Moose/Sentol

RHC: Yup, the Liberals forced their MP's to vote the party line since it was a previous Liberal government that voted in this shit. The other minority party the New Democrats allowed a "free vote" by their MP's but months of back room arm twisting forced just enough of their MP's to change course to save the registry. Had all this politicing not gone on, it would have passed easily....

I think that the Liberal and New Democrat MP's that clearly voted against their constituents wishes may have committed political suicide. The Conservatives will be using this as an election platform in the next election hoping to win seats.

Politics aside, you have to ask yourself if this registry is such a good thing, and so useful to police as they claim (at least the top politically oriented echelon, but decidedly NOT the rank and file cops), then why is it that only five of the 10 provinces will even enforce it even though they are required to do so for all Federal legislation including the criminal code ? Why are the majority of gun owners against it ? Why is the current compliance rate with the registry hovering somewhere between 30 to 50% even in the urban provinces that do enforce it.? Why are all outdoor and Indian groups unanimously against it ? Why are all women's and related groups for it ? It's all in the perception of its perceived "good" while no one is concerned a whit about it's dangers !!

The real, somewhat hidden reason they want the registry, is the powers that be would much rather see the complete banishing of all firearms from the hands of the citizenry, when all is said and done. They dare not admit it publicly, nor do they have to, as long as they can nickel and dime our rights away one small step at a time. If some future Liberal government decides to ban handguns and semi-automatics, guess where they'll get the names and addresses of those who have them !!

Canadians are sheep by and large. We've had it so good for so long, we fail to see the ever present dangers of poorly conceived legislation by flyweight politicians, that erodes personal freedoms of any kind. Hey !!!...it doesn't affect me, so I don't care if it hurts your interest, right ? Wrong !!!!!!!!!....you only get the kind of government you deserve as a people.

It'll be a frosty Friday in hell before I willingly give up my target guns (long or short....)

Reply to
tourman
Loading thread data ...

On the same subject take a look at this

formatting link

Reply to
Jim

I am a hunter that have guns.. and I dont care about the registry...

there is no reason to fear it.. but I know that the problem here is not with the long guns, its with the owner, and having a registry of the OWNER of long guns is not useless..

Reply to
Petem

e

RHC: As usual, you are way off the mark. There is every reason to fear the registry because of it's sweeping powers for search and seize without a warrant. Before you spout off, read the bloody Firearms Act.

For the purposes of policing, it is redundant, since the PAL owner licensing (which is good and useful legislation) does the same thing. However, that is NOT the issue here and never has been ! Nor would any police office rely on a registry to know if there are guns in the home since it is riddled with inaccuracy and non compliance. Any cop that relies on this nonsense is going into harms way without being prepared since the non presence of a gun in the registry doesn't mean there is not one in the home.

It's gun owners like you that contribute to the problem since you go along naively believing the government is working in your best efforts. Look at the history of gun control in Canada; listen to the last election speeches where candidates spouted to "ban all handguns in Canada". As gun owners, we hang together or we hang separately...after they get mine, they'll come for yours....its called divide and conquer !! We don't ever want to allow them those powers !!

I wonder why it is that Quebec MP's all voted for the registry and that gun control is so acceptable to Quebec voters

Reply to
tourman

"tourman" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : snipped-for-privacy@a9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

Less paranoia case in the population??

Reply to
Petem

"Petem" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : i7ud65$ssa$ snipped-for-privacy@petem001.eternal-september.org...

talking about hunting.. here's my setup for this year... half an hour drive from home..

;-))))))))

formatting link

Reply to
Petem

Gee they look like pets. No challenges there.

Reply to
ABLE1

e

RHC: Possibly, however it is a mystery to most others in the country. But then Quebec never follows the rules of logic on a lot of things so who knows ?

Reply to
tourman

ssion

de

RHC: You're obviously a bow hunter. When I hunted, I used a Remington semi-automatic .30-06 with a 16.5 inch barrel....2.5 inch flip over scope...a perfect combination for hunting in heavy Northern Ontario bush country. Over 45 years, I managed to get 38 moose which kept my family fed for years early in my life when I had no money. Well, the unelected bureaucrats that control the list of firearms deemed not suitable for sporting use (whatever the hell that means....) would put this model on the restricted list (which means it's considered the same as a handgun, and can't leave the place of registration except with permits to travel to a gun club only). So, it would be useless for any further hunting activities of any kind.

Where is the logic in that ? Their reasoning is the barrel is too close to the legal minimum of 16 inches ! These people don't have a whit of real world knowledge or common sense. They know nothing about the shooting sports and care even less ! They are not now and never have been looking out for your or my interests. They have been given the power to make arbitrary decisions, that are not bound by anything other than if "it looks bad"\ then ban it" !! What kind of reasoning is that ? And your Bloc Quebecois group would wholeheartedly support a government that would ban all semi-automatics from ownership, based on what ?

You don't have too look too far back in Canadian politics to realize that no one will ever care a damn about the shooting sports. We are political pawns to be used simply to advance the current government in power to appease urban interests. It's like sitting on a knife edge waiting for the next mass shooting, knowing when it happens (not if), you're going to be pushed off that cliff in the name of political appeasement !!

If that's paranoia, then I guess millions of people are !! You might want to wake up and smell the flowers !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to
tourman

My bad. I read that after making my post.

Reply to
Bob La Londe

Not a problem I figured that to be the case.

BTW I am still waiting for approval.

Currently NO Fire Alarm System in the Fire Hall. Go figure.

Les

Reply to
ABLE1

Thats the proof that we are different, It would be so simple to let us do what we want in our little place..

But they wont let us.. For what reason?? they love us? dont think so..

Reply to
petem

Bow hunter, black powder hunter and long fire arm hunter.. Any way I can use to go for a steak I will use.. ;-))

When I hunted, I used a Remington

That part is totally true, but they had to draw a line, you cant argue that this type of weapon can be hide easily and could be a treat to many poeple..

Like I said, that drew a line, where would they have it done to be ok for you?? 17 inch?? 18?? 22??

for you 16 is too short, then it will be 19 for another.. cant please every one and the others..

Shooting spor is not the sport that have the best support from the whole community, when people think of it, the see a bunch of red neck that kill nice animals.. Even in my family some think of me as a heartless man for hunting moose and deer..But they will kindly eat the large moose steak I am cooking fort them on my BBQ ;-))

Listen, It wont matter.. Its been too late 30 years ago.. It was too late when UK passed law on fire arms in 1920...

Reply to
petem

On Oct 1, 12:51=A0pm, "petem" wrote:

I don't think Robert is so much concerned about the size of the restricted firearm as much as he is about the fact that there is any restriction at all. I think you already know that.

The problem here, there and anywhere that the gun banners want to restrict the public from owning firearms is that it is written in history time and time again that an unarmed populace is subject to enslavement by the very government that passes these laws for the publics supposed protection. The government that passes the gun banning laws "knows" that it would never enslave the people but they don't ever think about the fact that they are preparing the way for some government in the futuer will do it. All of this is always in complete contradiction of the actual statistics that show that ( in the US anyway) that those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest crime rates. I know that in other countries with lesser stabilized governments that this does not occur, and, of course, the gun banners will use those statistics to justify more restrictions in our countries. Take a look at the long history in the United Nations to get a good view of where all of this misinformation comes from and what financially supported world wide organization are behind the gun banning in countries that have more stabilized governments. Fortunately here in the US, part of our bill of rights says that we have the right to be armed. In other countries with out this protection, gun banning is much easier. The UN gun banners know this and thus we have England and Austrailia as good examples of what can happen when you take firearms from the population. You should also look at how bad the crimes rates are in England and Austrailia since the citizens no longer have the same access to firearms but the criminals do. I posted a link to an article I just read, in one of my earlier posts about the misconceptions that people have about where the worst mass killings have occurred. Mostly in countries with the most restricive firearm laws.

Reply to
Jim

e

RHC: With all due respect, you've completely missed the point again. The size of the gun, or the length of the barrel has squat to do with anything ! It's the guy behind it that makes it dangerous or not. Gun haters don't think rationally when it comes to sporting use for firearms. This may seem to some like splitting hairs, but even referring to a firearm as a "weapon" implies that it will be used for nefarious things ! A gun is a gun is a gun ! It's only a "weapon" if you choose to make it so (as is an automobile or any other potentially dangerous item). The real issue is as long as they continue to see firearms usage in negative connotations, we will have a problem! And since they will always do so, we will always have a problem !

RHC: So what do you do about their hypocracy? They eat your food but condemn they way you get it !! I think some of these urbanites think steak grows on trees !! I have never stood still for anyone condemning me for hunting for food; they get a polite but firm "earfull" when it happens......

RHC: No, it's never too late unless you let it be so. If you give up before you start, you are doomed to failure from the get go !!! There's a huge fund raising drive getting started across this country to raise money for the next election. It's targeted at eliminating those gutless MP's who flipflopped on the vote. It's also targeted at ending the long gun registry as an election issue. I've already given a lot of money; I hope all shooters will also...

Reply to
tourman

This has been an interesting read. So are you restricted from owning a handgun in Canada? And your 30-.06 is illegal for hunting?! That is the preferred round for deer hunters in TX.

All you have to do in TX to buy any gun (besides class 3 - automatic rifles, silencers, and certain other parts) is fill out a form and the dealer makes a 5 minute phone call. The answer comes back "proceed, hold, or no".

It's also legal to own a fully automatic M-16, AR-15, or AK47 but that requires more paperwork.

Reply to
G. Morgan

RHC:No Graham, I am not restricted from owning a handgun. I just can't do anything with it unless I belong to a gun club, and have obtained an Authorization to Transport from my home to that gun club. Since I compete with a handgun (IPSC / USPSA), I have other permits that allow me to travel from my home to a border crossing point. After that, I have a US ATF Form 6 allowing me to transport to any sporting event in the USA, plus a North Dakota hunting license to allow me to possess ammunition in the US, plus invitations from the clubs where I shoot. All in all, they fill a binder about half an inch thick !!

In Canada, we have an overall gun license called a Possession Acquistion License, good for five years, requiring government sanctioned safety courses, police background check for criminal or mental health problems, plus a sign off by your spouse you represent no threat to her. Once cleared by the RCMP, you are permitted to buy firearms which fit in three different classes, unrestricted (long guns and shotguns), restricted (handguns, small short barrelled firearms of the military persuasion, plus any other gun that "looks bad" determined by bureaucrats; and prohibited firearms (guns with barrels less than 4 inches, certain calibres such as .380 and .25, and fully automatic firearms). These you can only possess (never shoot) only if you owned them before 1988....they are grandfathered and go to the scrap heap upon your death)

The PAL might seem onerous but overall it is a good piece of licensing that serves to ensure those who shouldn't have legal firearms are prevented from doing so, plus ensures all gun owners are trained in safe handling and storage etc. BUT THAT'S AS FAR AS IT SHOULD GO !!!!!!! Further registries do nothing to enhance public safety and only serve to control and restrict those guns that legitimate owners possess....

The point that some don't get is ....there is never enough gun control for many people - period !! If you allow those in power to erode rights and privileges little by little, you end up with nothing left. Any government in a free society should have to PROVE why they intend to take away any rights of honest people. In a free society, you don't have to prove the NEED for anything. As long as you obey the laws and harm no one else, you are free to do what you wish !! Not the other way around.....

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ultimate end of all this registration BS is to abolish all firearms from the hands of private citizens, as per one of the UN mandates. They just have to do it in a multitude of little, less onerous ways....It's called "two steps forward, one back"..... Unfortunately, such an opinion is seen by many up here as "right wing", "paranoid" or "over the top". I'd rather be called any of those things so long as I can help prevent this from happening.!!!!

Reply to
tourman

Well, if it is how you describe it I completely agree. Ever see the old 80's movie "Red Dawn"? It's about the Soviets invading US soil. The first thing they did was to round up all the registered gun owners and detain them.

It sounds like such a law like that 'could' be used to allow the RMCP to go around to every household and confiscate your guns, if the next piece of legislation comes around to banning them completely, as in the UK.

100% agreed. Right now we have a similar issue in the US with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency). They are going around and scrutinizing every doctor's prescriptions that involve controlled substances. Doctors here are so scared they might get on the DEA's radar screen they under-prescribe needed pain meds. and such. I had shoulder surgery last Dec. and the screws are causing me chronic pain. Any doctor (including my surgeon) *can* provide pain meds. but are so reluctant to do so. Now I have to go to a pain management specialist to get it. I feel like a criminal, have to take a pee test every month. All my records (which should be protected with our HIPPA law), are now in the hands of the government. The DEA primary mission is to keep illicit drugs out of the country, not to harass licensed doctors.

I'm not aware of that UN mandate. Will you provide a link? Since the US in the UN this matter now concerns me too. I don't think the American citizens will ever allow the government to take away our firearms. It would lead to a coup d'état.

Gun laws for the most part are not effective, the "bad" guys will always be able to get them. Just look at Mexico for that example.

Reply to
G. Morgan

It doesn't take the Soviets invading to do that, during Katrina the local police did the same thing

Blatantly against the law but they always apologize and admit fault after the fact when the population might have needed those weapons.

Reply to
mleuck

Yeah, I remember hearing about that. I would have told the cop I sold mine at a gun show. NOPD is known to ignore the Constitution though, I don't see that happening in Houston or Dallas/FW. Besides, I don't think they have the resources to do so.

Reply to
G. Morgan

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.