democracy is about the majority rule and free elections. Not about pulled-it-out-my-butt statistics.[/QUOTE]<br /> Good... most people voted against the Conservatives this year. Get them the Hell out of there.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]Please note your honour, anyone who needs to keep a gun on their farm is now to be referred to as 'fanatic right winger'.[/QUOTE]<br /> Explain to me in clear terms why a gun is necessary to run a farm. I am listening.

[badsector]

Hey, I have a great idea!<br /> <br /> If a legally owned firewarm is involved in a crime, charge the owner of the firearm with manslaughter. What's fair is fair. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[badsector]

[QUOTE]To apply for a gun licence , you are asked many very intrusive questions about your personal relationships, and anyone who has a grudge against you can veto your application by making false , unprovable accusations against you. You are presumed guilty until proven innocent of such accusations.If you happen to be seen giving the time of day to some stranger who has beeen barred for life from owning a gun or who has a violent criminal record, then you too can be barred for life.This applies even if you live in wilderness areas and have polar bears , grizzlies or cougars regularly in your back yard.[/QUOTE]<br /> I totally agree with that! Concerns for public safety should override your privilige to carry a gun. If there is a chance that you hate someone to the point that you would shoot that person, then it's better for everyone (including yourself!) that you don't get a gun. Remember: freedom only applies if you don't use it to infringe the freedom of others.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= badsector] Hey, I have a great idea!<br /> <br /> If a legally owned firewarm is involved in a crime, charge the owner of the firearm with manslaughter. What's fair is fair. <img align="absmiddle" src='images/smilies/smile.gif'>[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Excellent idea! Let's make it broader though! If someone's car gets stolen and is used in a crime, let's charge the owner as an accessorie after the fact! Heck, let's dispense with this whole rule of law thing. And no one really uses that Constitution thingie anyway.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= badsector]<br /> Explain to me in clear terms why a gun is necessary to run a farm. I am listening.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well, since we've both been farming all these years . . .<br /> Or rather Rev Blair has, and his answer still stands - "A gun is a tool like any other."<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= badsector]<br /> I totally agree with that! Concerns for public safety should override your privilige to carry a gun. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> There has never been any right to carry a gun, outside of certain professions.<br />

[badsector]

[QUOTE]Or rather Rev Blair has, and his answer still stands - "A gun is a tool like any other."[/QUOTE]<br /> I guess a gun can be used as a substitute for a hammer when you build a new shed. You can grab the end and hammer away with the back of it. Or, you could attach a rake to it and use it as a rake handle. Use the barrel to suck Diesel out of the old tractor. Losen up the ground in the spring with it. Use it as a handle to get something out from under the fridge. Use it at a barbecue to move the steaks around on the grill.

[Brent Swain]

Sorry library computer shut off.<br /> 222,911 guns were registered with the same make and serial number as other guns . That's not just useless , it's dangerous. If someone else with a blue ford explorer is involved in a hit and run, you'll be the one getting a knock on the door by the RCMP .<br /> Out of 4,114,624 registration certificates , 3,235,647 had blank or missing entries , but the bureaucrats issued them anyway.When licences arrived with photos of people other than the applicant on them they decided to issue them without photos.<br /> The computers, a shopping list for gun thieves ,have been breached 221 times since the mid 90's, according to RCMP<br /> <br /> In August 2002 the registry sent a leter to Hulbert Orser demanding he register his guns , and warning him that it is a crime not to. Orser died in 1981.<br /> 1531 gun ownwers were licenced with no indication they had taken the gun safety courses , one of the main arguements for licencing.<br /> It costs more to register than the price of a gun . Its a tax, a tax on rural living.<br /> The govt spent 29 million on registry advertising including 4.5 million on Group action, the Liberal firm now under RCMP investigation.<br /> Why continue this abysmal failure when it has proven a total waste of time, when the same money spent elsewhere can actually save lives , many lives.Spporting it politically makes one complicit in the dweaths caused by such a waste of lives that can be saved by more realistic spending priorities.<br /> Brent

[Marcarc]

Not only that, but here's something to think about. Many homeowners in the states have guns. In Ontario today was a gruesome murder, neighbours heard it through a wall and called police but were too scared to get involved. If one of them had a gun they 'perhaps' could have saved three people who were hideously murdered. Now, isn't that 'if we can maybe save one person it would be worth it' used as a reason to justify not just gun registries (which is silly) but gun ownership?

[badsector]

Hahah, hail the "superior" society where everyone waves a gun and vigilanty justice is prevalent. In the US there are over 11,000 gun murders a year. In 5 years it's more than the US lost in Vietnam. In 3 months its more than US losses in Iraq. To come to think of it, Iraq is one of the safest place in the World for US citizens. At home it's more dangerous. Is this the type of society you are deaming of?<br /> <br /> If you can afford a gun, you can afford to fill out an application form. Do you have a car? Is it registered? You should register your gun too. If the system has problems, they should be fixed, but not discarded. If the police find a gun at a 15 year old kid, at least I would like to know where that gun came from, so steps can be taken to close the loophole. I have no sympathy for the hicks who think they have a right to carry a bazooka but are outraged when they have to fill out a on page form about it. It's ridiculous!<br /> <br /> The gun lobby is manipulating the simple crowd. I bet you, as soon as gun registry and gun control are abolished, the gun makers' stocks will skyrocket. Some people make millions on a simple thing like that, people die, meanwhile the useful idiots are protesting.

[Marcarc]

"Useful idiots" indeed. Take a look at WHERE most gun crimes are in the states. They aren't homeowners who have guns for personal protection, they are socially disenfranchised areas, just like in Toronto. In these places the argument that it is the guns that are the problem become absurd. If these places weren't cesspools and war zones thanks to a corrupt Ottawa bureaucracy that believes its more useful to pay off foreigner investors, escalate tax havens for the wealthy, decrease taxes for the richest percentage, and illegally stuff money in thier pockets; rather than actually let some canadian wealth benefit canadians, these problems wouldn't raise their heads. You only need to go read newspapers from the seventies and eighties to see that.<br /> <br /> As said to all of the 'useful idiots' out there, getting a gun already required a registry, it's called an FCC. People already had to prove they were trained on it, and they were registered with the police. Stop being a 'useful idiot' and go READ the gun registry bill, or at least read the posts on this thread where the problems are recounted.<br /> <br /> The simple fact from the previous story is that gun ownership could have SAVED a life, or lives. In fact we make it illegal even for women to carry tazers, we tell them 'sure, you might get raped, but we'll be right on the scene to make sure he does hard time'. People protecting themselves is simply out of the question. If you think some massive government bureaucracy will 'decrease crime' that's your business, but don't be insulting to all the people who take the time to look at the issues.

[badsector]

If gun ownership saves lives, as you claim, then the US should be the safest, most peaceful country on Earth. Please don't make a fool out of yourself. Crime in the US is so bad, that the country is on the list of dangerous destinations for tourists. There are over 11,000 gun murders there every year. It's like having 1,100 gun murders a year in Canada, yet the actual number is significantly lower. It looks like Canada is doing better in terms of fighting gun crime than our trigger happy neighbor to the South. You argument sounds nice, you just left out one small thing that makes a big difference: reality.<br /> <br /> Pushing the cart of gun maker corporations.

[Reverend Blair]

[QUOTE]Explain to me in clear terms why a gun is necessary to run a farm. I am listening.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Gophers, skunks, coyotes, wild dogs.<br /> <br /> Coyotes can actually be dealt with fairly successfully by throwing a 9/16's wrench at their heads, but the others keep on coming back.<br /> <br /> Sometimes you have to put an animal down as well. A gun is a humane way of doing that.<br /> <br /> If a gun is just for farm use, a single shot .22 rifle is all that's needed. It is needed though. <br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]I guess a gun can be used as a substitute for a hammer when you build a new shed. You can grab the end and hammer away with the back of it. Or, you could attach a rake to it and use it as a rake handle. Use the barrel to suck Diesel out of the old tractor. Losen up the ground in the spring with it. Use it as a handle to get something out from under the fridge. Use it at a barbecue to move the steaks around on the grill.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I generally use a hammer when I need a hammer. When I need to empty a gas or diesel tank, I use a pump. When I need to shoot something, a gun is the tool of choice. <br /> <br /> I have no problem with having to register a gun, and I think there should be a mandatory test for anybody who wants to use a gun. I have to register my truck, and I had to take a course and pass a test before I could use a Hilti nailer on a commercial work-site. I've signed a petition for a test before air nailers can be used as well. Some tools are dangerous enough that there should be restrictions.<br /> <br /> When I need a rake, I use a rake, by the way. I thought I'd mention that hand rakes are pretty useless as farm tools though. I've only ever used one for raking the lawn in the city, which kind of makes me want to have lawns banned. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Marcarc]

There's no need of that kind of talk, we just got rid of Rabblewatch, there's no need to take his place.<br /> <br /> Those are two separate arguments-saving lives and taking lives. It is also resorting to statistics, which don't tell the story.<br /> <br /> For example, we know that the states is markedly different from Canada in MANY respects, particularly race relations and poverty levels. Cities in the states are designed far differently than canadian ones. We are talking about HUGE countries here. Urban areas in Canada are closely following the trends of the states. <br /> <br /> Gang violence is far more prevalent. If you look at homicides committed with a weapon, say for example a spouse shooting a spouse, or things like that, the statistics are much the same for both countries.<br /> <br /> Where they differ is that the US has FAR higher percentages of their population living in ghettoes, and a far higher percentage involved in gangs. As we've seen in Toronto, this is being duplicated at pretty much the same levels. The last two years have seen rampant homicides in Toronto, which has been predicted from social agencies since 92.<br /> <br /> As stated, statistics don't tell the whole story. Where are the statistics on how many lives have been saved and crimes prevented, rapes prevented, attempted abductions prevented, etc.? We don't know. How are we to know that it isn't DOUBLE the number of actual homicides and crimes, which means that the states are still far better off with current gun control measures (and it varies widely by states).<br /> <br /> So you can't really compare apples and oranges. We are talking about two very different social structures. What we DO know is Canada has extremely tight gun control measures, yet Toronto is well on its way to matching the violence of inner cities in the states. <br /> <br /> Regardless, I wasn't proclaiming a personal opinion really, just trying to open up the conversation to the fact that nothing is as clear cut as it seems. The gun registry has been around for some years now, yet Toronto crime increases. Obviously it doesn't PREVENT crime, there is no way it could.<br /> <br /> Statistics also don't tell all the story, primarily about other social facets such as the culture of independance. There may be more violence, but there also may be more freedom, and voters may choose to accept one for the other. Self protection is a word with little meaning in Canada, as mentioned above, even a tazer is illegal. Spouting statistics to a rape victim or somebody who lost a loved one when a means of self protection may have altered that, is cold comfort.<br /> <br /> We can look at Switzerland for that comparison. EVERY home in Switzerland has a weapon provided by the government. We see their murder rate is lower than Canada's. So obviously it is not simply the presence of guns which causes crime (which most sociologists will tell you-there is a reason police deal with 'domestic issues' in poor urban areas and property crimes in suburban and wealthier ones)

[badsector]

[QUOTE]EVERY home in Switzerland has a weapon provided by the government. [/QUOTE]<br /> That sounds funny, however I am sure (I hope) you can include some creadible links for that. European countries aren't big on armed citizens. Consequently, their crime rates are lower.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]corrupt Ottawa bureaucracy that believes its more useful to pay off foreigner investors, escalate tax havens for the wealthy, decrease taxes for the richest percentage, and illegally stuff money in thier pockets; rather than actually let some canadian wealth benefit canadians,[/QUOTE]<br /> I would like a society where most people would benefit from the countries wealth. In the current system, it's not possible. If you want corporations to come here and provide well-paying jobs to thousands of Canadians, who will provide thousands more jobs by spending their money, then you have to use incentives. Companies don't have to invest here, but they will if we make it attractive. If we make investment prohibitive, it will go away. It is called <b>a reality check</b>. I guess you would like the government to stop funding foreign investments, R&D. manufacturing, etc, then take the money and run. Within a few years, there would be catastrophic unemployment, drastically decreased tax revenue, widespread desperation. Is that what you want? Why?<br /> <br /> Regarding your statement about the government taking tax payers' money... the Liberal governments of the past 12 years have been a lot less corrupt than any tory government this country ever had. When I think of Ontario's Harris government, I get shivers. When I look at Harper's one month old neo-con-separatist "government", I get an urge to break into hysterical laughter but when I realize the power this miserable redneck trash has, I feel like crying.