Brian Jean and firearms

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by diamond k

Every law we have in Canada ,without exception, would hobble someone's freedom under your definition so that argument is ludacris

.

Name a few.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I was not aware of Brian Jean's actual stance. It is now clear his public stance is one of political necessity, which is understandable.

For those who support the law, check your head. A PAL serves no other purpose than to hobble the freedoms of the law abiding. It would be just as easy to charge criminals who are in possession of a firearm as opposed to generally criminalizing the possession of a firearm unless the individual has the proper "paperwork".

What would you charge the “criminal” with if there was no law criminalizing unauthorized possession. How would you suggest identifying mental health issues or persons not mentally sound enough to own firearms if there was no screening or licensing process? Mental health persons often don’t have criminal records.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

What would you charge the “criminal” with if there was no law criminalizing unauthorized possession. How would you suggest identifying mental health issues or persons not mentally sound enough to own firearms if there was no screening or licensing process? Mental health persons often don’t have criminal records.

Good questions.

The US has a fairly reasonable system overall. Those with documented mental illnesses are unable to purchase. Convicted felons cannot purchase.

I completely understand why the PAL system is seen as useful, but obtaining a firearm without a PAL is still not difficult.

Edit - as far as criminals possessing, if someone is convicted of a federal offense, or if a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, seems acceptable that said individual would be banned from owning firearms for a period of time befitting the crime.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Good questions.

The US has a fairly reasonable system overall. Those with documented mental illnesses are unable to purchase. Convicted felons cannot purchase.

I completely understand why the PAL system is seen as useful, but obtaining a firearm without a PAL is still not difficult.

Edit - as far as criminals possessing, if someone is convicted of a federal offense, or if a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, seems acceptable that said individual would be banned from owning firearms for a period of time befitting the crime.

I think a person might seriously question the effectiveness of the US systems. I use the word “systems” because it is different in every state. My problem is how do you deal with criminals who have not yet been convicted of an offence or a mentally disturbed person not yet diagnosed. At least our system allows the CFO to look at criminal association and speak with family and references prior to issuing a license. It not a perfect system and I am sure some sneak through undetected, but everyday CFO’s are identifying applicants that are denied PAL’s for various reasons, so the system for most part is effective even if it is not 100% fool proof.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Newview01

From the NFA’s facebook page.



I thought Brian Jean was more gun-friendly.

He will not get my vote.

I have no problem with Brian Jeans position on this. I do have a problem with your reasoning on this.

[Gray Wolf]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I have no problem with Brian Jeans position on this. I do have a problem with your reasoning on this.

Note how quickly you got a response

Maybe tomorrow he'll come back with
one of his ult-right zingers.

Time will tell.
.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Kristopher10

If the PAL was abolished would you feel comfortable knowing that anyone without any kind of safety training can get a gun?

Did safety training make you a better shooter? Did it educate you? How many people come on AO - after obtaining a PAL - and still ask stupid questions?

Anyone in Alberta that drives a car has a license - and they still don't know how to drive.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Did safety training make you a better shooter? Did it educate you? How many people come on AO - after obtaining a PAL - and still ask stupid questions?

Anyone in Alberta that drives a car has a license - and they still don't know how to drive.

The PAL/RPAL course will not make you a better shooter... that take range time. Yes, it does educate persons on the safe handling of firearms. People come on AO to ask "stupid questions" because this is place where asking a fellow outdoorsmen for help and advice should be promoted.

If a person drives a vehicle without adhering to the rules of the road they are held accountable by law, just like firearms owners that don't play by the rules are accountable.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

The PAL/RPAL course will not make you a better shooter... that take range time. Yes, it does educate persons on the safe handling of firearms. People come on AO to ask "stupid questions" because this is place where asking a fellow outdoorsmen for help and advice should be promoted.

How many people in this country have a PAL and firearms that shouldn't? Licensing doesn't seem to accomplish much - you can't fix stupid. Much of firearms is about common sense - but that's out the window. I hunted in our teens, was never shown much about safety and I never shot anyone either.

Licensing is simply about control.

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

If a person drives a vehicle without adhering to the rules of the road they are held accountable by law, just like firearms owners that don't play by the rules are accountable.

Yeah, ok. How many times do we hear of drunk drivers being arrested over and over - no accountability - back on the road they go. Idiot drivers, no accountability.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Gray Wolf

Note how quickly you got a response

Maybe tomorrow he'll come back with
one of his ult-right zingers.

Time will tell.
.

What is your definition of alt-right?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

The PAL/RPAL course will not make you a better shooter... that take range time. Yes, it does educate persons on the safe handling of firearms. People come on AO to ask "stupid questions" because this is place where asking a fellow outdoorsmen for help and advice should be promoted.

If a person drives a vehicle without adhering to the rules of the road they are held accountable by law, just like firearms owners that don't play by the rules are accountable.

I am a proponent of getting rid of licensing, but mandatory training prior to the first purchase.

As stated, licensing is purely a regulatory thing, If the focus would switch to safety we would be a lot further ahead.

[Gifted Intuitive]

Which political party was in power during the High River Gun Grab and supported the 'gun grab'?

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/06...f-civil-rights

I think it is better that the truth be spoken now.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Did safety training make you a better shooter? Did it educate you? How many people come on AO - after obtaining a PAL - and still ask stupid questions?

Anyone in Alberta that drives a car has a license - and they still don't know how to drive.

I would rather everyone had firearm safety training than not. Sure, not everyone will retain, but enough will to make a difference.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

What is your definition of alt-right?

Why don't we go with the inventor of the term, White Supremacist Richard Spencer. You know, the neo-Nazi who just organized another march in Charlottesville.

I'll throw in isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, antifeminist, misogynistic, homophobiac, right-wing populist, and part of the neoreactionary movement.

In other words, a typical Trump supporter. About 30% of US males, unfortunately, and it appears, a whole bunch right here also.

Or as many of us in normal Conservative parties used to call them, right wing wackos.

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by Gifted Intuitive

Which political party was in power during the High River Gun Grab and supported the 'gun grab'?

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/06...f-civil-rights

I think it is better that the truth be spoken now.

That ^ 'Truth' was spoken long ago, way back in 2013. I remember it well, like it was yesterday.

The Real test is to see how many remember now. Sadly, most don't.

And now, many of those same *&^%$# PC's are part of the UCP

Selkirk

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Gifted Intuitive

Which political party was in power during the High River Gun Grab and supported the 'gun grab'?

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/06...f-civil-rights

I think it is better that the truth be spoken now.

The Red Tories were in power...the grab can be laid at the feet of the Municipal Affairs Minister at the time......

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by normstad

Why don't we go with the inventor of the term, White Supremacist Richard Spencer. You know, the neo-Nazi who just organized another march in Charlottesville.

I'll throw in isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, antifeminist, misogynistic, homophobiac, right-wing populist, and part of the neoreactionary movement.

In other words, a typical Trump supporter. About 30% of US males, unfortunately, and it appears, a whole bunch right here also.

Or as many of us in normal Conservative parties used to call them, right wing wackos.

Well that escalated quickly.

If that is the case, then no, I am not alt-right. And neither are 30% of US males.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by normstad

Why don't we go with the inventor of the term, White Supremacist Richard Spencer. You know, the neo-Nazi who just organized another march in Charlottesville.

I'll throw in isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, antifeminist, misogynistic, homophobiac, right-wing populist, and part of the neoreactionary movement.

In other words, a typical Trump supporter. About 30% of US males, unfortunately, and it appears, a whole bunch right here also.

Or as many of us in normal Conservative parties used to call them, right wing wackos.

Wonderful.
So anyone not in "your" normal, self-professed conservative group or is akin to Hitler.
Got it.
There's a word for people like you, I just can't use it here.
Enjoy the decline.

[CBintheNorth]

For Brian to take a stand on something so foolish, especially since it won't change anything, would be stupid AND political suicide.
He's getting my vote and several others in my group.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

How many people in this country have a PAL and firearms that shouldn't? Licensing doesn't seem to accomplish much - you can't fix stupid. Much of firearms is about common sense - but that's out the window. I hunted in our teens, was never shown much about safety and I never shot anyone either.

Licensing is simply about control.



Yeah, ok. How many times do we hear of drunk drivers being arrested over and over - no accountability - back on the road they go. Idiot drivers, no accountability.

So you are also in the camp that if a law or procedure does not 100% stop crime or a public safety risk then we should just get rid of it?

If there was no licensing, how many more criminals and mentally disturbed persons would be able to legally purchase and possess firearms. Just because Criminals obtain firearms by illegal means, doesn't justify abolishing laws or getting rid of licensing. If you do that, then when the Criminal or Mentally Disturbed person acquires a firearm then it will no longer be illegal.

Sometime I feel you guys don't even know what you are asking for.

And why would you want a background and waiting period every time you buy a gun. I have my PAL/RPAL and can walk into any firearms retailer and walk out the same day with my firearm; non-restricted or restricted. I renew my firearms license every 5 years and I am good to go. If I do anything which questions my ability to safely own firearms then my license is reviewed at that time. If I don't commit a crime or go crazy and I have nothing to worry about.

Maybe the better question is why would you want a system (or lack there of) that allows criminals and mentally disturbed person easier access to legally obtained firearms. Sure they can probably go get a firearm illegally, but why make it easier for them by removing any legal requirements?

Baffling.....

[play.soccer]

Originally Posted by Gray Wolf

Credible link please
.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...rty-membership

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

So you are also in the camp that if a law or procedure does not 100% stop crime or a public safety risk then we should just get rid of it?

If there was no licensing, how many more criminals and mentally disturbed persons would be able to legally purchase and possess firearms. Just because Criminals obtain firearms by illegal means, doesn't justify abolishing laws or getting rid of licensing. If you do that, then when the Criminal or Mentally Disturbed person acquires a firearm then it will no longer be illegal.

Sometime I feel you guys don't even know what you are asking for.

And why would you want a background and waiting period every time you buy a gun. I have my PAL/RPAL and can walk into any firearms retailer and walk out the same day with my firearm; non-restricted or restricted. I renew my firearms license every 5 years and I am good to go. If I do anything which questions my ability to safely own firearms then my license is reviewed at that time. If I don't commit a crime or go crazy and I have nothing to worry about.

Maybe the better question is why would you want a system (or lack there of) that allows criminals and mentally disturbed person easier access to legally obtained firearms. Sure they can probably go get a firearm illegally, but why make it easier for them by removing any legal requirements?

Baffling.....

Let's rewind to 1989 shall we? Marc Lepine felt feminists ruined his life so he went on a shooting spree. He obtained an FAC, legally bought a Ruger Mini-14 and did the deed. This was THE event that forced the creation of the firearms act.

Stephen Paddock LEGALLY purchased firearms to slaughter and injure hundreds. Did licensing or controls help?

I don't even own a firearm, nor do I have a PAL. Do I walk down the street in fear that I may get shot? No. I don't understand this fear and confusion, and I'm tired of peoples fears feeding new laws.

[grouse_hunter]

Well said, Silverdoctor.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Let's rewind to 1989 shall we? Marc Lepine felt feminists ruined his life so he went on a shooting spree. He obtained an FAC, legally bought a Ruger Mini-14 and did the deed. This was THE event that forced the creation of the firearms act.

Stephen Paddock LEGALLY purchased firearms to slaughter and injure hundreds. Did licensing or controls help?

I don't even own a firearm, nor do I have a PAL. Do I walk down the street in fear that I may get shot? No. I don't understand this fear and confusion, and I'm tired of peoples fears feeding new laws.

Nevada doesn't have licensing or controls of any type to speak of.....

http://www.nevadacarry.org/

Weapon laws​ (NRS Ch. 202)
Concealed weapon permits (CCW) are-shall issue and open carry is legal without a permit. Nevada does not ban 'assault weapons' and there is no magazine capacity limit. There are no purchase permits, gun registration, or gun-owner licensing. Blue cards are no longer required. There is no waiting period mandated for firearm purchases and private gun sales are okay. Local gun laws are prohibited. You do not have to "register" a gun to someone else.

and

In relation to the Polytechnique shooting, the vast majority of gun owners agree with some form of licensing and training prior to firearm ownership. The introduction of the PAL/RPAL and the required training was an update and name change to the FAC licensing and training. The real issues that most firearms owners had with the legislation changes were in relation to classification and the whole "if it looks scary it should be restricted or prohibited."

But really if you don't have a PAL and have never taken the training, how are you commenting on it's value and effectiveness?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Nevada doesn't have licensing or controls of any type to speak of.....

http://www.nevadacarry.org/

Weapon laws​ (NRS Ch. 202)
Concealed weapon permits (CCW) are-shall issue and open carry is legal without a permit. Nevada does not ban 'assault weapons' and there is no magazine capacity limit. There are no purchase permits, gun registration, or gun-owner licensing. Blue cards are no longer required. There is no waiting period mandated for firearm purchases and private gun sales are okay. Local gun laws are prohibited. You do not have to "register" a gun to someone else.

and

In relation to the Polytechnique shooting, the vast majority of gun owners agree with some form of licensing and training prior to firearm ownership. The introduction of the PAL/RPAL and the required training was an update and name change to the FAC licensing and training. The real issues that most firearms owners had with the legislation changes were in relation to classification and the whole "if it looks scary it should be restricted or prohibited."

But really if you don't have a PAL and have never taken the training, how are you commenting on it's value and effectiveness?

No skin in the game argument eh? How effective is the training and licensing really? This shouldn't be happening and these are just a few. There are licensed firearms owners in Canada (and on AO) that should not have firearms. You can't fix stupid - and you cannot teach common sense.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ting-1.1158946

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...-say-1.1234700

http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/new...n-an-accident/


Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA - explain the murder and violent crimes rates for me will you? Gun control DOES NOT WORK! It's all about control of a percentage of the population.


You know how simple it would be for Trudeau to remove firearms from the hands of Canadians? Expire all PAL's, that simple - and you're automatically a criminal.



But, we're off topic. Brian Jean supporting some of the current Criminal Code rules of Canada is political. Harper could have killed off the firearms act, but didn't. Why? It would be political suicide cause most of our country is gone left - and the right doesn't do anything about it. I don't think there's any group in Canada that is more divided that firearms owners.

[Jigger]

Originally Posted by normstad

Why don't we go with the inventor of the term, White Supremacist Richard Spencer. You know, the neo-Nazi who just organized another march in Charlottesville.

I'll throw in isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, antifeminist, misogynistic, homophobiac, right-wing populist, and part of the neoreactionary movement.

In other words, a typical Trump supporter. About 30% of US males, unfortunately, and it appears, a whole bunch right here also.

Or as many of us in normal Conservative parties used to call them, right wing wackos.

ttttttrigggggered LOL

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

No skin in the game argument eh? How effective is the training and licensing really? This shouldn't be happening and these are just a few. There are licensed firearms owners in Canada (and on AO) that should not have firearms. You can't fix stupid - and you cannot teach common sense.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ting-1.1158946

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...-say-1.1234700

http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/new...n-an-accident/


Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA - explain the murder and violent crimes rates for me will you? Gun control DOES NOT WORK! It's all about control of a percentage of the population.


You know how simple it would be for Trudeau to remove firearms from the hands of Canadians? Expire all PAL's, that simple - and you're automatically a criminal.



But, we're off topic. Brian Jean supporting some of the current Criminal Code rules of Canada is political. Harper could have killed off the firearms act, but didn't. Why? It would be political suicide cause most of our country is gone left - and the right doesn't do anything about it. I don't think there's any group in Canada that is more divided that firearms owners.

So how would you identify these idiots that shouldn't have firearms?

How would you effectively train people to safely handle firearms?

Common sense does not necessarily make a person safe with a firearm. There are technical skills and knowledge required. If common sense is lacking then "step by step" procedures such as "ACTS" and "PROVE" is essential for safe handling.


And the original post by the OP was in relation to Sec. 91 C.C. which is unauthorized possession. Unauthorized possession occurs in Canada when a person is not licensed, so I am not sure how discussing licensing is off topic. Maybe your point of view is getting harder to defend, so a change subject might be easier for you to stay involved in the conversation.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Well that escalated quickly.

If that is the case, then no, I am not alt-right. And neither are 30% of US males.

Yeah, I was a bit off. Closer to 9%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7907091.html

Not all Trump supporters are alt-right. Many, but not all, and some who support him are good people.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

So how would you identify these idiots that shouldn't have firearms?

How many news stories would you like? do I really have to do the footwork and search AO?

Didn't know the gun was loaded? You can't teach common sense and you can't fix stupid.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/21...o-kill-a-mouse

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

How would you effectively train people to safely handle firearms?

Simple answer? You can't. Explain to me how so many people in Edmonton have a license to drive a car - and still can't drive. It's like the old addage goes - winter hits and people forget how to drive. No, you've taken a group of people that can't navigate a car on a clear summer day - and thrown snow at them. Wait for the first major snowfall for proof of that.

Do you really want to play the assumption that every Canadian with a PAL is 100% safe to own a firearm?

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Common sense does not necessarily make a person safe with a firearm. There are technical skills and knowledge required. If common sense is lacking then "step by step" procedures such as "ACTS" and "PROVE" is essential for safe handling.

Don't even know what to say to that. At 12, nobody had to tell me the rules. Don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. know what you're shooting at, know what's behind the target etc... That's all common sense.

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

And the original post by the OP was in relation to Sec. 91 C.C. which is unauthorized possession. Unauthorized possession occurs in Canada when a person is not licensed, so I am not sure how discussing licensing is off topic. Maybe your point of view is getting harder to defend, so a change subject might be easier for you to stay involved in the conversation.

According to the RCMP, there's roughly 3 million firearms owners in Canada, you're a small minority. The liberals in Canada are growing - but there's a very large population in the country like me who support firearms ownership even though we don't own. Together, I would say we are a majority. But, you want to keep alienating people that support you - and keep backing yourself into a corner, then you'll find yourselves on your own.

Remember, we are but one massacre away from firearms prohibition. That little plastic card in your wallet - that most feel gives you a "right" to own firearms is only a permission slip. One shooting spree in Canada, and I can see Trudeau passing a law to expire all PAL's immediately. Automatic criminals.


And I love how you sidestep the question on Chicago.

Gun control does not work.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

How many news stories would you like? do I really have to do the footwork and search AO?

Didn't know the gun was loaded? You can't teach common sense and you can't fix stupid.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/21...o-kill-a-mouse



Simple answer? You can't. Explain to me how so many people in Edmonton have a license to drive a car - and still can't drive. It's like the old addage goes - winter hits and people forget how to drive. No, you've taken a group of people that can't navigate a car on a clear summer day - and thrown snow at them. Wait for the first major snowfall for proof of that.

Do you really want to play the assumption that every Canadian with a PAL is 100% safe to own a firearm?



Don't even know what to say to that. At 12, nobody had to tell me the rules. Don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. know what you're shooting at, know what's behind the target etc... That's all common sense.



According to the RCMP, there's roughly 3 million firearms owners in Canada, you're a small minority. The liberals in Canada are growing - but there's a very large population in the country like me who support firearms ownership even though we don't own. Together, I would say we are a majority. But, you want to keep alienating people that support you - and keep backing yourself into a corner, then you'll find yourselves on your own.

Remember, we are but one massacre away from firearms prohibition. That little plastic card in your wallet - that most feel gives you a "right" to own firearms is only a permission slip. One shooting spree in Canada, and I can see Trudeau passing a law to expire all PAL's immediately. Automatic criminals.


And I love how you sidestep the question on Chicago.

Gun control does not work.

The scary part is that you believe your views actually benefit lawful gun owners. All your attitude does is create an “us vs them” mentality. If organizations like the NRA or NFA put effort into promoting gun safety and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms, we as firearms owners would have a lot less to worry about. But as owners we will always have extremist in our midst that make the situation worst and cry that the sky is falling and all our guns will be taken away. Just not very often is the extremist not a firearms owner, but to each his own.

Have a good day and thanks for your concern