Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 08-10-2012, 09:03 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Great point but I have to respectfully disagree , my take is that the anti's have lost more ground in the last five years than ever. With all the provinces raking in record amounts of income from hunting and the shooting sports there is no province with the possible exception of Ontario that has any appetite to tighten gun laws. Even Quebec is spending a huge amount promoting the province as a hunting destination.

There will be no ground gained by the anti's in tough economic times, while I am not saying we can relax the evidance is clear the anti's are not gaining ground with repect to broad gun control. They will however milk the use of assault styled weapons in recent killings to score some points. That is why in earlier posts I mentioned it is important for us to be part of the solution rather than precieved as part of the problem.
Well, the polls have Mulcair at 33.6% & he has sworn to bring back the LGR. And while I do agree that hunting is being promoted, some politicians just don't care. They plan to see their ideas go ahead no matter the cost, the antis definitely have a friend in Thomas Mulcair.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/09/m...-gun-registry/
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 08-11-2012, 12:41 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Great point but I have to respectfully disagree , my take is that the anti's have lost more ground in the last five years than ever. With all the provinces raking in record amounts of income from hunting and the shooting sports there is no province with the possible exception of Ontario that has any appetite to tighten gun laws. Even Quebec is spending a huge amount promoting the province as a hunting destination.

There will be no ground gained by the anti's in tough economic times, while I am not saying we can relax the evidance is clear the anti's are not gaining ground with repect to broad gun control. They will however milk the use of assault styled weapons in recent killings to score some points. That is why in earlier posts I mentioned it is important for us to be part of the solution rather than precieved as part of the problem.


"The federal Parliament instituted a system of gun control in the North-West Territories in 1885 to hinder the Red River Rebellion for Metis rights. Permission in writing from the territorial government was needed to possess any firearm (other than a smooth-bore shotgun), and also ammunition. Possession of a firearm or ammunition without the necessary permit was an offence, and could lead to the forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition.[12] These gun control provisions applied to all of what is now Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of Manitoba, the current Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut.
The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. Not until 1935 was it considered an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.
In the 1920s, permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.
Legislation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm. Registration certificates were issued and records kept by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or by other police forces designated by provincial attorneys general.
In 1947, the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt.
Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.
In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” weapons. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society.
In 1977, Bill C-51 required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm, and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. Applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before receiving the FAC.
In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms with military background. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, and a thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued.
Finally, in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high-capacity magazines: limiting handguns to ten rounds, and most semi-automatic centre-fire rifles to five rounds. Legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000). The FAC system was replaced with possession-only licences (POLs) and possession and acquisition licences (PALs). Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was not public safety policy, but rather an election ploy by the Liberal Party of Canada intended to help defeat Prime Minister Kim Campbell.[13]
In 2001, the registration portion of Bill C-68 was implemented. The government asks for all firearms, including long-guns (rifles and shotguns), to be registered.
In 2003, the registration of long-guns becomes mandatory. Failure to register a firearm now results in criminal charges.
As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and an amnesty (now extended until May 16, 2011) temporarily protects licensed owners of non-restricted firearms (or those whose licences have expired since January 1, 2004) from prosecution for the possession of unregistered long guns.[14]
In November 2009, Bill C-391 passed second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 164 to 137. If passed through the entire parliamentary process by the House and Senate, the bill would have abolished the requirement to register non-restricted long guns. While the proposed legislation was a private member's bill, it had the support of the Conservative government. The bill was referred to the House of Commons Committee on Public Safety for further action. However, after several months of hearings, the Opposition majority on the committee recommended that no further action be taken to advance the bill. In September 2010 Bill C-391 failed to pass a third reading.
On October 25, 2011, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced a new bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the Firearms Act, which will abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all records.
On February 15th 2012, bill C-19 passed third reading in the House of Commons and the motion was adopted to abolish the long-gun registry, 159 to 130. Since that date C-19 has cleared the senate, attained royal assent, and come into force as law.
[edit]"

^^^^ From Wikipedia

http://makinit.ca/briefhistory.html

If you fight your way through it you will find confiscations, limited licences and "outlawing" of various firearms. We beat the "long gun registry", not so much luck with the restricted and prohib registry though.

So you still think that the last 5 years have been a huge victory?

In just what way are law abiding gun owners part of the problem?
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 08-11-2012, 07:19 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
[/B]

"The federal Parliament instituted a system of gun control in the North-West Territories in 1885 to hinder the Red River Rebellion for Metis rights. Permission in writing from the territorial government was needed to possess any firearm (other than a smooth-bore shotgun), and also ammunition. Possession of a firearm or ammunition without the necessary permit was an offence, and could lead to the forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition.[12] These gun control provisions applied to all of what is now Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of Manitoba, the current Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut.
The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. Not until 1935 was it considered an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.
In the 1920s, permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.
Legislation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm. Registration certificates were issued and records kept by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or by other police forces designated by provincial attorneys general.
In 1947, the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt.
Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.
In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” weapons. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society.
In 1977, Bill C-51 required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm, and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. Applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before receiving the FAC.
In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms with military background. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, and a thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued.
Finally, in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high-capacity magazines: limiting handguns to ten rounds, and most semi-automatic centre-fire rifles to five rounds. Legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000). The FAC system was replaced with possession-only licences (POLs) and possession and acquisition licences (PALs). Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was not public safety policy, but rather an election ploy by the Liberal Party of Canada intended to help defeat Prime Minister Kim Campbell.[13]
In 2001, the registration portion of Bill C-68 was implemented. The government asks for all firearms, including long-guns (rifles and shotguns), to be registered.
In 2003, the registration of long-guns becomes mandatory. Failure to register a firearm now results in criminal charges.
As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and an amnesty (now extended until May 16, 2011) temporarily protects licensed owners of non-restricted firearms (or those whose licences have expired since January 1, 2004) from prosecution for the possession of unregistered long guns.[14]
In November 2009, Bill C-391 passed second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 164 to 137. If passed through the entire parliamentary process by the House and Senate, the bill would have abolished the requirement to register non-restricted long guns. While the proposed legislation was a private member's bill, it had the support of the Conservative government. The bill was referred to the House of Commons Committee on Public Safety for further action. However, after several months of hearings, the Opposition majority on the committee recommended that no further action be taken to advance the bill. In September 2010 Bill C-391 failed to pass a third reading.
On October 25, 2011, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced a new bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the Firearms Act, which will abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all records.
On February 15th 2012, bill C-19 passed third reading in the House of Commons and the motion was adopted to abolish the long-gun registry, 159 to 130. Since that date C-19 has cleared the senate, attained royal assent, and come into force as law.
[edit]"

^^^^ From Wikipedia

http://makinit.ca/briefhistory.html

If you fight your way through it you will find confiscations, limited licences and "outlawing" of various firearms. We beat the "long gun registry", not so much luck with the restricted and prohib registry though.

So you still think that the last 5 years have been a huge victory?

In just what way are law abiding gun owners part of the problem?
Absolutely, there is no doubt the last five years have been a huge victory, the abolishment of the LGR speaks to that fact. How ever I guess that there are those amongst us that will just never be satisfied until every gun law that has ever existed is abolished. There in lies the problem rather than celebrate the victory with the LGR some people just whine and cry and whine some more, rather than take the positive trends set up by this government and build on them some will just complain complain and complain some more. There in lies the problem with gun owners, there will never be a time when we can all unite. The extremists among us will just never let that happen, while the staggering vast majority of gun owners applauded the LGR legislation there are still and will always be some that will never be satisfied. Guns owners will always be thier OWN WORST ENEMY, that will never change.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 08-11-2012, 07:29 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagalaz View Post
Well, the polls have Mulcair at 33.6% & he has sworn to bring back the LGR. And while I do agree that hunting is being promoted, some politicians just don't care. They plan to see their ideas go ahead no matter the cost, the antis definitely have a friend in Thomas Mulcair.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/09/m...-gun-registry/
Frankly with three years until an election what ever Mulcairs numbers are mean absolutely nothing, him swearing to reinstate the LGR is nothing more than posturing, I hope everything Mulcair say's and does over the next three years doesn't send paralizing fear through anyone, 76.4% think he is an idiot, that should help you sleep.

Trust me if you live west of the Man/Ont border and Mulcair is elected the LGR is going to be the least of your concerns.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 08-11-2012, 08:57 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Absolutely, there is no doubt the last five years have been a huge victory, the abolishment of the LGR speaks to that fact. How ever I guess that there are those amongst us that will just never be satisfied until every gun law that has ever existed is abolished. There in lies the problem rather than celebrate the victory with the LGR some people just whine and cry and whine some more, rather than take the positive trends set up by this government and build on them some will just complain complain and complain some more. There in lies the problem with gun owners, there will never be a time when we can all unite. The extremists among us will just never let that happen, while the staggering vast majority of gun owners applauded the LGR legislation there are still and will always be some that will never be satisfied. Guns owners will always be thier OWN WORST ENEMY, that will never change.
Uh, huh. Just take it lying down, like the last 40 years. We really made strides there. It was that attitude that got us the lgr to begin with.

The gun owners applauded the lgr?! On what planet? 77% of the general population rejected it, last poll I seen.

Read the papers to see how many people call your deer gun a sniper rifle...Or think all we need for a gun is a single shot rifle that shoots maximum 100 meters.

I not making this up. I take it you haven't had anything confiscated yet? You would be singing a different tune if you lost your beloved o/u, I'm thinking.

Rather than call the rest of us extremists, like we're some sort of Talibani, you need to get on side with the people who fight for all of our gun rights.

Btw, you didn't answer my question. How many rounds would you limit your wife to?
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 08-11-2012, 10:23 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
Rather than call the rest of us extremists, like we're some sort of Talibani, you need to get on side with the people who fight for all of our gun rights.
x2.

If we all spoke up, parted with a few bucks here and there, took the time to get informed, joined and participated in the NFA and CSSA, we'd be in a very different world. But then, that first requires the more of us change our mindset.

It's happening, I think...
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 08-12-2012, 08:47 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
Uh, huh. Just take it lying down, like the last 40 years. We really made strides there. It was that attitude that got us the lgr to begin with.

The gun owners applauded the lgr?! On what planet? 77% of the general population rejected it, last poll I seen.

Read the papers to see how many people call your deer gun a sniper rifle...Or think all we need for a gun is a single shot rifle that shoots maximum 100 meters.

I not making this up. I take it you haven't had anything confiscated yet? You would be singing a different tune if you lost your beloved o/u, I'm thinking.

Rather than call the rest of us extremists, like we're some sort of Talibani, you need to get on side with the people who fight for all of our gun rights.

Btw, you didn't answer my question. How many rounds would you limit your wife to?
Read the post friend, hard to have a debate if you do not read the post. I clearly said the majority applauded the LGR legislation...of course refferring to the most recent legislation abolishing it. In any event I do believe we can learn from the past but I for one am not prepared to live in the past, the past is history there is no changing the history. If you want to mount an effective lobby the first step is to fast forward to 2012, forget about the past that is over and done with.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 08-12-2012, 09:07 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
x2.

If we all spoke up, parted with a few bucks here and there, took the time to get informed, joined and participated in the NFA and CSSA, we'd be in a very different world. But then, that first requires the more of us change our mindset.

It's happening, I think...
Great comment, sadly there are just too many levels of gun enthusiest's it's clear even in this discussion, some are just never going to be happy if there are any gun laws, some are happy with the current system. I am an admitted moderate, I don't have a problem with the current gun laws, I am also not opposed to revisiting hot issues with respect to additional regulations, for that I was called a supporter of Hiltler and Stalin, if that isn't extreme almost beyond belief then what is it. We are both gun owners but we will never be on the same team. I for one could never stand beside people that have zero tolerance for another persons opinion. So there in lies the problem, opinions on the extreme end just could never be tolerated by the moderates and visa versa. We truly are our own worst enemy, the anti's have no need to employ a devide and conquer srategy, we are more than happy to do that for them.Hell we cannot even all agree the LGR legislation was positive, for some the glass will always be 1/2 empty.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 08-12-2012, 09:45 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Great comment, sadly there are just too many levels of gun enthusiest's it's clear even in this discussion, some are just never going to be happy if there are any gun laws, some are happy with the current system. I am an admitted moderate, I don't have a problem with the current gun laws, I am also not opposed to revisiting hot issues with respect to additional regulations, for that I was called a supporter of Hiltler and Stalin, if that isn't extreme almost beyond belief then what is it. We are both gun owners but we will never be on the same team. I for one could never stand beside people that have zero tolerance for another persons opinion. So there in lies the problem, opinions on the extreme end just could never be tolerated by the moderates and visa versa. We truly are our own worst enemy, the anti's have no need to employ a devide and conquer srategy, we are more than happy to do that for them.Hell we cannot even all agree the LGR legislation was positive, for some the glass will always be 1/2 empty.
I generally don't support the Hitler accusations and such. What's more I am very tolerant of other people's opinion's up until the point where their opinion tramples on certain rights I have. And when I say rights, I don't mean imagined rights, as in right to healthcare, other peoples money etc. I mean the right to protect myself as i see fit so long as I don't harm other people (other innocent people). I have heard people on here talk about how they can beat up 2 other people so no need for a gun...fine for them. They're tough guys, bravo. My old man always told me there is always someone bigger and stronger. So when these people come on here and call anyone that wants to CCW a coward, paranoid etc, who's doing the intolerance dance?

Someone coming on here and telling me that their "opinion" is that I shouldn't be allowed the RIGHT to protect myself with a handgun, is an opinion that shouldn't be tolerated. It is tantamount to having the opinion that being black does not entitle one to the same rights as a white person. These are absolute rights, not rights that are subject to one's "opinion". Every person has the right to equal treatment regardless of skin color, just as every person has the right to self protection.

Myself, if there was CCW in Canada I seriously doubt I would ever carry, I really see no need for it in the majority of situations I find myself in...save for the odd fishing trip down creeks, or even grouse hunting in bear country. I might have a handgun in my truck or something like that. THAT does not mean that I or anyone else that isn't a criminal should not be allowed to exercise our right to carry. This is a right that has been TAKEN away by people who are of the opinion that their fellow citizen cannot be trusted. People that would rather disarm and forfeit that right to the government. I did not forfeit that right, other people did.

Sorry you feel that I am intolerant of your opinion that you should be allowed to disarm me and my fellow citizens. Some things are not subject to compromise and are not to be tolerated by people who have an understanding of liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 08-12-2012, 10:39 PM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
I have heard people on here talk about how they can beat up 2 other people so no need for a gun...fine for them. They're tough guys, bravo. My old man always told me there is always someone bigger and stronger. So when these people come on here and call anyone that wants to CCW a coward, paranoid etc, who's doing the intolerance dance?

Someone coming on here and telling me that their "opinion" is that I shouldn't be allowed the RIGHT to protect myself with a handgun, is an opinion that shouldn't be tolerated. It is tantamount to having the opinion that being black does not entitle one to the same rights as a white person. These are absolute rights, not rights that are subject to one's "opinion". Every person has the right to equal treatment regardless of skin color, just as every person has the right to self protection.

Myself, if there was CCW in Canada I seriously doubt I would ever carry, I really see no need for it in the majority of situations I find myself in...save for the odd fishing trip down creeks, or even grouse hunting in bear country. I might have a handgun in my truck or something like that. THAT does not mean that I or anyone else that isn't a criminal should not be allowed to exercise our right to carry. This is a right that has been TAKEN away by people who are of the opinion that their fellow citizen cannot be trusted. People that would rather disarm and forfeit that right to the government. I did not forfeit that right, other people did.

Sorry you feel that I am intolerant of your opinion that you should be allowed to disarm me and my fellow citizens. Some
things are not subject to compromise and are not to be tolerated by people who have an understanding of liberty.
who me, at no time did I state I could take two men I simply stated I would give no quarter in the face of poor odds.
secondly, I stated guns turn cowards into men of action. I did not call anyone a coward.
every one speaks of the right to carry a hand gun . where is this right. next they state god given right . cant find that one in the bible. the only place I find reference to right of arms is in the US constitution.

our country went to war in order to maintain a separate set of rights with absolutely no influence from our southern neighbors.
the posts on an other thread have been twisted to suit one person view and taken in a context not directed at this thread.
can some one please point out the last time a canadian could legally carry a hand gun concealed or open .
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 08-12-2012, 10:55 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish gunner View Post
who me, at no time did I state I could take two men I simply stated I would give no quarter in the face of poor odds.
secondly, I stated guns turn cowards into men of action. I did not call anyone a coward.
every one speaks of the right to carry a hand gun . where is this right. next they state god given right . cant find that one in the bible. the only place I find reference to right of arms is in the US constitution.

our country went to war in order to maintain a separate set of rights with absolutely no influence from our southern neighbors.
the posts on an other thread have been twisted to suit one person view and taken in a context not directed at this thread.
can some one please point out the last time a canadian could legally carry a hand gun concealed or open .
I fail to see how our laws and rights could have no influence from the Americans since both sets of laws are deeply influenced by British common law.

The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. Not until 1935 was it considered an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun fr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...laws_in_Canada

So up until 1935 you could carry a pistol with a permit, unless you had cause to fear assault or injury, in which case I assume you wouldn't need a permit??

Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country's defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one -- English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act. fr http://www.rkba.ca/

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994


Another discussion on "rights" etc...by Jeff Snyder. Very interesting and a must read:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro2.html

It really is a shame that these ideas of rights and liberty are not taught in school to all citizens. That people can vote without having a concept of these vital concepts is a disservice to the notion of democracy.

Last edited by rugatika; 08-12-2012 at 11:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:30 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

thank you for taking the time to post those fantastic links.
as I suggested at no point could one find reference of US law or its constitution other than to state the us second amendment is derived from british common law.
a tough read to say the least, very informative would be an understatement.
"often spoken of, little understood"
so as "englishmen" one has the right to bear arms for the protection of county, person and property, free from tyranny.
bit late to enter in to further discussion.
if knowledge is power you sir are one not to be messed with. lol.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:32 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Read the post friend, hard to have a debate if you do not read the post. I clearly said the majority applauded the LGR legislation...of course refferring to the most recent legislation abolishing it. In any event I do believe we can learn from the past but I for one am not prepared to live in the past, the past is history there is no changing the history. If you want to mount an effective lobby the first step is to fast forward to 2012, forget about the past that is over and done with.
I read the post, and the language was confusing, when you spoke of "applauding the long gun registry legislation".

Speaking of reading posts, did you read the summary of gun laws over the last century? You speak of winning, but when was the last time you were able to carry concealed? What about enjoying an impromtu plinking session with your .45, on Crown? That's your own personal property you're prevented from using!

Nope, not living in the past. However, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and repeat it, and repeat it......

The gun grabbers have come right out to say that they don't expect to take them all tomorrow; it's like a loaf of bread. One slice at a time.

Maybe you have a point about moderation. I see little point in some of the ultra high velocity rounds. Actually, very few people can use them to their fullest in a hunting situation. Statistically, rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity in excess of 3000 fps have killed the lion's share of people in recent history, not to mention that they can be deadly at over 5 km away.

Often these high powered sniper calibers are chambered in bolt action rifles, originally designed for warfare and a commonly play a prominent role in assaults with guns. They are easily fitted with scopes that allow killing shots at extreme range, and far too easily adapted to fit large 10 and 20 round magazines; which are commonly available at many sporting goods stores and mail order outlets, not even requiring a special license!

Compounding the danger of these high powered bolt actions, is the ease in which the trigger can be tuned to what's known as a "hair trigger". The sportsman has no need of any trigger lightening, and becomes as dangerous to innocent bystanders as he is to his quarry with such reckless mechanical work done to the rifle.

There are plenty of sporting arms to choose from besides glorified sniper rifles.
Wouldn't affect me too much if 3000+ fps rifles were restricted, and 3000+ fps repeating bolt actions were prohibited. I enjoy rifles of a more moderate velocity myself.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:36 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

You still didn't tell me which gun you would prefer your wife defend her virtue and life with, and how many rounds.....
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 08-13-2012, 09:55 AM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

My wife is a tactical shooter she could defend herself with any firearm all she would need is one round, her preferance would be her short barrel 12 gauge three round maximum. I am not sure why that has any bearing on the debate though. She is more likely to win the lottery than needing to defend herself with lethal force. May I respectfully suggest Canadian society as it is today would not exactly see the need for anyone to carry a weapon for self defense, Canada is not exactly a war zone.


I appreciate your continued referance to the past, but the past has very little to do with anything going forward. 100 years ago Canada had less than 5 million people and the west was still being settled, today Canada is quite a different place, the people not the politicians have decided there is a need for a measure of gun control I do not have a problem with that, in the future if the people decide there is need for additional gun control that will also happen. Gun control will not be driven by the anti gun groups it will be the the majority of the electorate that will decide. Moderates will also always discount the extremists on both sides of the issue, while extremists may not be the correct tiltle, the fact of the matter is the more extreme a persons views are on any particular issue the less that message will heard. The extreme view from the anti's is that all guns should be ban, that will never happen, the extreme view from gun supporters is all gun laws should be abolished, that will also never happen. Moderates that are able to see both sides of the issue is where the laws will come from.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 08-13-2012, 10:05 AM
Tundra Monkey's Avatar
Tundra Monkey Tundra Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Prosperous Lake, NT
Posts: 5,631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagalaz View Post
Well, the polls have Mulcair at 33.6% & he has sworn to bring back the LGR.
At least he'll know what he has to pony up for a budget

Scrapper....tell your Wife to pull the plug outta that guage!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 08-13-2012, 10:09 AM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

I like your message about history repeating itself and I think you are absolutely correct. The mitgating factor is that history is based on the the issues of the day. The reason history cannot repeat itself is that the issues have all changed, todays society has almost nothing in common with the past. Everything has changed from how we travel to how we exchange information. People today are very well informed and the world is certainly a lot smaller place.

Having said that there will always be important lessons to be learned from history your point is well taken on that issue. Your opinion is also important and apprciated.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 08-13-2012, 10:56 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
I am an admitted moderate, I don't have a problem with the current gun laws, I am also not opposed to revisiting hot issues with respect to additional regulations, for that I was called a supporter of Hiltler and Stalin, if that isn't extreme almost beyond belief then what is it.We are both gun owners but we will never be on the same team.
Your response was plain and polite. I appreciate that and will respond likewise.

If you support current restrictions on my freedom and security and that of my family, then we are indeed opponents. That is not meant to be inflammatory, that's just the way it is. I have said many times that gun control is not about guns. Therefore, the fact that you are a gun owner neither adds nor subtracts from your argument or the strength of your positions about gun control, nor should you expect that. Furthermore, how can the purchase of a thing impart some higher level or knowledge or experience or thought?

I do not believe it is necessary - nor is it even logical - to expect that everyone who owns a gun will have done the depth of reading, research and thinking that I, and others, have done. With that reading, research and thinking my own opinions have changed over time. There was a time when I would not have supported CCW.

These days, I draw a hard line on gun control. If you have read my comments here, you ought to understand why. If it suits you to simply write me off as an "extremist", that's your choice - but that doesn't make it so.

Quote:
I for one could never stand beside people that have zero tolerance for another persons opinion.
Your are confusing tolerance and honesty. You are also demanding from everyone else what you do not give to them - tolerance.

You are free to speak here. That is tolerance. I am free to point out that you are wrong in fact and wrong in theory. That is where your tolerance is required, but missing.

I am not required to tolerate irrational opinion without speaking out in order to demonstrate that I am not an "extremist". I am especially not required to keep my mouth shut when those opposing, unfounded opinions are the support for laws that subtract from my freedom.

Quote:
So there in lies the problem, opinions on the extreme end just could never be tolerated by the moderates and visa versa.
The problem lies with you, my friend. If someone here does not agree with, aka "tolerate", your opinions, you ought to give them credit for having some reason for that and ask a question. Responding with empty labels is not helpful. Sometimes, labels are helpful but only when they can be backed up with facts. Only in those latter instances are labels a useful shorthand in conversation.

Quote:
We truly are our own worst enemy, the anti's have no need to employ a devide and conquer srategy, we are more than happy to do that for them.
Some of us are not willing to settle for less in order to find a consensus. That is not "divide and conquer" at all; that is how it should be. Unless there were idealists in the gun community, we'd still have the LGR.

Quote:
Hell we cannot even all agree the LGR legislation was positive, for some the glass will always be 1/2 empty.
Who has said that killing the LGR was not a positive? I think you have been hearing things that were not said. Just because some us do not settle for a return to the mid-90's liberal gun control laws does not mean we are malcontents. I think it means we are just better informed. I would sincerely suggest you consider that as a possibility.

Regardless, it is important to have a forum where plain talk can be exchanged.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:41 PM
6.5x47 lapua 6.5x47 lapua is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain House,AB
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
Your response was plain and polite. I appreciate that and will respond likewise.

If you support current restrictions on my freedom and security and that of my family, then we are indeed opponents. That is not meant to be inflammatory, that's just the way it is. I have said many times that gun control is not about guns. Therefore, the fact that you are a gun owner neither adds nor subtracts from your argument or the strength of your positions about gun control, nor should you expect that. Furthermore, how can the purchase of a thing impart some higher level or knowledge or experience or thought?

I do not believe it is necessary - nor is it even logical - to expect that everyone who owns a gun will have done the depth of reading, research and thinking that I, and others, have done. With that reading, research and thinking my own opinions have changed over time. There was a time when I would not have supported CCW.

These days, I draw a hard line on gun control. If you have read my comments here, you ought to understand why. If it suits you to simply write me off as an "extremist", that's your choice - but that doesn't make it so.



Your are confusing tolerance and honesty. You are also demanding from everyone else what you do not give to them - tolerance.

You are free to speak here. That is tolerance. I am free to point out that you are wrong in fact and wrong in theory. That is where your tolerance is required, but missing.

I am not required to tolerate irrational opinion without speaking out in order to demonstrate that I am not an "extremist". I am especially not required to keep my mouth shut when those opposing, unfounded opinions are the support for laws that subtract from my freedom.



The problem lies with you, my friend. If someone here does not agree with, aka "tolerate", your opinions, you ought to give them credit for having some reason for that and ask a question. Responding with empty labels is not helpful. Sometimes, labels are helpful but only when they can be backed up with facts. Only in those latter instances are labels a useful shorthand in conversation.



Some of us are not willing to settle for less in order to find a consensus. That is not "divide and conquer" at all; that is how it should be. Unless there were idealists in the gun community, we'd still have the LGR.



Who has said that killing the LGR was not a positive? I think you have been hearing things that were not said. Just because some us do not settle for a return to the mid-90's liberal gun control laws does not mean we are malcontents. I think it means we are just better informed. I would sincerely suggest you consider that as a possibility.

Regardless, it is important to have a forum where plain talk can be exchanged.
carefull Rocky you are showing too much rationalization to the emotional moderates! lol
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:18 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

My impression is that scrapper is sincere. He has drunk too much Kool Aid but whose fault is that, really? I blame our intellectually lazy, sound-bite seeking, wannabe social engineers who work in a mainstream media that is infected with a progressive herd mentality. 90% of them are well-dressed dolts who can read a teleprompter and nothing more.

I do believe that some of what I/we say has to sound pretty far-out to someone who thought he was being told the truth by our "journalists", politicians and NGO's and who has bought into years of their apple pie. That's how and why good propaganda works.

I sense there is change in the wind, though. Maybe I am just the incurable optimist, but I really think I can smell it. More and more are not settling for glittering generalities and are insisting on facts and then putting those facts under a microscope. That's all good.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:28 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
Your response was plain and polite. I appreciate that and will respond likewise.

If you support current restrictions on my freedom and security and that of my family, then we are indeed opponents. That is not meant to be inflammatory, that's just the way it is. I have said many times that gun control is not about guns. Therefore, the fact that you are a gun owner neither adds nor subtracts from your argument or the strength of your positions about gun control, nor should you expect that. Furthermore, how can the purchase of a thing impart some higher level or knowledge or experience or thought?

I do not believe it is necessary - nor is it even logical - to expect that everyone who owns a gun will have done the depth of reading, research and thinking that I, and others, have done. With that reading, research and thinking my own opinions have changed over time. There was a time when I would not have supported CCW.

These days, I draw a hard line on gun control. If you have read my comments here, you ought to understand why. If it suits you to simply write me off as an "extremist", that's your choice - but that doesn't make it so.



Your are confusing tolerance and honesty. You are also demanding from everyone else what you do not give to them - tolerance.

You are free to speak here. That is tolerance. I am free to point out that you are wrong in fact and wrong in theory. That is where your tolerance is required, but missing.

I am not required to tolerate irrational opinion without speaking out in order to demonstrate that I am not an "extremist". I am especially not required to keep my mouth shut when those opposing, unfounded opinions are the support for laws that subtract from my freedom.



The problem lies with you, my friend. If someone here does not agree with, aka "tolerate", your opinions, you ought to give them credit for having some reason for that and ask a question. Responding with empty labels is not helpful. Sometimes, labels are helpful but only when they can be backed up with facts. Only in those latter instances are labels a useful shorthand in conversation.



Some of us are not willing to settle for less in order to find a consensus. That is not "divide and conquer" at all; that is how it should be. Unless there were idealists in the gun community, we'd still have the LGR.



Who has said that killing the LGR was not a positive? I think you have been hearing things that were not said. Just because some us do not settle for a return to the mid-90's liberal gun control laws does not mean we are malcontents. I think it means we are just better informed. I would sincerely suggest you consider that as a possibility.

Regardless, it is important to have a forum where plain talk can be exchanged.
Great post.

Everything I could have wanted to say, plus some things that never crossed my mind.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 08-13-2012, 05:17 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post

I do believe that some of what I/we say has to sound pretty far-out to someone who thought he was being told the truth by our "journalists", politicians and NGO's and who has bought into years of their apple pie. That's how and why good propaganda works.

I sense there is change in the wind, though. Maybe I am just the incurable optimist, but I really think I can smell it. More and more are not settling for glittering generalities and are insisting on facts and then putting those facts under a microscope. That's all good.
I heard an interesting conversation on radio today.
The announcer was interviewing a media manipulator. The quest insisted that he and others in the same profession feed false information to the media all the time. He claims it is common practice and very successful as well.

Apparently he has written a book called, "Trust me, I'm lying", which lays out exactly how and what they do.
According to him the big media outlets are well aware this is happening and have been for a long time, but since they are simply quoting sources, IE this quest, they are insulated from any repercussions. Until now.

This book would end all that and he claims the big media outlets are furious with him for exposing their dirty little secret.

If true, I could see some very big changes coming.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 08-13-2012, 05:22 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Great comment, sadly there are just too many levels of gun enthusiest's it's clear even in this discussion, some are just never going to be happy if there are any gun laws, some are happy with the current system. I am an admitted moderate, I don't have a problem with the current gun laws, I am also not opposed to revisiting hot issues with respect to additional regulations, for that I was called a supporter of Hiltler and Stalin, if that isn't extreme almost beyond belief then what is it. We are both gun owners but we will never be on the same team. I for one could never stand beside people that have zero tolerance for another persons opinion. So there in lies the problem, opinions on the extreme end just could never be tolerated by the moderates and visa versa. We truly are our own worst enemy, the anti's have no need to employ a devide and conquer srategy, we are more than happy to do that for them.Hell we cannot even all agree the LGR legislation was positive, for some the glass will always be 1/2 empty.
Scrapper...I am curious where you think human rights originate and which rights do you think humans are entitled to? Are they inherent in being, or are they granted to us by other humans?
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 08-13-2012, 06:47 PM
guywiththemule guywiththemule is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
Your response was plain and polite. I appreciate that and will respond likewise.

If you support current restrictions on my freedom and security and that of my family, then we are indeed opponents. That is not meant to be inflammatory, that's just the way it is. I have said many times that gun control is not about guns. Therefore, the fact that you are a gun owner neither adds nor subtracts from your argument or the strength of your positions about gun control, nor should you expect that. Furthermore, how can the purchase of a thing impart some higher level or knowledge or experience or thought?

I do not believe it is necessary - nor is it even logical - to expect that everyone who owns a gun will have done the depth of reading, research and thinking that I, and others, have done. With that reading, research and thinking my own opinions have changed over time. There was a time when I would not have supported CCW.

These days, I draw a hard line on gun control. If you have read my comments here, you ought to understand why. If it suits you to simply write me off as an "extremist", that's your choice - but that doesn't make it so.



Your are confusing tolerance and honesty. You are also demanding from everyone else what you do not give to them - tolerance.

You are free to speak here. That is tolerance. I am free to point out that you are wrong in fact and wrong in theory. That is where your tolerance is required, but missing.

I am not required to tolerate irrational opinion without speaking out in order to demonstrate that I am not an "extremist". I am especially not required to keep my mouth shut when those opposing, unfounded opinions are the support for laws that subtract from my freedom.



The problem lies with you, my friend. If someone here does not agree with, aka "tolerate", your opinions, you ought to give them credit for having some reason for that and ask a question. Responding with empty labels is not helpful. Sometimes, labels are helpful but only when they can be backed up with facts. Only in those latter instances are labels a useful shorthand in conversation.



Some of us are not willing to settle for less in order to find a consensus. That is not "divide and conquer" at all; that is how it should be. Unless there were idealists in the gun community, we'd still have the LGR.



Who has said that killing the LGR was not a positive? I think you have been hearing things that were not said. Just because some us do not settle for a return to the mid-90's liberal gun control laws does not mean we are malcontents. I think it means we are just better informed. I would sincerely suggest you consider that as a possibility.

Regardless, it is important to have a forum where plain talk can be exchanged.
Thank you for the factual, unemotional and logical response. It might be hard for an anti-gun, pro-gun control or moderate government interferece advocate to fully grasp, but we can only hope.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 08-13-2012, 07:05 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
My wife is a tactical shooter she could defend herself with any firearm all she would need is one round, her preferance would be her short barrel 12 gauge three round maximum. I am not sure why that has any bearing on the debate though. She is more likely to win the lottery than needing to defend herself with lethal force. May I respectfully suggest Canadian society as it is today would not exactly see the need for anyone to carry a weapon for self defense, Canada is not exactly a war zone.


I appreciate your continued referance to the past, but the past has very little to do with anything going forward. 100 years ago Canada had less than 5 million people and the west was still being settled, today Canada is quite a different place, the people not the politicians have decided there is a need for a measure of gun control I do not have a problem with that, in the future if the people decide there is need for additional gun control that will also happen. Gun control will not be driven by the anti gun groups it will be the the majority of the electorate that will decide. Moderates will also always discount the extremists on both sides of the issue, while extremists may not be the correct tiltle, the fact of the matter is the more extreme a persons views are on any particular issue the less that message will heard. The extreme view from the anti's is that all guns should be ban, that will never happen, the extreme view from gun supporters is all gun laws should be abolished, that will also never happen. Moderates that are able to see both sides of the issue is where the laws will come from.
Maybe you have a point about moderation. I see little point in some of the ultra high velocity rounds. Actually, very few people can use them to their fullest in a hunting situation. Statistically, rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity in excess of 3000 fps have killed the lion's share of people in recent history, not to mention that they can be deadly at over 5 km away.

Often these high powered sniper calibers are chambered in bolt action rifles, originally designed for warfare and a commonly play a prominent role in assaults with guns. They are easily fitted with scopes that allow killing shots at extreme range, and far too easily adapted to fit large 10 and 20 round magazines; which are commonly available at many sporting goods stores and mail order outlets, not even requiring a special license!

Compounding the danger of these high powered bolt actions, is the ease in which the trigger can be tuned to what's known as a "hair trigger". The sportsman has no need of any trigger lightening, and becomes as dangerous to innocent bystanders as he is to his quarry with such reckless mechanical work done to the rifle.

There are plenty of sporting arms to choose from besides glorified sniper rifles.
Wouldn't affect me too much if 3000+ fps rifles were restricted, and 3000+ fps repeating bolt actions were prohibited. I enjoy rifles of a more moderate velocity myself.

Didn't think you read this part, so I repeated it. This would have the average non gun owner nodding in agreement as being perfectly reasonable. You wouldn't have a problem turning in your .270 would you?

Only a few years ago Britain and Australia had gun laws fairly similar to ours. Ask the British where the apathy and constant concessions to social engin... I mean public safety got them...

So you would be perfectly fine with leaving your wife with 3 rounds against 3 armed men?! Cause we all know that as your adrenaline spikes, and odds are against you, you automatically default to Hollywood action hero mode. And a shotgun blows guys across the yard one shot a piece just like the movies.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 08-13-2012, 09:29 PM
6.5x47 lapua 6.5x47 lapua is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain House,AB
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
My impression is that scrapper is sincere. He has drunk too much Kool Aid but whose fault is that, really? I blame our intellectually lazy, sound-bite seeking, wannabe social engineers who work in a mainstream media that is infected with a progressive herd mentality. 90% of them are well-dressed dolts who can read a teleprompter and nothing more.

I do believe that some of what I/we say has to sound pretty far-out to someone who thought he was being told the truth by our "journalists", politicians and NGO's and who has bought into years of their apple pie. That's how and why good propaganda works.

I sense there is change in the wind, though. Maybe I am just the incurable optimist, but I really think I can smell it. More and more are not settling for glittering generalities and are insisting on facts and then putting those facts under a microscope. That's all good.
agreed.they just have to change the color of their glasses and see it for what it really is.i was fortunate enough to attend college in montana for two years in the early eighties.almost everybody has a pistol stuffed somwhere.amazingly enough life was pretty normal down there and im sure it hasnt changed a whole lot.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 08-13-2012, 10:19 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

An argument for having a scary black gun. This incident stemmed from a simple disagreement about chickens. Little known Canadian fact: You have a 107% chance of being a victim of violence in your lifetime.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01...ked-attackers/

Kinda makes you want to make sure your "insurance" is up to date.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 08-13-2012, 11:12 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Well while I certainly respect the comments and opinions on this thread, there is no such thing as the absolute right to defend yourself or your property in Canada. Thinking so will find you on the wrong side of the law rather quickly. Having a right to do anything is determined by the society we live in. If someone decides to break into your home you do not have the right to defend yourself, you have the right to use" reasonable force" to defend yourself.What that means it is the courts who make the decision on your rights not you. My take on a right to do something means the the consequences of my actions do not impede freedom. By that I mean not being sent to jail because some judge decides my actions in the defense of my life or my property was exsessive. Frankly we are either law abiding or we are not, the current laws simply do not give any person in Canada the RIGHT to protect ourselves. Those two little words "reasonable force" are how your precieved right will be interpreted by the law.

I am not saying that is right or wrong that is up to you to decide, what I am saying is that the law is clear with respect to any of us and the level of force we use in self defense. If you want to know what your actual rights are as a Canadian citizen then the simple solution is to read the Canadian Constitution it clearly describes what your rights and freedoms are.

Your's and my rights are dictated to us by the society in which we chose to live. If you do not like the laws here or you think your constituional rights are a detrement to you ability to protect yourself, the simple solution is to exercise your Right to move to a local that better suits your beliefs. You want the right to protect your life and property without the restriction of reasonable force the solution is to move to Texas. You want the right to carry a handgun the simple solution is to move to a state that allows people to do that. The theory is simple in nature, if you want the right to carry a hand gun it is a lot easier and makes a lot more sense for you as an individual to find a place to do that, what you cannot expect is to think the rest of society should change to suit your needs.

I am not being flipant with those remarks, I am just sating that certain societies have different laws which create different personal "RIGHTS". If you chose to be Canadian then you are expected to follow the Canadian laws. How you feel about those laws are a choice you get to make on your own, what is right for me may not be right for you what however is constant is that the same laws apply to all of us.

You want to change the laws, simple get your name on the ballot, and people will exercise the most basic democratic right we have...the right to vote. The people decide, that is how democracy works.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 08-13-2012, 11:33 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
There are plenty of sporting arms to choose from besides glorified sniper rifles.
Wouldn't affect me too much if 3000+ fps rifles were restricted, and 3000+ fps repeating bolt actions were prohibited. I enjoy rifles of a more moderate velocity myself.
You would like to see 3000+ fps rifles restricted/prohibited because you don't like them? So what about those people who do like them? You would see fit to take a type of rifle away from everyone because its not what you like?
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 08-13-2012, 11:43 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Well while I certainly respect the comments and opinions on this thread, there is no such thing as the absolute right to defend yourself
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

Quote:
or your property in Canada. Thinking so will find you on the wrong side of the law rather quickly. Having a right to do anything is determined by the society we live in. If someone decides to break into your home you do not have the right to defend yourself, you have the right to use" reasonable force" to defend yourself.What that means it is the courts who make the decision on your rights not you.
Ok, but I think that if someone wants to cause death or grievous injury to my family or myself. I will do everything in my power to make sure that we're there for the court date. It's vastly better than the alternative.

Quote:
My take on a right to do something means the the consequences of my actions do not impede freedom. By that I mean not being sent to jail because some judge decides my actions in the defense of my life or my property was exsessive. Frankly we are either law abiding or we are not, the current laws simply do not give any person in Canada the RIGHT to protect ourselves. Those two little words "reasonable force" are how your precieved right will be interpreted by the law.

I am not saying that is right or wrong that is up to you to decide, what I am saying is that the law is clear with respect to any of us and the level of force we use in self defense. If you want to know what your actual rights are as a Canadian citizen then the simple solution is to read the Canadian Constitution it clearly describes what your rights and freedoms are.
Reread it.


Quote:
Your's and my rights are dictated to us by the society in which we chose to live. If you do not like the laws here or you think your constituional rights are a detrement to you ability to protect yourself, the simple solution is to exercise your Right to move to a local that better suits your beliefs. You want the right to protect your life and property without the restriction of reasonable force the solution is to move to Texas. You want the right to carry a handgun the simple solution is to move to a state that allows people to do that. The theory is simple in nature, if you want the right to carry a hand gun it is a lot easier and makes a lot more sense for you as an individual to find a place to do that, what you cannot expect is to think the rest of society should change to suit your needs.
No one can dictate your or my rights. That's why they're rights. If you don't want to carry, or own guns, move to Britain. See what I did there?

This is my country too, so I'll try to better it.

Quote:
I am not being flipant with those remarks, I am just sating that certain societies have different laws which create different personal "RIGHTS". If you chose to be Canadian then you are expected to follow the Canadian laws. How you feel about those laws are a choice you get to make on your own, what is right for me may not be right for you what however is constant is that the same laws apply to all of us.

You want to change the laws, simple get your name on the ballot, and people will exercise the most basic democratic right we have...the right to vote. The people decide, that is how democracy works.
So if you lived in a society that required your first born male for a life of military service, you would merely comply. The state demands it, right? What right do other people who seek to change the law have, if I have no right to change the law? Seems a little lopsided and dictatorial to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.