# Battle lines drawn over illegal guns



## GAP (26 Jun 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151273413319&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Typical Star  rhetoric. Quoting lots of people, including Senator Roméo Dallaire, but basically a disjointed report on ????? guns maybe, or is it gunrunning..hard to tell.



> I have seen how these weapons can spark, fuel and prolong conflict," said Senator Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian commander who could not convince the United Nations to intervene to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide that killed at least 800,000 people in 100 days.
> 
> Last week in Ottawa, the general made his stand plain: "I join the thousands of Canadians, who are asking the government to take leadership at the UN meeting ... to ensure it results in strengthened efforts to effectively regulate the arms trade, control munitions and arms transfers, and eliminate gun violence.


----------



## MG34 (26 Jun 2006)

More Liberal tripe,being pedalled by thier new lap dog.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jun 2006)

:brickwall:

yeah - more bureaucracy will fix it  :


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2006)

Hmn, that's not what I got from the article.  The message I got from it is that IF Canada backtracks on the gun registery  (which I think should be repealed) then we would be sending a mixed signal to the UN about our stance on the international proliferation of weapons (which needs to be addressed).  Nothing really wrong with what is being said because in all likelyhood it will send a mixed message.

However, I really don't see how our gun registery problem relates to guns being sold abroad to the nefarious elements of the world.  Unfortunately people will associate both together.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (27 Jun 2006)

A bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 round magazine has very little in common with an AK-47 that has an Automatic firing mode and a 30 round magazine.  Yes, many will compare the two because they have their own reasons and motivation for doing so.  I however fail to see the correlation.

Common sense isn't common right?


----------



## MG34 (27 Jun 2006)

Yes big difference,but if a private individual wishes to own an Ak for a legal use there should be no restrictions on doing so,the UN proposal wants to ban the private ownership of these firearms as well (well all firearms actually).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Jun 2006)

The situation in Canada is we have too many criminals, not too many guns.

I don't see that situation being different internationally.  If we repeal the gun registery for hunting long arms, that doesn't send a message to the UN at all. The UN and whatever other international bodies that care to listen need to realize that guns aren't the problem - dictators and warlords are the problem.  The Swiss give out guns like candy to their citizens, seems to me their country runs fine.

Get rid of the criminals and clean up decaying societies, and your gun problem goes away too. Raise standards of living and increase opportunities - the same formula applies to urban ghettoes in North American and to entire states in Africa.

I don't pretend to know how to implement change like that, but it should be obvious by now that banning guns doesn't work; people will always have them or know how to get them, legally or illegally.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (27 Jun 2006)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Yes big difference,but if a private individual wishes to own an Ak for a legal use there should be no restrictions on doing so,the UN proposal wants to ban the private ownership of these firearms as well (well all firearms actually).



I am not sure if there should be no restrictions on certain weapons.  What use is there to have a fully functional AK with a 30 round magazine?  Don't get me wrong I would love to be able to buy an M14 or a C8, but why do I need it?  I don't agree in banning private ownership of firearms, and I'm also against the gun registry when it applies to long rifles and shotguns.  I'm still on the fence about pistols and automatic assault rifles though as their purpose is not for hunting but more nefarious.  I am of the opinion that there does need to be at least a minimum level of regulation in terms of pistols and assault rifles, but that is simply my opinion.


----------



## paracowboy (27 Jun 2006)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I am not sure if there should be no restrictions on certain weapons.  What use is there to have a fully functional AK with a 30 round magazine?  Don't get me wrong I would love to be able to buy an M14 or a C8, but why do I need it?  I don't agree in banning private ownership of firearms, and I'm also against the gun registry when it applies to long rifles and shotguns.  I'm still on the fence about pistols and automatic assault rifles though as their purpose is not for hunting but more nefarious.  I am of the opinion that there does need to be at least a minimum level of regulation in terms of pistols and assault rifles, but that is simply my opinion.


why do we need sports cars that go twice the speed limit? Why do we need TV screens bigger than my couch? "Why" is immaterial. Unless you use something to the detriment of others, it's nobody's business - including the government's - what you own, and why. Whether it be a dishwasher or a .50 cal belt-fed HMG.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2006)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I am not sure if there should be no restrictions on certain weapons.  What use is there to have a fully functional AK with a 30 round magazine?  Don't get me wrong I would love to be able to buy an M14 or a C8, but why do I need it?  I don't agree in banning private ownership of firearms, and I'm also against the gun registry when it applies to long rifles and shotguns.  I'm still on the fence about pistols and automatic assault rifles though as their purpose is not for hunting but more nefarious.  I am of the opinion that there does need to be at least a minimum level of regulation in terms of pistols and assault rifles, but that is simply my opinion.



 :

Handguns and select fire firearms have been regulated in Canada since 1935.

In Jan 1 1979 - select fire weapons where prohibited and all currently registered onces where grandfathered (owners too)

Since that point the RCMP Comissioner had (circa 1995) admitted that nothing in the registry has help solve or prevent a crime (since criminals don't tend to use lawfully acquired weapons).

The gun laws brought in circa 94-95 are complete junk, and the follow ons have not been any better.

I can do WAY more damage with a vehicle than a firearm (and I am pretty good with firearms).

The UN is comprised of a majority of tinpot dictators -- of course they want to disarm their populaces -- and the long haired tree hugging dope smoking friends of Jesus on the Left seems to thing the sky is a lovely shade of Pink and go along with them.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (27 Jun 2006)

Guys, I know the story and I have all the info. at my fingertips and have researched this topic on many levels from many sides.  I'm of the opinion that registration has done nothing to lower crime because criminals don't register jack squat.  I know the background and the history of firearms in Canada in terms of registration.  I also have a fairly good picture of the future because registration usually leads to mass confiscation (Australia is a prime example).  I still question the need to own certain types of firearms, so I'm almost dealing with 2 personalities.  The part of me that wants to own an M14, and the part that asks do I need it?  However, if I were polled or asked to vote whether to keep the gun registry (on all levels from long rifle to assault weapons) I would say no.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2006)

I'd be much more in favour of a US (pre-86) style of National Registry of certain firearms and a Tax placed (and finger prints etc.) on the ownership.

From a practical standpoint -- the select fire weapons does little than cannot be achieved by a trained indidual with a bolt action...

(okay well maybe a belt fed M2 or Mk19 AGL may be hard to replaicate with a No.4 Longbranch Lee-Enfield)


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> why do we need sports cars that go twice the speed limit? Why do we need TV screens bigger than my couch? "Why" is immaterial. Unless you use something to the detriment of others, it's nobody's business - including the government's - what you own, and why. Whether it be a dishwasher or a .50 cal belt-fed HMG.



Well, none of that stuff has killing in mind.  A .50 cal or an AK-47 are designed to kill.  Nothing else.  

The government has rules to protect citizens from themselves.  They may not always be effective or desirable but rules have to be in place regardless.  I think people need a course to handle wepaons and yes need a lisence. 

The gun registry is a joke yes.  And it is targeting the wrong the wrong people.  However we should not say, well it doesen't work let everyone do what they want to.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, none of that stuff has killing in mind.  A .50 cal or an AK-47 are designed to kill.  Nothing else.



One can also fire them competitively, or just for fun.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2006)

Killing comes from intent my friend.  But we've been down this road before....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, none of that stuff has killing in mind.  A .50 cal or an AK-47 are designed to kill.  Nothing else.



So what?......do a survey and see how many people cars/trucks have killed over the last 10 years compared to guns.  I don't care about "designed for"...those people are just as dead.  
And will add my usual disclaimer that I personally, despise guns, but fair is fair.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2006)

Dam inconsiderate that the Bad guys have yet to use a working machine gun or .50 cal rifle in a crime. Really makes it hard for the anti’s to conjure up stats, although they do their best.  :


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Yes killing comes from intent.  But the purpose of some weapons is to kill.  An AK-47 was designed to facilitate killing.  Not hunting, not recreational shooting just killing.  

I think that I would like to know that someone has a .50 cal in his backyard.  And I'd be happy if the authorities knew as well.

The problem is that society is essentially irresponsible.  Take driving.  People still drink and drive.  Most don't intend to kill people when they do, but they do it anyways.

Regulations and laws need to be put in place.  They just have to be effective.  The gun registry is not.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Dam inconsiderate that the Bad guys have yet to use a working machine gun or .50 cal rifle in a crime. Really makes it hard for the antis to conjure up stats, although they do their best.  :



A gang used a .50 Cal in a Bank Heist in Montreal in the 60's or 70's.  The Brinks guards gave them the cash.  The HMG was abandoned at the site, and on inspection was found to be inoperable as some of the working parts had been assembled backwards/incorrectly.


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So what?......do a survey and see how many people cars/trucks have killed over the last 10 years compared to guns.  I don't care about "designed for"...those people are just as dead.
> And will add my usual disclaimer that I personally, despise guns, but fair is fair.



Are we talking about Canada?  The world?  

And your car is registered is it not?  Do you not need a lisence?  Hell cars all have VIN numbers on them.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.  How about we compare work place related deaths to gun deaths in Canada? 

Cars are a part of everyday life.  People need them to work, to live, to travel.

Find one person in Canada that needs an AK-47 as a part of their daily life?

Again apples and oranges.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yes killing comes from intent.  But the purpose of some weapons is to kill.  An AK-47 was designed to facilitate killing.  Not hunting, not recreational shooting just killing.
> 
> I think that I would like to know that someone has a .50 cal in his backyard.  And I'd be happy if the authorities knew as well.
> 
> ...



I know of at least one military firearms collector who has a .50...what is the harm? He's never killed anyone with it.

Some people collect swords too - what are they designed to do?



> Find one person in Canada that needs an AK-47 as a part of their daily life?



Name one person who "needs" a copy of Maxim Magazine in his house. If it enriches his life and hurts no one, why not?


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I know of at least one military firearms collector who has a .50...what is the harm? He's never killed anyone with it.
> 
> Some people collect swords too - what are they designed to do?
> 
> Name one person who "needs" a copy of Maxim Magazine in his house. If it enriches his life and hurts no one, why not?



No harm at all.  

Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.  Marc Lepine wasn't wielding a Gladius when he killed those women.

My argument about needing a car as opposed to an AK-47 was to demonstrate  a point about comparing apples and oranges.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not against gun ownership.  I just don't think it should be a free for all.  We need regulations and rules.  If a guy wants a .50cal and he has the right qualifications and paperwork and is an upstanding citizen.  Then sure why not.  But I think the proper authorities should know about it.   Certain types of weapons should be tracked and regulated.  

Most people don't need a handgun.  Why make it raedily availble?  So you have to take a course and follow a bunch of rules.  Good.  Follow the rules own the gun.  It's that simple.  Now the bureaucracy isn't the most effective.  I don't like the registry.  It's redundant and ineffective.  But I do support the gun laws.  You want a restricted weapon?  Follow the rules.

How many times have you seen an ND before, on a military exercise or on a range?  And some of these people ae supposed to be professionally trained.  Now imagine the same thing with unqualified civies?

I think that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.  A privilege that comes with responsibility and rules.  Unfortunately not everyone is responsible.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.



Neither will a firearm if it is safely stored - which we already have laws regarding.  

What you propose is akin to banning cars because people drive drunk - ie don't know how to use them properly or treat them with respect.  

Which is why we have firearms safety courses...the Marc Lepine argument is weak. I see no point to punish thousands if not millions of responsible gun owners because someone might go off the deep end.  The Unabomber didn't need guns to do his dirty work, either.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.  Marc Lepine wasn't wielding a Gladius when he killed those women.


Neither was the weapon (Belt fed) that Marc Lepine used on Mark Lepine Day.  He probably purchased his "look alike" weapon in a Canadian Tire Store.  So your point is moot.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> My argument about needing a car as opposed to an AK-47 was to demonstrate  a point about comparing apples and oranges.


Your total argument is apples and oranges......you just aren't looking at it that way.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not against gun ownership.  I just don't think it should be a free for all.  We need regulations and rules.  If a guy wants a .50cal and he has the right qualifications and paperwork and is an upstanding citizen.  Then sure why not.  But I think the proper authorities should know about it.   Certain types of weapons should be tracked and regulated.


Excuse me, but isn't that the way that all licences were issued in the beginning; before the Liberals came into this mess?  If you were not a licenced Collector, you were not very likely to get a .50 Cal or any other Restricted Weapon. 



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Most people don't need a handgun.  Why make it raedily availble?  So you have to take a course and follow a bunch of rules.  Good.  Follow the rules own the gun.  It's that simple.  Now the bureaucracy isn't the most effective.  I don't like the registry.  It's redundant and ineffective.  But I do support the gun laws.  You want a restricted weapon?  Follow the rules.


Most people don't want a handgun.  The rules before the Liberal debacle controlled who owned what and where, so we have to ask: what is your point?



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> How many times have you seen an ND before, on a military exercise or on a range?  And some of these people ae supposed to be professionally trained.  Now imagine the same thing with unqualified civies?


Your point being?  This whole statement is irrelevant.  Accidents do happen.  Have you ever watched the news during hunting season?  Even President Bush has had a ND while out hunting (with a lawyer, no less).  What does this have to do with the topic?



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> I think that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.  A privilege that comes with responsibility and rules.  Unfortunately not everyone is responsible.



I am sure we can all agree on that, however, you seem to have appointed yourself "Judge and Jury" over the nation.  Perhaps you ought to re-evaluate your views.


----------



## Blue Max (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Even President Bush has had a ND while out hunting (with a lawyer, no less).



Sorry GW but the hunting accident happened between the VP, Dick Cheney and a high priced Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington.  

Regarding the topic, I believe that anyone that is of sane mind should be allowed to own whatever firearm they can collect as long as they prove they are knowledgeable, responsible and licenced under some system that works (The Liberal solution does not meet this criteria) ;D


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

Missed by that much!   ;D


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Neither was the weapon (Belt fed) that Marc Lepine used on Mark Lepine Day.  He probably purchased his "look alike" weapon in a Canadian Tire Store.  So your point is moot.
> 
> 
> Your total argument is apples and oranges......you just aren't looking at it that way.
> ...



The point was that a gun is not a sword.

The vice president actually had an ND.   All the more reason to have rules governing the safe storage of firearms and courses to own them.    The statement I made is very relevant in that we can't just have a free for all.  Read the whole thread to see what I'm responding to.

Please explain how my total argument is apples and oranges?

 Oh, and I'm not being judge and jury over the whole nation.  I just believe that in a society you need rules and regulations otherwise you end up with anarchy.  This applies to guns just as it applies to alcool or cars or street zoning.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2006)

*my personal firearms have killed less people than Teddy Kennedy's car


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The point was that a gun is not a sword.



No.  The point you made was that a sword was not belt fed.  The point I made was that the gun that Mark Lepine used was not belt fed either.

To me you are confusing your apples and oranges and throwing in a lot of other fruit too.


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Neither will a firearm if it is safely stored - which we already have laws regarding.
> 
> What you propose is akin to banning cars because people drive drunk - ie don't know how to use them properly or treat them with respect.
> 
> Which is why we have firearms safety courses...the Marc Lepine argument is weak. I see no point to punish thousands if not millions of responsible gun owners because someone might go off the deep end.  The Unabomber didn't need guns to do his dirty work, either.



Yep.   I agree with most of that.  As I said before I support gun ownership and gun laws.  I never said ban guns.  Just that rules are needed to regulate who can own and operate them.


----------



## Old Guy (27 Jun 2006)

Yep -- the government has to have rules to protect the citizens from themselves.

That's how gun registration and eventual confiscation starts.

I'm turning Libertarian, turning Libertarian, I really think so.

Heh.
Jim


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No.  The point you made was that a sword was not belt fed.  The point I made was that the gun that Mark Lepine used was not belt fed either.
> 
> To me you are confusing your apples and oranges and throwing in a lot of other fruit too.



Look I don't mind a friendly debate but insulting me isn't going to get you anywhere.  Read the thread.  Someone said that a swords were also designed to kill.  No argumet there except that swords are not guns nor are they as lethal.  

I'd like to keep this civil.  My intent isn't to stir a hornets nest.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Look I don't mind a friendly debate but insulting me isn't going to get you anywhere.  Read the thread.  Someone said that a swords were also designed to kill.  No argumet there except that swords are not guns nor are they as lethal.
> 
> I'd like to keep this civil.  My intent isn't to stir a hornets nest.



I killed a guy (overseas dont worry I dont do homicidal rampages in Canada or the US) with my hands (and during grappeling we fell over a lip - fortunately I got up).
that was pretty lethal to him...

Lethality or Lack therof is in the mind of the beholder -- ANYTHING can be used to kill with intent -- the MIND is the weapon.
* I view the AK47/AKM/AK74 - damn AK series - as an inefficient killing tool - large amount of explosives work best -- 
Maybe we should ban Deisel and Amonia Nitrate Fertilizer?


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I killed a guy (overseas dont worry I dont do homicidal rampages in Canada or the US) with my hands (and during grappeling we fell over a lip - fortunately I got up).
> that was pretty lethal to him...
> 
> Lethality or Lack therof is in the mind of the beholder -- ANYTHING can be used to kill with intent -- the MIND is the weapon.
> ...



Agreed.  The mind is the most lethal weapon.  Hell, a hammer is quite lethal depending on how it is used.  I'll say it again, I have not proposed a ban on firearms.  If you asked someone what could kill more people though, an automatic firearm will outdo a sword any day.  A pistol can be concealed a lot easier than a claymore.  Blah blah, that not the point.  The point is that we need rules.  More effecient rules?  Absolutely.

Don't laugh, there is talk of regulating Nitrate Fertilizer.  Is it going to stop the people that want to use it?  Probably not.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2006)

Maybe I should get back to Canada quickly and stock up on my fertilizers  ^-^

Personally if when I have my coup -- I will mandate that all citizens have a C8, and compete in monthly matches.


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Maybe I should get back to Canada quickly and stock up on my fertilizers  ^-^
> 
> Personally if when I have my coup -- I will mandate that all citizens have a C8, and compete in monthly matches.



Hehehe.  Right, for all those "crops".

Will you be paying for those C-8s  ;D


----------



## GO!!! (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Agreed.  The mind is the most lethal weapon.  Hell, a hammer is quite lethal depending on how it is used.  I'll say it again, I have not proposed a ban on firearms.  If you asked someone what could kill more people though, an automatic firearm will outdo a sword any day.  A pistol can be concealed a lot easier than a claymore.  Blah blah, that not the point.  *The point is that we need rules*.  *More* effecient *rules?*  Absolutely.
> 
> Don't laugh, there is talk of regulating Nitrate Fertilizer.  Is it going to stop the people that want to use it?  *Probably not.*



I'm just not "feeling" you here.

Poor examples and comparisons aside, your argument that there needs to be even more rules in place to deter gun violence is pretty antiquated, and already disproven. Automatic firearms and handguns are already severely restricted in this country, so much so that they are extremely expensive and difficult to purchase, store and use* legally*. 

Yet gang bangers in TO still have no problem finding a piece to blast away at each other with. Tighter gun control in Canada has already been proven to be ineffective at controlling criminal actions, because, as mentioned, the bad guys don't follow the rules as they pertain to training, purchase, storage or use.

As Michael said, our problem is not too many guns, it is too many criminals. Dispose of the criminally inclined quickly and efficiently, and gun violence (along with all other types of violence) will dissapear. More rules are ineffective unless enforced and backed up with swift and severe punishment.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

[Just a note:  I wasn't fast enough to post this earlier, but seem to see that the same opinions are being put forward by Crantor and counter opinions by others, which don't seem to be getting the proper acknowledgement, so I will post it now.]



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Look I don't mind a friendly debate but insulting me isn't going to get you anywhere.  Read the thread.  Someone said that a swords were also designed to kill.  No argumet there except that swords are not guns nor are they as lethal.
> 
> I'd like to keep this civil.  My intent isn't to stir a hornets nest.



Who's insulting you?  You have made a statement.  You then went on to ignore what you said, and say that it is apples and oranges.  I went on to point out what you said, and that you are confusing your apples and oranges with other fruit.  I am of the opinion that your arguments are a little warped and not as accurate as you may think they are.  If you want to look at it as an insult or as stirring up a hornets nest, fine with me; but you are in a discussion forum and as such you will have to take some criticism.

Do you deny that you said this: 





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.  Marc Lepine wasn't wielding a Gladius when he killed those women.


?

That is what I responded to.  I took it to imply that a sword was not belt fed and that Mark Lepine's weapon was not a sword, and was belt fed.  

You are arguing for rules and regulations.  Rules and regulations have been in effect for ages, as has been pointed out to you several times in this topic.  I have to agree with GO!, that you seem to be missing out on this fact.  

Anyway, the conversation has moved on.


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I'm just not "feeling" you here.
> 
> Poor examples and comparisons aside, your argument that there needs to be even more rules in place to deter gun violence is pretty antiquated, and already disproven. Automatic firearms and handguns are already severely restricted in this country, so much so that they are extremely expensive and difficult to purchase, store and use* legally*.
> 
> ...



I never said more rules.  Just more efficient ones.  And yes the rules in Canada are pretty strict, I'm experiencing it right now as we speak (trying to get my hands on a WW1 pistol).  My entire argument in the last few threads is that we *need* rules.  Not a free for all.   That's it.

The fact is that gun registration has been around for a while.  The latest incarnation is a failure.  Gun related deaths have steadily declined  since the 70s and more so in the 90s.  There is no proof either way that gun registration has had/not had an impact.  In fact most gun related deaths have been from suicides.

Perhaps I haven't been clear in responding to various statements.  I am not in favour of more rules or banning guns.  We just need more efficient ones.  And that includes punishment for gun related crimes.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

Well.  If you are going through the process of trying to get a WW I pistol, then you know how the rules work and unless you have the proper permits, you will not be able to get that pistol.  Unless you are trying to tell us that you are special and should have that permit and get the pistol?


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  If you are going through the process of trying to get a WW I pistol, then you know how the rules work and unless you have the proper permits, you will not be able to get that pistol.  Unless you are trying to tell us that you are special and should have that permit and get the pistol?



Riiight. I'm not sure what you are getting at.  I was merely aknowledging that the rules were indeed strict to get the firearm.  My mom thinks I'm special so maybe I should get it. ;D

All kidding aside I don't think that I mentioned that I had a problem with that.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

So then the Rules and Regulations for ownership of firearms seem to be acceptable in this case?


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So then the Rules and Regulations for ownership of firearms seem to be acceptable in this case?



In my particular case.  Sure.  It sucks a bit though from a personal stand point.  It's something I inherited.  I've gone through a seperation and that is slowing it down.  But because of the type and make of the weapon it is somewhat harder to get my hands on.    But it will happen in due time.  I'm in no rush.  And I understand why it would take time in my case.

Again, as I've said before, the rules just have to be more efficient.  Would you not agree?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

They seem to be quite efficient here; or am I missing something?  You have stated the process you are going through.  You probably won't get the weapon in question, with the existing laws, as they have put an end to "hand me down" or inheritance of a weapon of this type, unless you are already a certified collector (which as I understand, you had to be before the law was changed, and can not become after.)  Are you advocating that the law be changed so that you can accept your 'inheritance'?


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They seem to be quite efficient here; or am I missing something?  You have stated the process you are going through.  You probably won't get the weapon in question, with the existing laws, as they have put an end to "hand me down" or inheritance of a weapon of this type, unless you are already a certified collector (which as I understand, you had to be before the law was changed, and can not become after.)  Are you advocating that the law be changed so that you can accept your 'inheritance'?



I feel that you are going somewhere with this.  Not sure where though.  There is an exception to the law for family heirloms made prior to 1934 (I believe that's the date).  I require the restricted FAC and need a "possession only" lisence for that specific firearm.  Then I have to register it as such with the firearms registery.  The local police are currently holding it for me.  So no, I'm not asking for a change in the law for my situation.

So you are saying you are happy with the current bureaucracy?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

It seems that the bureaucracy is doing its' job.  Inefficiencies in bureaucracy are the norm.  Can there be improvement?  Sure.   The Liberal Gun Registry was a dismal failure, but there was a system before they came along, and it seems to still be working.  

If you want to come back and state that criminals are still getting Restricted Weapons, we can also look at Alcoholics, and Drug Users, as always finding a way to get their fixes.  Those who are desperate for something, will always find a way to get it.  Where do you want the Laws to stop?  Have you ever snuck booze into a party, or food into a theatre?  Do we need LEOs on every square foot of the country, to enforce ever increasingly restrictive laws?  I'm no 'Leftie', but that is a little bit extreme.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> .  I require the restricted FAC and need a "possession only" lisence for that specific firearm.  Then I have to register it as such with the firearms registery.



There's no such thing as a FAC anymore, restricted or otherwise. Ditto for the Possession Only License (POL). You'll have to either challenge the test(s)or take the course(s) for a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License (PAL)


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

Well, when something that was supposed to cost 700 000$ turns into 1Billion there is a problem with the bureaucracy.  Criminals are still getting restricted weapons.  I don't think I argued that it was because the rules were not tight enough.  That billion dollars could have gone to law enforcement or even new legislation to harden sentences and punishments.

And  I agree that we shouldn't have to babysit every square inch of the country.  But certain things still have to be overseen and dealt with.  We can't have a free for all as some people advocate.


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's no such thing as a FAC anymore, restricted or otherwise. Ditto for the Possession Only License (POL). You'll have to either challenge the test(s)or take the course(s) for a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License (PAL)



Sorry, I got my terms wrong.  And I have taken the test and filed the paperwork.


----------



## GO!!! (27 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And  I agree that we shouldn't have to babysit every square inch of the country.  But certain things still have to be overseen and dealt with.  We can't have a free for all as some people advocate.



Good. Lets start with people like you, who want a dangerous, concealable weapon, a military firearm, designed only to kill other people (your words), just because his pappy gived it to 'im.

You have no demonstrable need for this gun, were not a collector or enthusiast at any point in time before now, so, by your own logic, you should now turn in this killing device for destruction by the proper authorities, so as to prevent a "free for all" where just anybody (you) can own anything (handgun).

So, guns are dangerous and require regulation in all hands but.....yours.


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Good. Lets start with people like you, who want a dangerous, concealable weapon, a military firearm, designed only to kill other people (your words), just because his pappy gived it to 'im.
> 
> You have no demonstrable need for this gun, were not a collector or enthusiast at any point in time before now, so, by your own logic, you should now turn in this killing device for destruction by the proper authorities, so as to prevent a "free for all" where just anybody (you) can own anything (handgun).
> 
> So, guns are dangerous and require regulation in all hands but.....yours.



Um, not sure what you are getting at.  First of all the weapon in question was designed to kill.  It certainly wasn't designed for recreational use.  And no I don't want it "just because my pappy gave it to me" (where did I say that?).  My logic didn't indicate anything about turning a gun over to the authorities to prevent a free for all.  Just that rules have to exist.  Rules I am happy to abide by but that can be better administered.

Your last statement is assuming something that isn't there and something I never said.


----------



## Armymatters (28 Jun 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, when something that was supposed to cost 700 000$ turns into 1Billion there is a problem with the bureaucracy.  Criminals are still getting restricted weapons.  I don't think I argued that it was because the rules were not tight enough.  That billion dollars could have gone to law enforcement or even new legislation to harden sentences and punishments.



The problem was that originally, the Gun Registry was supposed to be self-funding by a registration fee. However, some wise-guy in the government decided to waive that registration fee, so that meant money had to be pumped in to replace the funding that the registration fee would have provided. In short, good idea (controling firearms in Canada by setting up a method of tracking known firearms), shoddy execution.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2006)

The $25 fee per registration was not collecting even a 10th of the monies required...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2006)

Funny how people see the AR’s as weapons only designed to kill, but consider the .303 as a “hunting rifle” In fact I will argue that the .303 is far more optimized for killing than the AR’s are. The AR fires a smaller weaker bullet, one of it’s major design function is to be light and easy to carry. The .303 is designed with only one thing in mind and that was to kill either with it’s bullets, as a short “pike” with it’s bayonet or as a club.


----------



## GAP (28 Jun 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny how people see the AR’s as weapons only designed to kill, but consider the .303 as a “hunting rifle” In fact I will argue that the .303 is far more optimized for killing than the AR’s are. The AR fires a smaller weaker bullet, one of it’s major design function is to be light and easy to carry. The .303 is designed with only one thing in mind and that was to kill either with it’s bullets, as a short “pike” with it’s bayonet or as a club.



and carrying on your theme, that you left out, about 95% of it's use is as a hunting rifle, in the hands of farmers, hunters, other scum.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2006)

Mr Dallaire got it wrong.  Correctly phrased:

Last week in Ottawa, the general made his stand plain: "I join the thousands of Canadians, who are asking the government to take leadership at the UN meeting ... to ensure it results in strengthened efforts to effectively regulate tyrannical governments, control genocide and other crimes against humanity, and eliminate government violence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Mr Dallaire got it wrong.  Correctly phrased:
> 
> Last week in Ottawa, the general made his stand plain: "I join the thousands of Canadians, who are asking the government to take leadership at the UN meeting ... to ensure it results in strengthened efforts to effectively regulate tyrannical governments, control genocide and other crimes against humanity, and eliminate government violence.



Didn't we do that already when we voted out the liebrals?   JK


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (29 Jun 2006)

I am not sure how anyone could compare the capabilities or lethality of a modern assault rifle like any of the AK series rifles to a Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1!


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jun 2006)

No, but I'm sure, taken in total, they both have equally impressive body counts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2006)

Bob Terwilliger said:
			
		

> I am not sure how anyone could compare the capabilities or lethality of a modern assault rifle like any of the AK series rifles to a Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1!



Modern? I am figuring the AK is about 60+ years old if you consider the basic design came from the STG 44. Plus the the .303 has more punch than a 7.62x39 and is more accurate. The AK is better in close quarter/urban fighting, due to size, rate of fire and ammo capacity. But if I put you out in the tundra with a AK against a Canadian Ranger armed with their .303, we better measure you for the pine box first. 

Plus the Enfield N 4 is still in production, sort of


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (29 Jun 2006)

So, ummmm, what is your point? Its obvious that they are 2 very different rifles.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jun 2006)

what's yours?


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (29 Jun 2006)

Whats it to ya?


----------



## DocBacon (29 Jun 2006)

Try this on for a solution:

1:  License people who can pass the safe use and storage tests, as well as the criminal/mental background tests.  If you want to own hunting/target arms, there would be one class of license; for handgun or mil. arms (I know, many sporters are converted milspec, but I'm talking about the AK, M16, FN types that look military and piss off the Wendy Kookier's of the world) you get a more in-depth checkup and higher standards for storage, etc.

2:  Register people who have committed firearms offenses or who are forbidden to have access to firearms, and make them report their new locations with every move.  Currently, only us gun owners are so obliged to advise the government every time we move.  While I have never committed a crime nor have I ever been forbidden to posses, nevertheless I am subject to warrant-less search of my premises and my movements are subject to scrutiny.  I would rather the violent offenders and other known hazards were known to police at every place they occupied.

Simple, no?  Licence me to own; where I reside is immaterial.  Register the criminals and those forbidden to posses, which makes sense given the various posts about people being the dangerous part of the system; knowledge of their whereabouts would make us all safer.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jun 2006)

Bob Terwilliger said:
			
		

> Whats it to ya?


you can ask a pointless, provocative question, so can I. Funny how that works, ain't it?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (30 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you can ask a pointless, provocative question, so can I. Funny how that works, ain't it?



In this corner we have paracowboy in the red shorts, and in the opposite corner Bob Terwilliger in the blue shorts.  Hang on to your peanuts kids, this could get interesting.

As for the registry, simply ask what did it accomplish?  Nothing.  It has been around long enough that a proper assessment of what the registry has done can be viewed, and from where I'm sitting it looks like a rather large failure.  I would think that going to pre-registry rules and laws would be fine as it worked for many years before registration no?  All it's doing is keeping tabs on the people that are the least likely to do anything with the weapons they own, while the criminals run around with Glocks and Beretta's with the serial numbers filed off.  Pointless, absolutely pointless.


----------



## GO!!! (30 Jun 2006)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> In this corner we have paracowboy in the red shorts, and in the opposite corner Bob Terwilliger in the blue shorts.  Hang on to your peanuts kids, this could get interesting.


I'll take the cowboy to win by KO in the first.  



> As for the registry, simply ask what did it accomplish?  Nothing.  It has been around long enough that a proper assessment of what the registry has done can be viewed, and from where I'm sitting it looks like a rather large failure.  I would think that going to pre-registry rules and laws would be fine as it worked for many years before registration no?  All it's doing is keeping tabs on the people that are the least likely to do anything with the weapons they own, while the criminals run around with Glocks and Beretta's with the serial numbers filed off.  Pointless, absolutely pointless.



Amen to all of the above. 

Part lieberal social engineering, part gutless liberalism and kow towing to narrow spectrum special interest groups, and part make-work project for a liberal riding in the maritimes, the gun registry (in my mind) is second only to Trudeau's NEP on the scale of leftist stupidity. 

Register Criminals - Not guns.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2006)

My comments where to point out how people like to think that a Assault Rifle (or facsimile thereof) is evil and a old “hunting” rifle isn’t. The Enfield was the “Assault weapon” of it’s day when it was introduced and deadly in the hands of a trained soldier.

Infidel
So you vant to buy some fertilizer, for you speciall deal, 1 ton for 2 goats, a camel and your sister.  ;D


----------



## KevinB (5 Jul 2006)

Well I can cover the goats and a camel here pretty easy -- Dont have a sister though -- I could probably buy a 20's afghani girl here for you though  ^-^


----------



## Garry (6 Jul 2006)

All guns, every one that I know of, were designed to kill. 

Funny, but I'm comfortable with that.

Just for fun, so were we. The fact that you're here means your ancestors were survivors- they managed somehow to brave the odds and not only survive, but managed to procreate and eventually create you. You come from an extremely violent past. 

I personally abhor violence. Scares me, and violence always ends up with pain and suffering. However, if there's a choice to be made, I'd much prefer to violate someone else than have them violate me. I've experienced pain before- it sucks.

Mark Lepine was mentioned earlier on in this thread. His actions in Montreal were horrible- but our societies actions were, imho, much worse. Anyone wonder if we'd even know Lepine's name if, when he started to shoot those 25 women, 6 or so of them had reached into their purses, pulled out a handgun, and sent him to hail? Doubt it. I cannot imagine the teror those women must have felt knowing that they were defenseless and at a madman's mercy.

And why were they defenseless? Because we, as a society, had deemed them competant and stable enough to anything their heart desires, other than carry a weapon to defend themselves. 

We can not stop a criminal (or a whack job for that matter) from carrying an illegal weapon. We can, and choose, to not allow decent, law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves by carrying the exact same weapons that we KNOW those who choose to blatantly ignore socieites norms carry each and every day.

Weird, eh?

Just to make a point, every day we put our lives in the hands of complete strangers. Pretty easy to cross that itty-bitty yellow line and wipe out anyone you want to. 

Why doesn't it happen? 

Because most Canadians are good folk.

As mentioned above, if I want you dead, you're dead. End of discussion. Hands, hammer, truck, explosives, guns- makes no difference to me- if I want you dead, you're dead. Again, (and fortunately), I'm like 99.99% of all Canadians- decent, peacefull, and law abiding. 

Yet our country is changing. There are those who see our peacefulness as weakness, who view our desire to get along as an opportunity to take without earning. They wil not stop without an incentive.

Awhile back the crooks in Florida were close to stopping the tourism in that state. They unerringly robbed nothing but tourists. The Cops finally got around to asking them why they targetted tourists. The crooks answered that 50% of Floridians were licenced to carry a handgun. That made the odds of them getting shot in a hold up a 50-50 proposition. Crooks aren't dumb- why bucks those odds? Hit the defenseless....makes sense, eh?

Like it or not, Canada is about 10-15 years behind the States in social conduct. The US has had (and still has) huge problems with violence. Most of the States responded by allowing the good, honest citizens to defend themselves by carying handguns. Results? Massive drops in violence. South Carolina's "castle law" saw the state's home invasions drop to near zero. Amazing......

The way of the world is violence. If we stick our heads in the sand and ignore reality, we're pooched. If we trust our citizens, we have a chance.

Licence the gun owners. Make them use their weapons safely, and allow them to use them to defend themselves. Choose freedom and personal responsibility over state run babysitting, and maybe, just maybe women can walk the streets at night in safety.


----------



## Garry (6 Jul 2006)

and since I'm on a roll, here's another not-so-politically-correct concept:

Bring our troops home.

I spent 28 years running around in uniform, and I have to admit it hurt like hail watching "my" guys (and gals) head into Afghanistan and Iraq. No one in their right minds wants to go to war, but when the trumpet calls.......

Thing is, I honestly believe it was the right thing to do. People had a pretty horrible life subjected as they were to brutal dictators. Bad enough (and common enough)...but when they export fear and pain to our (and our alies) country, enough's enough. Pretty tough for the people to "rise up" and depose someone with a standing army.... but pretty easy if you have a bigger, better one. We do, and we did. Where I believe we made our mistake was in sticking around after the dictator (or the party) was deposed

Thing is, fighting a war is a hail of a lot easier than being an occupying force- and occupying forces have a habit of being whittled away at by insurgents. Funny thing is, I think that in many cases the insurgents aren't all that wrong- in their eyes, they're fighting for their country. 

Solution? Once we've broken the organisation and power of the ruling bullies, arm the populace, give them some time to get organised, and get the heck out. If they really want freedom, let them earn it. If they bleed for their country, they'll value it a whiole lot more than if we just give it to them. Neat consequence is that we'll bleed a whole lot less. And just so there's no confusion, by "arm the populace" I don't mean arm a bunch, and call it an army- I mean give every man, woman, and child an AK and a case od rounds. Tough to terrorize the population when they can fight back. 

I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Neat thing is, if they screw it up and get that whole dictatorial thing happening again, we can always come back- give them the opportunity to try again.

Save a whole lot of Canadian lives.

I don't expect a lot of agreement with this position, but then again I'm a lot older than most of you. Weird thing about age, is somehow you seem to care a little bit more about the brave Canadian kids than you did when you were one of them.......

Y''all have a good day.


----------

