The Great Gun Control Debate

[Zipper]

Well put, and the last point is where all the headaches come in.

Also your first generalization is just that. You are assuming that conservatives are that mix. I would agree for the most part, but would back away from going so far as to generalize.

 

[mdh]

That's a good question Zipper.  

I would say that the most influential tendency (reflected to some degree on this board) has been the neo-conservative movement that began to take intellectual root in the late 1970s.  

It's principle characteristics were a distrust of the state and belief that liberty had   been seriously eroded by a combination of big government, dogmatic centralization, unionism, and a sustained attempt to subvert market economics - all in favour of collectivist social goals.

To some degree this was a reaction to the times - stagflation, the "winter of discontent" in Britain, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" in America, etc.

Neocons were in reality the intellectual heirs of 19th century laissez-faire liberalism (not to be confused with the current decadent state of Canadian Liberalism).   And to a large extent they revived classical economic thought and used it to undermine the Keynsian orthodoxy of the period.

(Read Milton Friedman, Michael Oakshott, Frederich Hayek)

Paleoconservatives would be the more traditional-minded variety (if we're talking about European conservatives) who would have a preference and deference for established authority (but usually in the dynastic or even religious sense) and - in IMHO - have had less intellectual influence on the conduct of modern politics and the formulation of public policy. (see John Lukacs)  

Paleos in the US sense would trace their origins to the inter-war years of Republican opposition to the New Deal, support for Isolationism, and the importance of states' rights over federal rights - (Pat Buchanan).

Gun control as presently practiced via the gun registry -   (in my view) is nothing more than a political ploy by the federal Liberals to buy urban votes - which has penalized honest gun owners engaged in honest sporting activities.   And as such from a neocon POV, represents a classic example of the state trying to impose its moral and collectivist imperatives on a reluctant segment of the citizenry.
 
Cheers, mdh

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Gun control ... represents a classic example of the state trying to impose its moral and collectivist imperatives on a reluctant segment of the citizenry.

Exactly!!! It has nothing to do with crime, safety or whatever other bullsh*t rationale the Toronto Star (et.al.) tries to use!

 

[mdh]

JG

It never ceases to amaze how one individual - in this case Wendy Cukier - can have so much sway over a debate.   To this day I have no idea who she really represents, how many members her organization really has? who funds her organization? how much reach her organization really has?

Yet the media - especially the T. Star (as you rightly pointed out) - has represented her as some kind of populist leader marshalling thousands of Canadians in an anti-gun crusade.

 

[TCBF]

" I would agree for the most part, but would back away from going so far as to generalize."

Good Grief Zipper, you just about gave us all heart attacks with that one!  ;D

Man, I love those smileys...

Here's another one:  ;D

Tom

;D

 

[Zipper]

Well with you Tom I'll make an exemption. You Libertarian neo-fascist pig dog.  

I am going to be back with some more ideas for you and to reply to mdh's great explaination. So beware... :dontpanic:

Which is why I like this thread. Its forcing me to think way to much. Which hurts.

Heh heh!

 

[1feral1]

"agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

Personally, I would defend my family or myself by any means necessary, and at the end of the day, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

My 2 cents.

Wes

 

[ramy]

Last day to shoot prohibited rifles in Canada is on April 9th 2005.
Government isnt allowing them to be transported to the range after that date... Sad how many people have thousands of dollars in prohibited firearms and the government says they cant use them.....

 

[TCBF]

"agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

Balls.  That's when they are "stored".  When they are in use and under your control, they do not need to be stored. In use can be cleaning, looking at, admiring repairing, dry firing, .. .Bear in mind you cannot have more firearms in use than you can control.  67 rifles leaning on the wall may not cut it in court.

Otherwise, it is like giving you a ticket while your car is in motion, for not having it properly "Parked."

Tom

 

[Torlyn]

Balls.  That's when they are "stored".  When they are in use and under your control, they do not need to be stored. In use can be cleaning, looking at, admiring repairing, dry firing, .. .

How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?

 

[pronto]

OK - here's some thoughts to get the whole board hopping! I am certainly NOT an apologist for firearms regulations , both sides have points, but here's some fodder:

Licensing and registration are not the same thing.  I think the media often mixes up "registration" with licensing. All cars are registered, but not everyone is licensed to drive one. They seem to lose that distinction sometimes...

The Police are very supportive of the firearms act because firearm registration allows police to distinguish between legally held firearms and those that are possessed illegally.  If they come upon an unregistered firearm the police can take appropriate enforcement action, and know they won't have to deal with it  in a nastier situation later on. Registration information can trace and track the source(s) of crime weapons. Cops have said for years they want to know how firearms get here.

Not all violent acts are committed by career criminals.  Police often deal with situations where an individual may act violently on impulse during a domestic dispute or a personal crisis.  Knowing that the person has firearms helps police to determine whether they need to take extra precautions to protect themselves and others.

Registration encourages safe handling, storage and lawful transfer of firearms by reinforcing accountability.  Heck people, WE know what we're doing (generally) ;D, but there are lots of others out there who don't... Police have been saying for years that to be able to track the networks that supply the criminal market, they need to know where the firearms are coming from.  Registration, combined with the tracking of imports and exports, provide valuable tools for this purpose. 

I know, I know - Criminals don't register... BUT nearly all firearms used in crime start off as legal firearms. 

By linking firearms to their owners, registration makes it easier to hold firearm owners accountable if they give, lend or sell a firearm to someone who should not have it, or if they store or transport their firearms carelessly, making the firearms easy targets for thieves.  Again - not something likely to happen with military and ex-military, but hey - civvies can occasionally make mistakes. :

heh heh.... Now I would love to hear your cogent and well-thought out thoughts!

Cheers

 

[LowRider]

Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.

Hence Bill C-250

 

[TCBF]

"How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?"

Do you not sleep with your wpn on Ex or Ops?

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Knowing that the person has firearms helps police to determine whether they need to take extra precautions to protect themselves and others.

This rationale - and it's a popular one, believe me - has always puzzled me.  Does _not_ knowing whether or not firearms may be present excuse the police for approaching any particular situation with a lesser degree of caution?  Does _knowing_ (with certainty) that firearms may be present place completely innocent people at some measurably higher degree of risk from the occasional officer suffering a heightened degree of anxiety?

 

[Infanteer]

No kidding

Picture the SWAT Team about to go in:

"Well, this crack-dealer doesn't show up on the gun registry, so you guys can relax now...."

 

[TCBF]

"I know, I know - Criminals don't register... BUT nearly all firearms used in crime start off as legal firearms."

And all Prostitutes started off as virgins.

So, what is your point?

It is not the tool - it is the intent of the user.

Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.

$5,000 worth of my private property has just been dropped to a market value of zero because of this (5 x class 12 (5) items).  For what?

There are already good laws against careless storage and misuse.  But the real responsibility must lie with criminal intent and use, not lawful possession.  Punish the criminal, not the citizen.

Tom

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.

HA!  It only is going to cost less than $2 million, smart guy!  :crybaby:

 

[Torlyn]

"How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?"

Do you not sleep with your wpn on Ex or Ops?

Last I checked, sitting at home sleepling isn't Ex or Ops.  Slight difference, methinks. 

T

 

[Infanteer]

What are the quick access safes that were referred to earlier in this thread?

 

[TCBF]

"Your Honour, I was cleaning it, and I fell asleep."

No case law either way on careless storage/proper storage under such circumstances.  Careless storage is normally laid to administratively inconvenience the accused, and the charges are often stayed or dropped.

If the accused can afford to fight it, he might win.

Another one of those "Lets get a bunch of elected lawyers to pass a bad law so the supreme court can tell us what it really says" laws.

Tom