Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108
I'd like to see something, anything that allowed any kind of property rights whatsoever.
And I would like to see a more formal acknowledgement and acceptance of what I would call and inalienable right to defend oneself. Ian Thompson was dragged throught the courts with the specter of jail time for using his firearms in self defense.
your standard, able bodied male may not have much to worry about, but when my wife goes for a run, I would actually love for her to be properly trained and equiped to deal with whatever life throws at her.
I hate when I hear some poor innocent individual gets assaulted and the peanut gallery is like "why was s/he out there at that time of night anyway?"
Wrong mindset. Why was the innocent person deprived of the right to be equipped properly in case a bad person decides to do bad things to them? should be the question asked by all of us. That person on a run/walk/cycle ride has every right to be there.
That is my essential problem with those "Take back the night" women's marches. Oh sure, the one night they can do it, when there is 500 of them, but the next night, when only one ofthem is walking home from working late, the same problems occur.
I feel canadians really look at this stuff backwards.
|
That doesn't adequately explain the Firearms Act. After being "examined a Canadian can apply for a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License. He may be issued the license following a "background check". All the; he's not a crazy, his wife and anyone else agrees that he is of sound mind, doesn't use drugs, is not violent, has no criminal past, doesn't have financial problems, doesn't suffer from depression, doesn't want to commit suicide......................................... and still can only take a handgun outside his house when the gun is trigger locked, locked in an outer case, locked in his trunk and has an Authority to Transport in his possession and must take a direct route to the range where he has a membership, or any other range, or a gunsmith or to a border in order to compete or use gunsmith services in another province/state. This appears to be the most lenient of ATT's (Alberta for example). Rocky describes how the CFO in Ontario has exceeded his authority by demanding that licensed/ATT holders have invitations from gun ranges before they can transport their restricted firearms. All this makes sense? A person already has a license. A license for a shotgun does not give a person the right to take a shotgun to a theatre. The categorization and licensing scheme we have is created to bring about a fear of firearm ownership, greater fear of handguns, greater fear of restricted rifles, fear of prosection......a criminal record for a crime that has no victim and no malice attached to it (a paper crime), fear of defending yourself with a firearm? What is the harm of carrying a handgun to a range without an ATT? The license should be the only authority for this. What is wrong with taking a handgun onto public land or private land and plinking? It is certainly less dangerous to people or property than plinking with a rifle as far as overshooting your target or ricochets. Hunting rabbits or grouse with a ruger single single-six? Yes! Why not, I can hunt those animals with my ruger 10/22 with a 50 round drum. AR-15's are great coyote rifles. It's restricted to 5 rounds just like every other semi-auto. The Act is not something to hold up as being a sound "model" for gun control. The only provision for owning a firearm in Canada are for: Hunting, target shooting and collecting......self defence not included. The use of firearms for self defence has been challenged successfuly, many times over the years. So? The Act is not absolute, it really needs to be loosened up.