[ASLplease]

my favorite parts of this debate are when we share our core opinions, my sincerest opinion is that this registry focuses on the one group that deserves the least amount of focus. if guns are a danger to canadians, then mine are defective.

have a good weekend, guys!

[BigBri]

Just my opinion but I wouldn't feel so bad about the registry if they made possession of an unregistered firearm a non-criminal offense.Like having open liquor in your car.And the only times police would be able to actually inspect guns for registration is during hunting season,having one in your car.Basically your firearm is in view(Such as being pulled over for a moving violation).So there wouldn't be cases where the primary focus was on a firearm for investigation unless of course cases where they are responding to an actual report of violence and what have you.

[ASLplease]

BigBri BigBri:

Just my opinion but I wouldn't feel so bad about the registry if they made possession of an unregistered firearm a non-criminal offense.Like having open liquor in your car.And the only times police would be able to actually inspect guns for registration is during hunting season,having one in your car.Basically your firearm is in view(Such as being pulled over for a moving violation).So there wouldn't be cases where the primary focus was on a firearm for investigation unless of course cases where they are responding to an actual report of violence and what have you.

That would be fine with me, I'd have firearms that I keep at home that never leave the house, they would not be registered.

[uwish]

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html


In an article about the long-gun registry, Other area MPs, how they'll vote and why (Aug. 31), London-Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen suggests the gun registry makes sense because we register cars. She clearly does not understand how the regulation of firearms in Canada works.

If cars were regulated like firearms, the following would be true:

* All classic sports cars, subcompact cars or cars capable of operating in excess of 120 km/h would be prohibited. Cars that look like they are capable of exceeding 120 km/h would also be prohibited by adding them to the list of prohibited vehicles. Persons owning such cars prior to the enactment of the "Automobile Act" would be allowed to keep them. But they would not be allowed to drive them on roads. They would require a "special authority to drive" to take them to a provincially certified track to drive. The government, by virtue of a legislative screw-up, would never be permitted to grant the special authority.

* All coupes, by virtue of being two-doors, would be banned from driving on roads and would be restricted to use of provincially regulated tracks. To take your two-door car to the track would require an authorization to transport to the track. You would have to take a designated route to the track. If you deviate from the route, you could face serious criminal charges.

* If you own a car, you would have to store it in a locked garage. If you do not own a locked garage, you would have to drain the fuel tank after arriving home, and lock the doors. You would have to store the gasoline separately from the car, and in a safe manner. You would also have to follow this regimen if you parked at the mall or at work. Failure to adhere to this could result in serious criminal charges.

* Failing to get a sticker every year on time would result in serious criminal charges (instead of a fine or a suspended ticket).

* Any infraction of the Highway Traffic Act would be a serious criminal offence.

* To get your license you would, in addition to passing a safe-driving course and exams, provide three references who would vouch for your ability to drive. You would have to get approval from all your sexual partners who have stayed in your home, as well as any former employers.

* Upon receiving your license, you will be allowed to purchase a car, but not on a Sunday, and sales between individuals, as opposed to businesses, cannot occur on the weekend.

* If you do not receive your license renewal on time, police will show up at your door to demand that you turn over your car for destruction. You could also face serious criminal charges.

* If you argue with your spouse, or are going through a divorce, and your spouse makes any claim of criminal action, police will seize your car and destroy it.

* If you are convicted of any criminal offence -- even putting a penny on a railroad track (Section 456) or having a poker night (Section 201) -- your car would be seized and destroyed.

* If you violate any of the regulations listed above or committed any criminal offence, you would have all your cars seized and destroyed, and you would be prohibited from owning a car for 10 years.

Every time there was a serious accident or a hit and run, grandstanding and shamelessly uninformed politicians would demonize car owners as dangerous, wife-abusing rednecks who cannot be trusted, and call for a total car ban.

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html


In an article about the long-gun registry, Other area MPs, how they'll vote and why (Aug. 31), London-Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen suggests the gun registry makes sense because we register cars. She clearly does not understand how the regulation of firearms in Canada works.

If cars were regulated like firearms, the following would be true:

* All classic sports cars, subcompact cars or cars capable of operating in excess of 120 km/h would be prohibited. Cars that look like they are capable of exceeding 120 km/h would also be prohibited by adding them to the list of prohibited vehicles. Persons owning such cars prior to the enactment of the "Automobile Act" would be allowed to keep them. But they would not be allowed to drive them on roads. They would require a "special authority to drive" to take them to a provincially certified track to drive. The government, by virtue of a legislative screw-up, would never be permitted to grant the special authority.

* All coupes, by virtue of being two-doors, would be banned from driving on roads and would be restricted to use of provincially regulated tracks. To take your two-door car to the track would require an authorization to transport to the track. You would have to take a designated route to the track. If you deviate from the route, you could face serious criminal charges.

* If you own a car, you would have to store it in a locked garage. If you do not own a locked garage, you would have to drain the fuel tank after arriving home, and lock the doors. You would have to store the gasoline separately from the car, and in a safe manner. You would also have to follow this regimen if you parked at the mall or at work. Failure to adhere to this could result in serious criminal charges.

* Failing to get a sticker every year on time would result in serious criminal charges (instead of a fine or a suspended ticket).

* Any infraction of the Highway Traffic Act would be a serious criminal offence.

* To get your license you would, in addition to passing a safe-driving course and exams, provide three references who would vouch for your ability to drive. You would have to get approval from all your sexual partners who have stayed in your home, as well as any former employers.

* Upon receiving your license, you will be allowed to purchase a car, but not on a Sunday, and sales between individuals, as opposed to businesses, cannot occur on the weekend.

* If you do not receive your license renewal on time, police will show up at your door to demand that you turn over your car for destruction. You could also face serious criminal charges.

* If you argue with your spouse, or are going through a divorce, and your spouse makes any claim of criminal action, police will seize your car and destroy it.

* If you are convicted of any criminal offence -- even putting a penny on a railroad track (Section 456) or having a poker night (Section 201) -- your car would be seized and destroyed.

* If you violate any of the regulations listed above or committed any criminal offence, you would have all your cars seized and destroyed, and you would be prohibited from owning a car for 10 years.

Every time there was a serious accident or a hit and run, grandstanding and shamelessly uninformed politicians would demonize car owners as dangerous, wife-abusing rednecks who cannot be trusted, and call for a total car ban.

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

Hey, don't tempt me!

[uwish]

[bootlegga]

uwish uwish:

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

$4 million per year to save one life? Sounds fine to me!

[uwish]

1.5 Billion + 4 million for no proof it has done anything...

hard pill to swallow in a recession.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

1.5 Billion + 4 million for no proof it has done anything...

hard pill to swallow in a recession.

Okay, now you've officially gone off into la-la-land.

The 1.5 billion was spent LONG AGO, not in a recession. 4 million per year now, recession or no, is a literal drop in a bucket (a drop is about .5mL. 4 million out of a 200 billion/year budget makes for one drop in a 25L bucket).

If you want to talk about unpalateable spending in a recession, how about the G20 security tab? Sheesh.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html

{snip}

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

That was beautiful man. People just have no idea what dealing with the Gun Registry is really like. It's an idealistic notion they have, but the cold reality is far different.

[DrCaleb]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

uwish uwish:

1.5 Billion + 4 million for no proof it has done anything...

hard pill to swallow in a recession.

Okay, now you've officially gone off into la-la-land.

The 1.5 billion was spent LONG AGO, not in a recession. 4 million per year now, recession or no, is a literal drop in a bucket (a drop is about .5mL. 4 million out of a 200 billion/year budget makes for one drop in a 25L bucket).

If you want to talk about unpalateable spending in a recession, how about the G20 security tab? Sheesh.

And is there any proof it saved even one life? The guy with a knife sticking out of his chest says no.

And we pretty much did bitch about every aspect of the G20 summit.

[uwish]

Hurley sorry I take offence to the questions about my sex life on the firearms license form. Maybe that's just me being a prude...why don't you try to fill it out and see??

Either the charter of rights applies to everyone or it doesn't....

If you own firearms, it doesn't apparently, is that ok with you?

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

Hurley sorry I take offence to the questions about my sex life on the firearms license form. Maybe that's just me being a prude...why don't you try to fill it out and see??

Either the charter of rights applies to everyone or it doesn't....

If you own firearms, it doesn't apparently, is that ok with you?

I think battered women have an interest in making sure their abusive husbands have to answer some pointed questions or at least (presumably) commit the crime of lying to the government in order to obtain a DEADLY WEAPON.

I have a right not to have my life threatened by any random insane, violent psycho being able to wander into a shop and buy a DEADLY WEAPON on a whim. Whether keeping a record of the fact that he has (or had) it in his posession stops him from using it is one point, but taking reasonable steps to stop him from getting it / make it very difficult for him to get it is quite another.

Or is there more at stake in C-391 than just the registry?

[hurley_108]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html

{snip}

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

That was beautiful man. People just have no idea what dealing with the Gun Registry is really like. It's an idealistic notion they have, but the cold reality is far different.

I don't own a gun, I don't need a gun, I don't want a gun. I couldnt' care less how onerous it is on the owners of these DEADLY WEAPONS to obtain and continue legal ownership of them.

A car's intended purpose is transportation. A gun's intended purpose is to kill.

[uwish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

uwish uwish:

Hurley sorry I take offence to the questions about my sex life on the firearms license form. Maybe that's just me being a prude...why don't you try to fill it out and see??

Either the charter of rights applies to everyone or it doesn't....

If you own firearms, it doesn't apparently, is that ok with you?

I think battered women have an interest in making sure their abusive husbands have to answer some pointed questions or at least (presumably) commit the crime of lying to the government in order to obtain a DEADLY WEAPON.

I have a right not to have my life threatened by any random insane, violent psycho being able to wander into a shop and buy a DEADLY WEAPON on a whim. Whether keeping a record of the fact that he has (or had) it in his posession stops him from using it is one point, but taking reasonable steps to stop him from getting it / make it very difficult for him to get it is quite another.

Or is there more at stake in C-391 than just the registry?

u didn't answer my question, you tried to appeal to the emotions as you have pointed out in other threads. Since I am not a criminal, I still am a commissioned officer in HM Canadian Armed Forces, I ask you again does the Charter of Rights apply to all or not?

The auditor general has not only expressed concern over the cost of the registry, but the highly PRIVATE NATURE of the questions of the application form.

You may hide behind the fact that 'a cars main purpose is transportation' all you want, it doesn't change the fact the 1000X more ppl are injured or killed by car every year than ALL weapons combined in Canada (not just firearms, which is a VERY small percentage).

and an argument that a gun is just meant to kill ? so your saying ppl don't have the right to defend themselves? So what if it kills? go tell a cop he shouldn't have his firearm, he will tell you too goto hell.