Son of Long Gun Registry Contd.

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel
Son of Long Gun Registry Contd.
RANGER

 

 

RANGER wrote:

 

I think you did all the mangling pretty much on your own... you are a hoot!

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ReeferMadness wrote:

You can't properly match up the quotes and yet they let you use guns?

I'm so glad I don't live anywhere near you.  Somebody should warn your neighbors.

 

 

 

 

 

RANGER wrote:

 

What gun's ???

 

Unionist

Please continue the discussion in the non-sexist-titled open thread [url=here.[/url]">http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/long-gun-registry-cont#comment...

 

Lord Palmerston

A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."

So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I'd wholeheartedly support a gun registry for a just Canada.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Fidel wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."

So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?

Some people thought Hitler was a joker at the time, and that other European leaders would not take him seriously. And they didn't until it was too late.

These are strange times today.  Countries have been bombed for humanitarian reasons as were the excuses used in the 1940's. The crises of capitalism produced two major world wars. My grandfather, a WW I veterran, thought it was too quiet and peaceful in Europe in the 1930's. Is it too quiet around the world again? Will today's fascists be satisfied with attacking defenceless countries, one or two at a time in isolation from the rest? Or is it time for another war to end all wars?

 

 

Fidel, I really want to put you in the Hall of Fame again but I know you're a bit shy.  Thank you for your contributions.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."

So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?

Some people thought Hitler was a joker at the time, and that other European leaders would not take him seriously. And they didn't until it was too late.

These are strange times today.  Countries have been bombed for humanitarian reasons as were the excuses used in the 1940's. The crises of capitalism produced two major world wars. My grandfather, a WW I veterran, thought it was too quiet and peaceful in Europe in the 1930's. Is it too quiet around the world again? Will today's fascists be satisfied with attacking defenceless countries one or two at a time in isolation while the rest of the world stands idly by? Or is it time for another war to end all wars?

 

Brian White

I guess he is a free market leftist.  A blue leftist.  National socalist?  Pol pot was a leftist  too.  I guess there are brutish thugs on all the sides.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."

So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?

Brian White

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/11/17/ReturningFire/index.html is worth a read. 

"Number one reason for revoking firearms licenses -- 75 per cent of them? "Court-ordered prohibition or probation." Yes, 1,366 revocations last year alone were because a court ordered someone not to possess firearms -- gee, maybe they had a criminal problem."!!!

And

"Or look at Firearms Interest Police reports, which checks if a licence holder has been the subject of a police incident report by checking the registry. That only happened 102,841 times last year, including over 12,000 in B.C. alone.

Perhaps the information in the Commissioner's report is why Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan didn't want to release it to Parliament until two days after the vote".

So it would seem that criminals are applying for gun licences.     and the gun registry helps prevent them get them.

Who would have thought?    So, if the registry goes, criminals will have an easier time getting guns. 

They will be able to use legal long guns to kill us.  I guess that is fine.   Personal freedom, man.  F*** public safety.

Seems to be the conservative attitude and the attitude of their  left wing brothers in arms too.

Mr. Tieleman, well done!

 

 

yarg

 

 

"They will be able to use legal long guns to kill us.  I guess that is fine.   Personal freedom, man.  F*** public safety."

 

Yea, those 2 percenters, those are the ones you really need to watch out for. When will you start advocating a knife registry, and how much will it cost?

Knives kill far more people than the long guns you are so terribly afraid of, so use your 'logic', explain to me why getting stabbed to death is more noble than being shot by a shotgun or rifle.

 On average two percent of firearm homicides are committed with a registered long gun, thats 1/2 of 1 percent of total homicides, in 2003 21.8 percent of all homicides were committed with knives, 21.8 vs 0.5 percent, so how about it, a knife registry and 3 layers of bubble wrap for all?

Or maybe some common sense. In 2003 knives were used 12 times as often as firearms in assaults against a spouse, overall its 0.1 percent for firearms what is 2 percent of 0.1 percent...you do the math.

So what of it? are you interested in helping people? are you afraid of knives? if not why not, they are obviously used more than registered firearms, those scary right wing macho death machines that account for one half of one percent of all homicides in this country.

This whole thing is ridiculous, but we who are against the registry aren't the ones prompting this pathetic argument, one thats so easily won, over and over again, alas, some peoples logic is impervious to common sense, or basic math it seems.

PraetorianFour

If Canadians register ALL our firearms should we members of the shooting community be allowed automatic weapons, machinepistols, machineguns and all other weapons currently considered prohibited?

Unionist

That's a great question, PF. What do you think?

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
"Number one reason for revoking firearms licenses -- 75 per cent of them? "Court-ordered prohibition or probation." Yes, 1,366 revocations last year alone were because a court ordered someone not to possess firearms -- gee, maybe they had a criminal problem."!!!

 

I suppose a registry could be useful for this, in theory, but I think it's been demonstrated that just knowing someone has a gun, even an illegal one, doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[url=http://www.thestar.com/gta/crime/article/648581]Here's a fascinating report[/url] of a man with three separate court orders to not own a gun, two of them so-called "lifetime bans". Before you click on the link, try to guess what he was caught with?

 

The handgun registry has been around for about 80 years, and this is how effective it's become at helping keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. Perhaps the long gun registry might one day allow us to impotently issue similar "voluntary" lifetime bans for rifles! When someone is murdered with a long gun we could say "Well he was SUPPOSED to not own guns! We trusted him, and this is what we get? Corpses?? Let's give him another gun ban!!"

 

 

Brian White

Your much qouted 2% is a conservative statistic. I have a question.

Have  you regestered all your guns or are you participating in a civil disobedience campaign?  

If you are refusing to co-operate with the law, you and other conservative hudlums are just making a self-fulfilling statement.

And another question.  Where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Because the numbers say that soemthing like 1/3 of murder deaths are family members of the shooter.  Your 2% number pretends that the 98% are illegal guns, doesn't it?

 Thats not illegal guns all the time, though,  is it? So if it is often licenced guns, what the hell is the use of licencing?

That will be the next campaign for the gun lovers, perhaps.  Lets get rid of licencing cos it is no effing good. 

Lots are licenced guns where the murdering B*****D refused to register the gun.

And if he had been forced to register? Maybe someone could have cross referenced his hatred before it caused death.

You guys twist and turn like snakes. Grab a worthless statistic and run with it.   Till someon pries it out of your dead hands.

 

 

 

 

yarg wrote:

 

 

"They will be able to use legal long guns to kill us.  I guess that is fine.   Personal freedom, man.  F*** public safety."

 

Yea, those 2 percenters, those are the ones you really need to watch out for. When will you start advocating a knife registry, and how much will it cost?

Knives kill far more people than the long guns you are so terribly afraid of, so use your 'logic', explain to me why getting stabbed to death is more noble than being shot by a shotgun or rifle.

 On average two percent of firearm homicides are committed with a registered long gun, thats 1/2 of 1 percent of total homicides, in 2003 21.8 percent of all homicides were committed with knives, 21.8 vs 0.5 percent, so how about it, a knife registry and 3 layers of bubble wrap for all?

Or maybe some common sense. In 2003 knives were used 12 times as often as firearms in assaults against a spouse, overall its 0.1 percent for firearms what is 2 percent of 0.1 percent...you do the math.

So what of it? are you interested in helping people? are you afraid of knives? if not why not, they are obviously used more than registered firearms, those scary right wing macho death machines that account for one half of one percent of all homicides in this country.

This whole thing is ridiculous, but we who are against the registry aren't the ones prompting this pathetic argument, one thats so easily won, over and over again, alas, some peoples logic is impervious to common sense, or basic math it seems.

Fidel

Brian White wrote:

I guess he is a free market leftist.  A blue leftist.  National socalist?  Pol pot was a leftist  too.  I guess there are brutish thugs on all the sides.

The US and China supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They propped-up the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler. And the doctor and the madman bombed Cambodia and VietNam to smithereens. Kissinger should have been in jail years ago.

Tommy_Paine

 

You want gun control?  Start a website devoted to arming the left.  Education on weapons, how to purchase, how to navigate the regulations, etc.

You'd have gun control faster than Flaherty at a blind man kicking contest.

Fidel

Tommy_Paine wrote:
You want gun control?  Start a website devoted to arming the left.  Education on weapons, how to purchase, how to navigate the regulations, etc.

You'd have gun control faster than Flaherty at a blind man kicking contest.

This is a hall of fame post. Well said.

 

yarg

Brian White wrote:

Your much qouted 2% is a conservative statistic. I have a question.

Have  you regestered all your guns or are you participating in a civil disobedience campaign?  

If you are refusing to co-operate with the law, you and other conservative hudlums are just making a self-fulfilling statement.

And another question.  Where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Because the numbers say that soemthing like 1/3 of murder deaths are family members of the shooter.  Your 2% number pretends that the 98% are illegal guns, doesn't it?

 Thats not illegal guns all the time, though,  is it? So if it is often licenced guns, what the hell is the use of licencing?

That will be the next campaign for the gun lovers, perhaps.  Lets get rid of licencing cos it is no effing good. 

Lots are licenced guns where the murdering B*****D refused to register the gun.

And if he had been forced to register? Maybe someone could have cross referenced his hatred before it caused death.

You guys twist and turn like snakes. Grab a worthless statistic and run with it.   Till someon pries it out of your dead hands.

 

 

 

 Your ignorance is becoming annoying, and yet you continue to prove my point for me.  For the record and i have stated this before, yes, i am fully registered.

The statistic, that only 2 percent of firearms homicides are committed with registered firearms is perfectly accurate and valid.  Firstly, it proves that the vast majority of people that have registered arent killing anyone.  From my quick math, in 2003 it seems about 3.75 percent of homicides were committed with an unregistered rifle or shotgun.

So there you have it, the registry works! only 3.75 percent of homicides were committed with unregistered shotguns and rifles, 2 percent with registered shotguns and rifles, im sure those 20 or so people and thier families can take solace in the fact that a useless government agency and a piece of paper that 20 murderers who used long guns may or may not have had, did absolutely nothing to prevent someone from killing someone else.  It also appears that someone who refused to register is only slightly more likely to kill someone who did, so the vast majority of people who refused to register are also not murderers. 

Imagine that, a piece of paper that didn't prevent a murder.

I note that you refused to even acknowledge what i wrote about the hypocrisy of a gun registry when knives are just as deadly and more often used against a spouse by a factor of 12, but you're not really interested in the truth, helping women and all that other stuff, you are just afraid. Its becoming clear that you will say anything  to forward your crusade, and your insults are pathetic, but amusing.  You want the numbers? Its called google, or you could check the other posts.

Brian White

yarg wrote:

 Your ignorance is becoming annoying, and yet you continue to prove my point for me.  For the record and i have stated this before, yes, i am fully registered.

The statistic, that only 2 percent of firearms homicides are committed with registered firearms is perfectly accurate and valid.  Firstly, it proves that the vast majority of people that have registered arent killing anyone.  From my quick math, in 2003 it seems about 3.75 percent of homicides were committed with an unregistered rifle or shotgun.

What is your point?  How do the 2 statistics    (from God knows where prove it?)

You are saying that 98% of firearms homocides are committed with unregistered firearms. But my question is how many of that 98% (as you have total faith in the Holy statistic)  were licenced?

It is kinda evasive to ignore the question.

Perhaps someone on the pro gun control side could give a counter view?  (I do not believe that long gun crime is all committed with unlicenced guns).

It is dangerous to allow that stupid statistic to go to the public unchallenged. It was invented by the Conservative misinformation department  to dumb down the conversation.

We need a strong statement to gut the 2%  BS.    Reefer gutted it correctly but we need to put it in context with the voting public. We need a counter statistic, even one just as meaningless, and we need to showcase murders with long guns that have happened recently.

2% is a red herring but it needs a witty and powerful  and emotive populist response.               It will go into conservative folklore as a brilliant trick to scam people otherwise.

"guns do not kill people, people kill people,  but you got to admit, a gun helps" is so clear. You knife your old lady, and it gets so messy and she screams too long and that makes you have second thoughts  but shoot her and she is dead double quick.  Just a little clean up.

Where is that response? Even if some of it is disturbing comedy, it is ok. 

People had better come up with it real quick.

I am sure there are a few wives who survived gun attacks from spouses who had facial wounds and are horribly disfigured.

Any of them want to be part of the campaign to keep gun control?

 

PraetorianFour

The point the pro-gun camp is arguing is that if I am going to commit a crime with a firearm, being registered will not matter. I will use the firearm regardless. If I am going to break the law and use a gun in a crime I'm not going to care either way.

The issue with the gun registry isn't the act of registering firearms but rather the government deciding certain guns are illegal and using the gun registry to come into their homes and take their guns.
Certain firearms get banned for having a military type action or looking "evil" basically.
I have a bolt action hunting rifle which uses a military type action. It doesn't make it deadlier it's a simply design used in service rifles (in my case from ww1) Even your average hunter couldn't tell a military type action from a regular action.

Some gun control measures are feel good attempts to make people feel safer. Take handgun magazines for example. Your average 9mm semi-automatic pistol holds 15 rounds. A gun control measure in Canada is to limit [legally] magazines to 10 rounds. This apparently makes it safer. Except;
I can easily buy illegal 15 round magazines
I can modify my 10 round magazine to hold 15 rounds.
I can buy more magazines and have 15 - 10 round magazines instead of 10 15 round magazines. To a non shoter having 10 rounds instead of 15 it may sound safer. Anyone who spends tie shooting knows the difference is negligible. It takes less than 2 seconds to change a magazine and no that's not going to give police a chance to *get the bad guy in between magazine changes* It's a feel good attempt.

Quote:

"guns do not kill people, people kill people, but you got to admit, a gun helps" is so clear. You knife your old lady, and it gets so messy and she screams too long and that makes you have second thoughts but shoot her and she is dead double quick. Just a little clean up.

I've seen knife wounds and firearm wounds and I can tell you from experience this analogy is wrong. Assaults with firearms are not just a little clean up.
People also scream and cry and plea and beg when their shot too. Both types of attacks are violent messy and traumatic.

Guns DO make it easier to hurt/kill people yes. I would rather spend this money on keeping violent criminals in jail or rehabilitating them. Because if they can't use a gun their just gonna use a knife sword ice pick or crossbow.

Speedlimits stop honest people from speeding they don't stop people from going over the speed limit if they choose to.
The first person to post about gun registry used an example of themselves choosing to break the law and speed [apparently by a considerable amount]. The threat of fines, jailtime or possible death to themselves or others was not enough of a factor to stop them. The same can be said for someone choosing to do violence.

Loretta

Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.

 

But when you register your car, it's mostly for purposes of ownership and insurance. It's not so the government can decide that nobody should be allowed to have a Subaru Outback, and then go confiscating Subaru Outbacks without compensation.

 

And really, when we justify the long gun registry on the grounds that we register automobiles, it gives worlds of credibility to the otherwise facetious suggestion that we should have to register all of our knives. Really, if we register cars and guns, why not knives? Sure, we can cut vegetables with them and slice bread with them, but evidently we also use them to murder each other.

Unionist

Loretta wrote:

Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.

You can't win, Loretta, but I appreciate your valiant efforts. There are too many different (and equally fraudulent) explanations as to why the gun registry was instituted:

1. To annoy people by making them fill out stupid forms.

2. To enrich friends with crazy big contracts.

3. To confiscate people's guns without compensation, just because.

4. To prepare to disarm the whole population in preparation for the installation of Nazi-style fascism.

5. To criminalize law-abiding folk, just because.

6. To pander to the simpering city slickers and humiliate country folk.

7. To prepare for having lists of everything people own, also of Jews, Catholics, and heterosexuals.

8. Because the registry can't stop crime and the Liberals don't care - only the gun people care.

9. Why should we listen to women's groups on this issue? Just because they're women??

10. For no good reason that any normal person can possibly understand.

So, try nailing all that jelly to the floor.

 

Fidel

And you can add this to the list of reasons many Canadians don't want to play ball with our autocratic governments. It's sometimes said that the reason we can't tax big corporations and the rich is because they will only move their money offshore anyway. The lame excuse bots tell us that money can be wired out of the country at near speed of light. It is futile to try and tax capital, they say, because technology makes it possible for the rich and powerful to evade paying taxes they owe according to the law. And so we have few alternatives but to make honest crooks of all of them by lowering corporate taxes and lowering taxes for the superrich.

But this doesn't seem to be the case when our crooked federal governments decide it necessary to invade the privacy of working class slobs. Never mind that there are far more of us than the few hundred oligarchs in Canada, or the handful few supranational corporations they've sold our environment and other valuable Canadian assets to. Technology can be used to work for the feds when it comes to invading our privacy. And there are people who demand that they do just that. The people will police themselves always.

SparkyOne

Loretta wrote:

Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.

Am I missing a joke?

Drivers have to be licenced and vehicles need to be registered to someone and insured.

 

If I get caught driving a car that is not registered to an owner and I don't have a driver's licence my purse is going to hurt.

 

Why not get rid of guns all together?

It's scary how my nephews embrace violence and guns at such a young age.

Fidel

SparkyOne wrote:

Loretta wrote:

Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.

Am I missing a joke?

Drivers have to be licenced and vehicles need to be registered to someone and insured.

What's next, a federal fishing rod registry? Before the Libranos' gun registry that made criminals of previously law abiding citizens, hunters and tourist operators etc already had to run through a checklist of paperwork to have on-hand in case they were stopped and hassled by the provincial paramilitaries. The kids can't even do a little squeegee'ing on street corners without cops putting a stop to junior enterprise in our Northern Panama these days. One old line party down and one to go.

Loretta

There are still lots of law-abiding citizens with guns -- they're the ones with licenses who have registered their guns. Oh, and those poor tourist/hunter/fisher operators -- what a shame that they would be forced to comply with a bunch of useless laws anyway.

Fidel

They have to make a living anyway they can in most northern parts of our Northern Puerto Rico. There really is another Canada outside the major cities crowded along the Can-Am border where people live on top of one another. We may not be where the two old line parties' first-past-the-ghost votes are, but we are Canadians, too.

The feds can rubberstamp torture of ordinary people all they want to. And we'll be ready for the bastards.

Loretta

I live in a rural area -- I am quite familiar with how people make their living out here. I want rules and regulations, other-wise we're all about the wild, wild, west. (Licensing and registration of gun-owners and their weapons is rubberstamping torture?)

This is hysteria...of the male variety. One big temper tantrum.

Fidel

If it was a good gun registry, then the Libranos' can stick it sideways. A good thing can't hurt.

Brian White

Fidel wrote:

If it was a good gun registry, then the Libranos' can stick it sideways. A good thing can't hurt.

Any idea what he is talking about?  Libranos????   lib, ndp somehow mashed together?with o from bloq? (To join all the partys agianst this together as one), or is it some form of esparanto?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
3. To confiscate people's guns without compensation, just because.

 

One excellent way to get rid of this particular objection would be either for hte government to modify the policy, or for some kind of rational reason for this to be provided that might transform it from blatantly stupid to reasonable and defensible. It really shouldn't shock anyone that a policy that allows the government to declare legal property suddenly illegal for the purposes of confiscating it, without any compensation, might not be warmly received.

 

Can anyone suggest any reasonable reason why the government would feel they can just take property from you that was perfectly legal yesterday, and feel no need to compensate you for it? Anyone??

PraetorianFour

Snert wrote:

Quote:
3. To confiscate people's guns without compensation, just because.

 

One excellent way to get rid of this particular objection would be either for hte government to modify the policy, or for some kind of rational reason for this to be provided that might transform it from blatantly stupid to reasonable and defensible. It really shouldn't shock anyone that a policy that allows the government to declare legal property suddenly illegal for the purposes of confiscating it, without any compensation, might not be warmly received.

 

Can anyone suggest any reasonable reason why the government would feel they can just take property from you that was perfectly legal yesterday, and feel no need to compensate you for it? Anyone??

Because they are the Government and don't always follow the rules they lay down?

There have already been cases where Canadians [With no criminal records] have registered certain types of firearms and had those confiscated by the Government because the guns were deemed illegal or banned for whatever reason of their choosing.

remind remind's picture

The government takes vehicles, houses, and all sorts of property, all the time.....

 

....agree Loretta, we have guns, and they have been registered from the very beginning, without so much as a waste of tax payer's dollars in an immature temper tantrum manner.

 

In fact, the registry has kept a very whacked individual from getting access to guns, as no one will sell to him as they would be culpable. No registry and they would not be...

 

 

 

Unionist

Snert wrote:

Can anyone suggest any reasonable reason why the government would feel they can just take property from you that was perfectly legal yesterday, and feel no need to compensate you for it? Anyone??

Are you saying they're doing this unlawfully? If not, please cite which law allows confiscation without compensation of legally-acquired property. I'd like to review it for myself.

I take it your problem is the failure to compensate?

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The government takes vehicles, houses, and all sorts of property, all the time.....

 

And I have all the information I need to avoid that. If I don't want to lose my house, I shouldn't use it for a grow op. If I don't want to lose my vehicle, I should remember not to break the law with it.

 

Heck, if the government wants to tell me, today, that I'm not allowed to own a ShootMaster 3000 shotgun, on penalty of having it confiscated, then I still have all the info I need to avoid that. I certainly won't go purchase a ShootMaster 3000 if I know it's illegal and will be confiscated.

 

But if I go buy a legal weapon, I guess it would be my assumption that it's a legal weapon. I wouldn't expect the government to say, tomorrow, "Oh, uh, well, we're just fickle that way and we can't make up our minds, but today we feel it's illegal and so now you have to give it to us for free".

 

All the government has to do to totally eliminate this objection to the Registry is to do what they should have done in the first place and reimburse gun owners for any weapons that they decide without warning they need to confiscate. Is that really so hard?

Unionist

Snert wrote:

All the government has to do to totally eliminate this objection to the Registry is to do what they should have done in the first place and reimburse gun owners for any weapons that they decide without warning they need to confiscate. Is that really so hard?

We cross-posted. Have you got some reference for this (confiscation without compensation)? Do you have any stats on this?

Anyway, I listed approximately 691 other so-called "objections" to the registry. What would be the point of totally eliminating this objection? What about the right of each individual to wage armed struggle against a dictatorial government?

 

PraetorianFour

remind wrote:

The government takes vehicles, houses, and all sorts of property, all the time.....

 

....agree Loretta, we have guns, and they have been registered from the very beginning, without so much as a waste of tax payer's dollars in an immature temper tantrum manner.

 

In fact, the registry has kept a very whacked individual from getting access to guns, as no one will sell to him as they would be culpable. No registry and they would not be...

 

 

 

How would you feel if the police came to your house and said Sir/Ma'am we are taking your car and keeping it. It's been decided that people with your kind of car are too likely to speed and get in an accident so we are taking it. This will make the roads a safer place. [Does it stop you from speeding with a truck or van? No]

Firearm owners are not afraid of having their firearms registered they are afraid of loosing them because someone makes a decision based on a false idea of safty.

Vehicles houses and other objects get confiscated all the time without reimbursment. But why?
Because people perform illegal activities or fail to make payments on the items.
You don't loose your house or car for following the rules and minding your own buisness.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
We cross-posted. Have you got some reference for this (confiscation without compensation)? Do you have any stats on this?

 

I have neither, but it's come up so often, and never been rebutted with "that's simply not true" that I've been going with the working assumption that gun owners are telling the truth on this one. And that said, I don't know why I'd need statistics in order to say it's stupid. I'm not claiming it happens on a daily basis, I'm claiming that it doesn't make sense.

 

Quote:
What would be the point of totally eliminating this objection?

 

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step".

 

Quote:
How would you feel if the police came to your house and said Sir/Ma'am we are taking your car and keeping it.

 

Remember when the law changed to require seatbelts? And all the cars made before 1970 or so (without seatbelts) were confiscated by the government without compensation? It was like when the law said that houses had to have certain electrical features like ground-fault plugs in washrooms, and those older homes that lacked them were confiscated without compensation.

 

Nobody had a problem with it at the time.

 

Doesn't everyone remember??

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

Quote:
How would you feel if the police came to your house and said Sir/Ma'am we are taking your car and keeping it.

How would you feel if the government told you your vehicle was worth too much and you had to sell it?

Fidel

Snert wrote:
Remember when the law changed to require seatbelts? And all the cars made before 1970 or so (without seatbelts) were confiscated by the government without compensation? It was like when the law said that houses had to have certain electrical features like ground-fault plugs in washrooms, and those older homes that lacked them were confiscated without compensation.

But the law did change in 1995 with bill C-17, and deaths by firearms in Canada began declining. There is no statistical evidence that the Libranos' gun registry to make criminals of law abiding gun owners contributed to any further decline in a noticable way.

Unionist

Snert wrote:

Quote:
We cross-posted. Have you got some reference for this (confiscation without compensation)? Do you have any stats on this?

 

I have neither, but it's come up so often, and never been rebutted with "that's simply not true" that I've been going with the working assumption that gun owners are telling the truth on this one. And that said, I don't know why I'd need statistics in order to say it's stupid. I'm not claiming it happens on a daily basis, I'm claiming that it doesn't make sense.

The reason I ask is that previous owners of many types of firearms which were prohibited in 1995 were "grandparented" - they could continue to own them. A worker I knew had an AK-47 (don't ask) and was able to keep it. So please tell me what these confiscations without compensation were all about? Were they maybe some rugged individuals who couldn't be bothered to fill out the fascist forms??

 

snert wrote:
Remember when the law changed to require seatbelts? And all the cars made before 1970 or so (without seatbelts) were confiscated by the government without compensation? It was like when the law said that houses had to have certain electrical features like ground-fault plugs in washrooms, and those older homes that lacked them were confiscated without compensation.

Actually, I remember quite clearly when LSD was added to the Criminal Code prohibitions. Lawful one day, banned the next. Not sure how many compensation claims were paid... Personally, I wasn't even grandparented. Do you think I should have turned in my stash and been compensated by the taxpayer?

Anyway, you're worked up about people's property being absconded with, so kindly tell me what you've heard about that.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Personally, I wasn't even grandparented. Do you think I should have turned in my stash and been compensated by the taxpayer?

 

Yes. Absolutely. You bought a legal product in good faith. Why should the government get to own it for free just by criminalizing it?

 

Quote:
Anyway, you're worked up about people's property being absconded with, so kindly tell me what you've heard about that.

 

Mostly that the Registry would enable that. What have you heard? That gun owners would be compensated? Or that firearm won't be confiscated if they're currently legal?

Unionist

Snert wrote:

Yes. Absolutely. You bought a legal product in good faith. Why should the government get to own it for free just by criminalizing it?

They shouldn't get to own it. Hopefully they would discard it. If I found out they were selling or using it, I'd put in a claim.

Snert wrote:
What have you heard? That gun owners would be compensated? Or that firearm won't be confiscated if they're currently legal?

Snert - the registry has been in place for 15 years. I'm no legal expert, but my understanding at the time was that law-abiding owners of many newly-prohibited weapons were allowed to retain those weapons - even replace them under some conditions. So instead of asking me questions, why don't you give me a single example of what you're complaining about (if you have any)?

 

Snert Snert's picture

I'm not certain exactly how the Registry interlocks with the Firearms Act, however I did run across examples of newly-prohibited weapons being confiscated without compensation.  Mind you, I didn't save the link.  ;)

But if it cannot happen, no problem.  That's all I need to hear, and all gun owners should need to hear.  Just "don't worry, it will never happen".

If the government can't or won't say that then whether guns have or have not been confiscated already, I don't think gun owners' concerns are irrelevant.  And as I noted, then the gun owners would have one fewer complaint and one fewer talking point.  Unless one WANTS the guns confiscated without compensation, that would seem to me to be a genuine win-win.

 

Quote:
They shouldn't get to own it. Hopefully they would discard it.

 

How could they legally discard it without owning it??

 

I stick by what I said. You should have been compensated, or given a reasonable way to make up your loss. If you buy, say, a motorcycle today, you shouldn't face the complete loss of it and its value tomorrow. The government can do better than that.

 

Unionist

Snert wrote:

I'm not certain exactly how the Registry interlocks with the Firearms Act, however I did run across examples of newly-prohibited weapons being confiscated without compensation.  Mind you, I didn't save the link.  ;)

But if it cannot happen, no problem.  That's all I need to hear, and all gun owners should need to hear.  Just "don't worry, it will never happen".

I don't want to belabour the point, other than to say that this is one of many examples of colossal mythology surrounding this issue - part of a giant temper tantrum (as Loretta I think aptly described it) whose proponents sound so violent in screaming against the legislation that they almost prove their opponents' point.

Quote:
Unless one WANTS the guns confiscated without compensation, that would seem to me to be a genuine win-win.

It's an irrelevant non-issue, unless anyone has actually had a gun confiscated without compensation in the past decade and who has been following all the regulations. I'll wait for our experts to give me an example.

 

Fidel

So who's for creating a federal database of corporate tax evaders who owe the federal government tens of billions of dollars in "deferred" and unpaid taxes they legally owe our elected stooges?

Should the Canadian government seize their valuable assets and bank accounts for being delinquent on taxes? Would any one of us ordinary working class slobs go to prison for tax evasion?

Or should the feds simply remain impotent when it comes to hassling their rich friends to pay up?

Maysie Maysie's picture

Continuing from this thread.

Agent666

A few things that really have me curious about the 'left' and gun control (licensing, registration):

*Supporting a grossly-overbudget porkbarrel program for a huge transnational corporation (CGI Group Inc.), while funding for things like breast cancer research were cut.

*Supporting something (licensing, registration) that was also introduced in post-WW I Britain as means to prevent left-wing armed insurrections.

*Supporting something (licensing, registration, firearms bans) introduced by Hitler, in a bid to consolidate power and liquidate Jews and Gypsies.

*Supporting something (licensing, registration) introduced in Apartheit-era South Africa, and kept in place by the increasingly paranoid and authoritarian ANC government.

*Supporting legislation that makes it legal for a private security guard to carry a handgun while guarding a bag of twenties for an ATM, but forbidding a woman to even carry a can of Mace for self defense against muggers, rapists, murderers and stalkers.

*Supporting warrantless search and siezure (provisions of the Firearms Act).

*Supporting legislation that is bitterly opposed by First Nations groups, as well as legislation that was crafted in response to fears of Oka-style native insurrections (contrary to the bill of goods you've been sold, the Gamil Gharbi/l'Ecole Polytechnique shootings were NOT the real reason for C-68).

Firearms licensing and registration/confiscation is part-and-parcel of authoritarianism, and has been in evidence in societies from Hitler's Germany to Pol Pot's Cambodia.

 

 

 

jrootham

Godwin.

Unionist

 Every time I start relenting about firearms, I read another rant by some gun-worshipper. Thanks for my fix.

 

Pages

Topic locked