Hint-- longevity!!??
Printable View
Hint-- longevity!!??
So you want them to bring it back?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanO
What you think of the manifesto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
The return of a gun registry is really small potatoes when you think about other things the federal government is responsible for. For people who have spent time around "union" people and inner union politics,it becomes blatantly obvious,instantly,that they operate as a collective,that there's no room for individualism,that their local executive takes marching orders from the national office,that the national union calls the shots with the NDP and the Liberals,that,although it's illegal for unions to "compel" their members to contribute to leftist political programs financially,they still use other back door methods to ensure they bankroll left wing party politics. That's why they're so absolutely rabid to get rid of the Conservatives because of introduced legislation which demands union disclosure of ALL finances. There's absolutely no way they can withstand public scrutiny. My experience after many years in the auto industry dealt specifically with first,The UAW,then the CAW and eventually Unifor. If the average person hasn't any concept of the depth of corruption inside Canadian unions,they would have demanded their investigation,decades ago. Do we really want these guys as the puppetmasters of the Thomas Mulcair and/or Justin Trudeau types? Have we not seen enough in Ontario with teacher unions and the public service "associations"? Only the most cloistered people can call this "fearmongering". Canadians better wake up and soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanO
Lets say mulcair wins a minority government which i think is a stretch. When one is elected leader the political sripe suffers . Now he must work with everyone and in an effort to govern mulcair will most certainly have to offend every union in an attempt to govern, especially in a minority setup. It will be the undoing of the ndp party if he even gets a sniff in that office. You are correct trimmer that the registry is small potatoes and i have chimed in on that belly button rubbing a few times. If the ndp get a look it will not be good for them going forward. I think they are hamstrung. Just two cents all. Watch the debate. Cheers!!
Couldn't agree more trimmer. Thieves and con artists will go to any length to further their careers and avoid exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Liberal Party official line is no registry return. This in response to lies being circulated in print by the Conbots. They have been telling the Yukon voters the Liberals plan to return the registry.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
What is a "conbot"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilo Charlie
Conservative robot I would imagine.
LOL Well,now,that's "original" isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald
Both Trudeau and Mulcair have been on record as saying they would revisit the registry "in some form"....like I would believe either of them, now that they say they won't....? Not likely !Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilo Charlie
So,because a Liberal or NeeDeePer says they won't "re-visit" a gun registry,you believe that? Tell me,KC,where are you Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilo Charlie
Ya up here liberal Hec cloutier was going to vote against it. Or so he told all of us voters come election time. But what did he do?
The Quebec Liberal Youth wing had a motion I think it was in 2012 to make try and ban or begin preparing the public for the banning of all firearms. This was voted down. However only by a small margin. Also many of the back room boys like Alan Rock, Chretien and Paul Martin (Mr Dithers) still have a voice. Silver spoon kid also mention that he thought something like the Australia model would be good which was to ban all semi's and pump action as well as handguns.
NDP on the other hand has just admitted the other night that they will bring back the registry and will charge gun owners to implement. I would imagine something like what the Liberals first tried and that was to charge 100.00 per gun to register.
These are fact you can find them yourself.
Nope, you're gonna have to post a link to the NDP statement, because the last statement I can find from the NDP on this is in July, when they said they would not bring back the registry.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Please cite a news report.
Am I allowed to cite the words of my local candidate who told my wife with me no more than 10 feet away that the NDP would definately revisit the gun issue with certain respect to the registry ?
Oh they won't bring back a "gun registry"....they will implement some kind of "citizens firearms reference log" but it's not a "gun registry". It's the same but different.
As these politicians say, it's not a "tax", it's a "levy"
It not a "new tax", it's a "health care premium"
No, for the simple reason that local candidates say all kinds of things. A local NDP candidate in Quebec suggested his party could reopen the constitution to ban wearing the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. That doesn't make it party policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by standup
Again, the last public statement by the NDP was no registry, in July. The Liberals don't seem to have made any statement that they would bring back the registry since the vote in 2012. The reasons are fairly obvious to anyone who's paying attention: this is a tight race, the winner will have a minority, and both the Liberals and NDP are relying on winning rural and northern ridings. They can't win if they alienate those ridings. And they can't hold onto a victory if they alienate those ridings.
Ya and the last public statement by Mulcair at debate was how many refugees the UN was mandating Canada to bring in and that Harper wouldn't do it. Have You noticed the CTV can't find any evidence of such a mandate?
Incorrect, when is a registry not a registry??? When you refuse to call it that. What Muclair actually is he would not set up a registry the same way as the Liberals did., but he feels the Police need a way to track guns via the serial numbers. Please tell me what do you call a system where the record who, the number and how many you have???
3 NDP candidates have said the registry will be revisited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
They won't call it a "registry". It will likely be called an "inventory"!!!!!! ;D. Kinda like a health "tax" is a "premium" !!!!
I don't know Welsh what would you call it??? I'm just going by what Muclair says. (By the way my dog isn't registered) Sue me. I don't have time to find the other articles I think another one was printed Thursday, but you a big boy I am sure you can find it.
What's your definition of a registry???
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle21913797/
A New Democrat government would ensure police are able to track every firearm in Canada, but would also seek to avoid the pitfalls that made the now-defunct long-gun registry so controversial, Tom Mulcair said Wednesday.
“But, you know, that honest hunter who goes out with his pickup truck, it’s a registered pickup truck ... the trailer’s registered and the 4X4 is registered. Heck, his dog is registered.”
Check the date on that article. December, 2014. Two days later, the party changed tack and said no registry.
I've been searching for a recent comment by the NDP saying they would bring in a gun registry. Nothing. Thus my request you cite your source.
There is at present no credible reason to believe that any party intends to bring back the LGR. People who choose to believe that they will are doing simply that: choosing to believe something, in the absence of real evidence.
If you look at the polls, at a riding level, it is obvious that it is not in any party's interest to promise gun control at this point, or to enact it following the election. The next government will be a minority. Every seat counts. And as it happens, the Conservatives are going down to defeat in the very ridings where gun ownership is highest, such as the Yukon, all of Newfoundland, and northern New Brunswick. The Liberals and the NDP are not going to squander those gains.
If I have to look for it, you buy me doughnuts. :) I have to head to the farm right now . I will look tonight when I get back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Of course non of the parties on the left are going to play their hand prior to an election. Hell they may not be able to get it done in a minority government with a Conservative Senate. But if and when the numbers add up and they can get a bill through both houses guaranteed there will be an Australian type gun law in Canada. Prior to that they can enact an annual license and set onerous rates for that that will force many people into giving up and surrendering their firearms. Compliance for such a license system needs to track individual owners and firearms. Bingo instant registry along with a new level of likely Quebec based civil servants with all the legacy costs attached to manage the thing. It's not only acceptable but fashionable for the left to attack legal gun owners.
Most political parties are aware that ticking off the ridings that elected you is a good way to stop governing.
Look at the riding-by-riding polling before making assumptions about what the parties will do once elected.
Most of my guns were registered at the time of purchase, so There wasnt a lot I could do. If anyone ever does bring back any sort of registry they can all line up and kiss my hairy white !!! . I aint registering S_ _ _ T !!! I got all the guns I need now:thumbup:
Thats all well and good, but do you use your guns to hunt or shoot ? Running the risk of being charged and losing all your guns for not complying with the law is not something most gun users will be willing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcxextreme
Depends on the province and local. I know place in NS and NB where the Co's and Police don't give a crap. They never registered their and won't in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Well I like most Canadians am not going to jeopardize my life and clean record by not following a gun law. If I can't use them I don't see the point in owning them. The point is to elect governments who target crime not law abiding citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Where do you draw the line...?
Are you willing to obey every law just to preserve yourself..?
If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...gistry-anyway/Quote:
Author A.J. Somerset explains why nobody, except gun owners, wants to talk about gun control this election
A.J. Somerset is the author of Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun, an examination of the gun culture in the United States and Canada.
Canada’s longest-ever election campaign is well past its halfway point, and the issues are well defined. The NDP and the Liberals both insist it’s time for change, amid promises to restore mail delivery, the long-form census, and environmental protection, and to roll back Conservative policies across the board. But there’s one thing nobody wants to talk about restoring: the long-gun registry.
The silence is surprising. Last year, as the anniversary of the Montreal massacre approached, Tom Mulcair promised to bring back the registry, reiterating the position his party held when it was abolished in 2012. The NDP quickly changed its tune in the days that followed: they would not create a long-gun registry, but would find some other, undefined way to track every gun in the country. The Liberals, more cautiously, denied they would bring back the registry but instead promised other, vague gun control measures.
You might expect to see Trudeau and Mulcair hammered on their vague promises: just what do they intend? Can they offer concrete proposals, or mere sound bites? But even Stephen Harper is letting it lie: although the Conservatives have warned the Liberals and NDP “signalled their intent to impose new restrictions on lawful firearms owners, including restoring the failed and costly long-gun registry,” they have since gone as silent on that subject as on their earlier strawman, the Netflix tax.
The Conservatives don’t have to push the point: their warning was a dog whistle to Canada’s gun lobby, which has consistently maintained that the Liberals have always intended to first register and then confiscate every gun in Canada. It stands to reason that the NDP, being further to the left, could only be worse. The message is clear: if you own a gun, the Conservatives are your only choice.
At ground level, conservative gun owners are duly doing the party’s work, circulating year-old news stories as if Mulcair had pledged to bring back the registry just last week. That nobody is talking about gun control at the moment doesn’t matter; the left-wing parties have a “hidden agenda,” and hope only to win majorities so they can bring in sweeping new measures to disarm us all. With the NDP leading in the polls, Chicken Littles among Canada’s gun owners are whipping themselves into a frenzy.
It is true that the Liberal party has always been the party of gun control. In his book Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, Blake Brown notes that Liberal gun control proposals began in the 1870s, almost as soon as Canada was Canada. It was Liberal governments in the 1970s and 1990s that created our gun control system as we know it, and positioned the Liberals as an eastern party deaf to rural concerns. The NDP, on the other hand, has long been ambivalent on guns, thanks to divisions among its base. The NDP relies on northern ridings, where people legitimately need guns: a box of rifle cartridges is much cheaper than a thousand pounds of frozen meat. But the NDP’s sudden, surprising success in Quebec, where support for gun control is strongest, placed the party in a difficult position. It’s no coincidence that Mulcair’s 2014 promise to restore the long-gun registry was made in French, nor that it fell to Timmins–James Bay MP Charlie Angus to retract that promise on behalf of the party. Gun registries if necessary, the NDP suggests, but not necessarily gun registries.
No matter who wins the election, we will have a minority government. To win that minority, the left-wing parties will rely on rural and northern ridings, places where owning a gun scarcely raises an eyebrow. The NDP will rely not only on Quebec, but on northern Ontario and British Columbia. The Liberals are poised to take Canada’s ridings with high rates of gun-ownership: in the Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Miramichi. These are not many seats, compared to the 905, but in this election, every seat counts. This is why nobody, save gun owners, wants to talk about gun control.
In reaction to the long-gun registry, gun owners saw themselves as a persecuted minority, powerless in an electoral system in which the big cities ruled. Canada’s gun lobby aligned firmly with the Conservatives, the only party that promised to listen. But then the energy flow changed: instead of acting as a lobby for gun owners, the gun lobby became a means for right-wing politicians to lobby for support from the gun-owning public, by resorting to the dog whistle when the campaigning gets tough. But power inevitably must change hands. Times change, and the polls suggest a new reality, one in which rural and northern Canadians have much more power than they think.
Good post,awndray,thanks. It looks like A.J.Somerset has a pretty good handle on the situation. It'll be interesting to see if it's an accurate observation.
Rick,Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
You know what goes on CPIC and its not descriptions of nicks and other damage to the gun,its a serial number.Period.
My advice to all gun owners is to keep your registrations and have all serial numbers otherwise recorded.
My other advice is to vote NDP, failing that Liberal, anything but Harper.LOL
Well, you were doing well with the serial number advice, the NDP advice.....not so much !!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Gil
You got your orange on again?
Here's something to ponder....If Angry Tom passes the aspect of gun control to the provincial/municipal levels, this is what can happen. This store was forced out of business due to regulations imposed on their businesses thru by-laws...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/28...ntcmp=obinsite
Delegating firearms legislation to the provinces would be a bigger undertaking than getting into office. It wouldn't happen. As for bylaws, some already exist and municipalities are free to impose them.
He might not bring it back but his alternative is to "do a lot around classification". That is SO much worse than the return of a registry. Can you imagine?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
--Now, anything other than a break action .410 or a muzzle loader is classified as restricted. Any semi-auto is now classified as prohibited.
That would be a way more crushing blow than the return of a long gun registry. Of course, if they play the long game they'll bring back the registry, and then go for reclassification. This really sucks. It really feels like being bullied. I can't think of another way to describe it other than bullying.
I can also see JT finding a way to give lunatics like Wynne more Provincial powers to make gun ownership almost imposssible. Be it a gun tax, ammunition tax or whatever. I see it in our future.
Many of my guns never had serial numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I believe JT has said he would use the various classifications to solve the issue and thought Australia would be a possible model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Wynne already has the power to tax guns and ammunition. Always has had that power. Also probably has the power to impose strict storage requirements, or to require that guns are stored in central facilities, etc.
It hasn't happened.
Do the Premiers of the provinces, or Mayors of cities, at present, have the authority to demand tracking of sales of firearms as described in the article....and could they force stores to submit video surveillance of the sales etc. to the police ?
The powers of the provinces include the regulation of business except in a small number of federally regulated industries (things like shipping and aviation). This gives the provinces the power to regulate sales of firearms and ammunition, which is how we have an Ontario law regulating ammo sales.
The Supreme Court reference re the Firearms Act (2000) is widely misunderstood (by people who haven't read the decision) to mean that firearms are a federal jurisdiction. In fact, the court was asked to rule on whether the Firearms Act, by regulating private property, was treading on provincial powers. The court's answer was no, because the Firearms Act was an exercise of the federal criminal law power. But the court did not rule out the possibility that the provinces could also have their own registries, under their business and private property powers. "Guns" aren't a federal jurisdiction; criminal law is federal, and property is provincial.
So short answer: Yes for the provinces.
SSSsssshhhhh!!! Don't say that too loud. Wynne has never seen an oppurtunity to tax she didn't cackle in glee about. My guess is she probably doesn't understand this yet. Too busy deflecting from the rest if her misdeeds.
The only thing saving firearms owners from provincial registration and bans is the cost to taxpayers. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare and no political party wants to have that permanently attached to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
In tonight's French-language leaders' debate, this topic came up -- unsuprisingly, given that Quebec is the only place where people really care about this. Trudeau and Mulcair both said flat out that they would not bring back a long-gun registry. Duceppe wants one, for whatever that's worth (approximately doodly-squat).
Wynne calls taxes "Revenue Tools". Yet there are new ones and increased ones and they still cost us money. They can twist it anyway they want to "not" call it a registry doesn't mean it won't happen. A damned registry could turn out to be the least damaging to legal gun owners. Who knows what kind of reclassification and prohibitions those idiots will come up with. I clearly remember Dalton McGuinty signing a pledge to not raise taxes. I clearly remember Cretien promising to scrap the GST. Do you really take politicians seriously when they promise stuff? I judge them more by the track record than what they say during a campaign.
Obviously, they could say one thing and do another. But the important point here is that during the French language debate, neither party saw any advantage in reviving this issue. This tells us voters don't much care. And when voters don't care, politicians don't care.
Voters DO care,though,and have said so,loud and clear. Politicians have read the wind and know they'll cause everyone a lot of needless grief and look like bald-faced liars if they revive the LGR in any form. Politicians are opportunistic ho's that would enact anything if they thought,for one second,that there'll be political "gain". That's why I believe that we must NEVER let this issue simply "fade away."Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Amen brother! Testify!Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Voters who are opposed to a registry certainly care ... but I meant the wider mass of the public, who see it as a non-issue at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I would also say that if a new government was to try to restore the LGR, you would see a backlash from the mushy middle, the folks who don't much care. They'd be asking why we were spending all this money again.
There is no upside for any party in bringing back the LGR, only downside.
The never ending mass shootings in America will likely make voters more likely to support "any" kind of gun control. Expect the politicians to capitalize on that.
Seems that it never does, from both sides...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...psdatphpy8.jpg
We're not really seeing that. Canadians seem happy to consider this an American problem at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
i wonder if JT will lose some traction after the Oregon shootings? In the last debate he tried to label Harper as paranoid and that there isn't really that much evil today. Within a week another mass shooting. Some might look at that and wonder who was right Harper or JT?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I don't think there's too many people left that think JT is right about anything... hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by terrym
I see Obama has still refused to acknowledge that the issue is related to radical Islamic extremists, on U.S. soil... he's still holding the line that it's a gun violence issue...
I don't think this nut was a Muslim. Just hated Cristians and apparently every firearm he had was bought legally.
Because it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Read the whole thing - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...-the-evidence/Quote:
In a tragedy that has become all too common in the states, 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer opened fire yesterday on Oregon’s Umpqua Community College campus armed with several handguns and one long gun. The most recent reports indicate that ten people lost their lives and many more were injured. While much of the response was predictable and repetitive — promises of prayers, political battle cries from both sides of the aisle regarding gun control, etc. — there is one specific detail of the story that has featured prominently in media coverage across the board. As the Washington Post reports, Mercer may have been targeting Christians explicitly.
As members of the media and armchair detectives scrambled to learn more about the man with an axe to grind with Christians, another tidbit came to light that seemed to solidify this story as one of Christian persecution. On a free dating website called Spiritual Passions, Mercer identified himself as “Not Religious, but Spiritual” on his profile. He was also listed in a group on the site called “Doesn’t Like Organized Religion.” As the profile made the rounds last night, the dominant narrative was that an atheist had targeted Christians in an act of terrible violence.
But is that really why Mercer did what he did?
[....]
Based on what we’ve learned so far, blaming his supposed atheism requires acceptance of a lot of flimsy evidence, while other possible motivations are readily available.
Let’s be clear: what happened in Oregon yesterday is incredibly tragic. Yes, let’s mourn the lives lost and celebrate those who showed courage under fire. But before you assert that this is somehow proof of some contrived “War on Christianity,” you’d do well to take a step back and take a look at the whole picture. This isn’t the smoking gun you thought it was.
I haven't been paying to much attention yet, the media takes a week or so to get the story straight so I usually don't watch to much coverage. All I've heard so far is from witnesses was that he was calling out and killing 'Christians'.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Awndray's post/link says it was NOT related to religious extremists activity, I think I'll wait to see what gets grinded out once the FBI profilers have produced a news release.
I'll offer this as part of the information that is flowing out there at present, it supports the theory he was an extremist...Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray
Wether this will pan out as true, time will tell..
Quote:
The Federal Security Services (FSB) is reporting today that an American black-Islamist terror suspect, who yesterday committed an act of mass murder in the State of Oregon (United States), had been included on a list of 87,000 “known/suspected” Islamic terrorists that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) refused last month to accept from the Federation due to its not being “politically viable in the present atmosphere”.
According to this report, the black-Islamist terrorist who committed this act of terror, Chris Harper Mercer, had previously been indentified by electronic intelligence specialists within the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as being an Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) adherent after he had attempted to gain passage to Syria via Turkey during the first week of September, 2015.
By the Obama regime refusing to accept this terror list from the Federation, this report continues, Mercer was able to accomplish his terror act when yesterday he killed 9 people and wounded 7 others at the Umpqua Community College prior to his being shot and killed by local US police forces.
Most critical to note about this FSB report is that where it ends, the mysterious, and hugely read, Russian publication Reedus (Ridus.ru) continues—and to fully understand this information one must note that Russian intelligence agencies (SVR/FSB) frequently use Reedus to put information into the public sphere that otherwise would have serious international consequences should the government be found to be behind it—thus giving Reedus its current status known as “a Kremlin resource” and an “agency of Orthodox journalism”. [Русский]
And the information relating to the black-Islamist terrorist Mercer “leaked” into Reedus by the SVR/FSB is, to say the least, shocking and disturbing–including that immediately after the Oregon mass shooting, his Internet personal profile was changed from his true identity as an ISIS/ISIL terror supporter to one of his being a “white conservative Republican”.
With the true knowledge of Mercer being known as the black-Islamic terrorist he truly was, information which the Obama regime refused to accept from Russia, his mass terror act in identifying and killing Christians becomes immediately understandable.
As to why the Obama regime and their propaganda media lapdogs are disguising the truth from the American people about this horrific act of Islamic terror against them, especially to the families of the dead and wounded, it is not known—but shouldn’t really surprise anyone as that government has been nothing but a mountain of lies for years.
http://www.eutimes.net/2015/10/orego...e-from-russia/
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
There was no upside to the Liberals under Jean Chretien bringing in Bill C-68, or was there? Now all firearms are Crown property, and you now have to be licences to own a firearm. How is the government going to know if you stop renewing your licence that you don't have anymore firearms? Return to the long form census and add the question. How many firearms do you own? The government manages this country, one aspect of managing anything is measuring what you have in inventory. Your firearms are part of a government inventory. Until that part of the firearm act is repealed that requires you to be licensed to possess firearms, this will continue to be the case. The Liberals are big on restoring the Canada they that had fashions, again making it a nation that is respected around the world for its peace keeping and commitment to the U.N. charters. The NDP would like to recoup some of that lost ground as well. I'd just like to have Canada restored to where it was before all the social engineering kicked in.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
The Liberals perceived that there was. There was strong support for stricter gun control at the time, especially in urban areas and in Quebec. The political climate at that time was quite different. The Bloc was still a growing force in Quebec, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
Firearms are not Crown property. Where do people get ideas like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Firearms are not crown property? Bill C-68 placed firearms under the administration of the Crown. Prior the passage of Bill C-68 you could own firearms and they were private property, there was no legal ramification beyond safe storage. After C-68 owning a firearm became a privilege which was under licence. Without licence they became subject to the Crown:
"If your expired license has not been renewed with in 30 days(now I believe it is 6 Months) of the expiry date your license will be revoked. You will receive notice to surrender your firearms to the police or dispose of them. The police also get notice that a person who has firearms (handgun) registered to them, license has expired and that they are in unlawful possession of those firearms."
So now without a licence your firearms cease to be your private property and fall under the authority of the Crown. In my mind that makes them Crown property.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Gee,I don't know,welsh and Gun Nut,but if you replace the word "gun" in your post with any other word for any other inanimate object...like "golf clubs" or "hammers",it quickly shows how patently ridiculous that whole premise is,doesn't it?
Sounds to me like someone needs a tinfoil hat !! You require a licence to drive, your truck has a licence.....does that mean your truck is crown property ????
That don't make it a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
Fact: they are your property, not Crown property. The fact that the Crown can confiscate something doesn't make it their property to begin with.
Big difference; you need a license to drive on public roads. Your vehicle is registered and plated only for driving on public roads. Otherwise, anyone can own a car or truck. You don't need a license to bug one. You don't need a license to drive on private property.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Thanks for raising this example. Your right you require a licence to drive your truck. However you don't require a licence to own your truck, only to use it. Again if you put your truck on the road, you have to ensure the registration is renewed. Also there is a requirement that you have it insured. However if you choose not to drive your truck, and allow your drivers licence to lapse, as well as not renew your registration. You will not have the authority asking you to turn in your truck or dispose of it. Your truck is your private property, you can let it sit in your yard until it resolves itself into a pile of rust. The reason your licencing is based upon use not ownership, as well as your vehicle registration. No so your firearms, your licence is based upon ownership not use. By contrast your hunting licences are based upon use. You may let your hunting licence lapse and it does not affect the possession of your firearm. However let your firearm licence lapse and you will be asked to turn in your firearms or dispose of them. Meanwhile if you do allow your firearms licence to lapse, and the authorities come asking about your firearms. Under the law they can be legally confiscated them, or you can be forced to dispose of them. If you attempt to lie to them, they can slap you with a warrant to search and seize, and if they find any firearms you will in all likelihood be subject to additional charge for attempting to deceive them.
If you are looking for an example that is more comparable, your house and property would come closest. Failure to pay your municipal taxes, will over time cause your municipal to take action against you. You will be given the option of making good on your back property taxes. However if you are unable to do so, or unable to sell your property and pay off the back taxes, with in a set period of time. They, as a representative of the Crown, can legally take over your house and property and selling them for back taxes.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut
Gun Nut, without copying n pasting all your posts, it appears you are in favour of no licensing of firearm owners? Your answer is a free for all of anyone who wishes to own a firearm? No background checks? No proven competency in firearm handling? Is this what you are advocating when you argue the licensing aspect of firearm ownership? Just curious...... :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
I'm only asking that things be return to what they were before Bill C-68. Restoring our private property rights, and the right, of all Canadians to own firearms if they so choose to do so. I advocate if they choose to use those firearms, that they receive the proper training to do so safety, which would include safe storage. If they choose to acquire firearms for use they should be license to do so, and that licencing should be subject to background checks. Bill C-68 went beyond the pail, when it licensed firearm ownership and criminalized it, in the absence of licensing. Just my opinion, thanks for asking.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut
Actual Liberal platform on guns, as announced today:
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/guns/?shownew=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Party
None of this seems radical, really, although some of it is irksome. Just how they plan to expand background checks, and why they feel this is necessary, is not clear.
Mixing up the membership of the firearms advisory community will irk people, but I see that as good. All stakeholders should be involved. If the committee is permanently deadlocked, that's fine.
Not radical? Perhaps. It's definitely ill-informed though. I won't bother commenting on every line item because they border on the the ridiculous, but just look at the first one. Without a permit, eh? Really?
That list is exactly what I would expect. The so called "experts" are eveything but and in fact will be as anti gun as it gets. Women's groups, Health care. Yeah, wait for that to be useful... Also requiring vendors to track sales is in fact a registry and one with very little security and privacy attached. As for the "Gun Marking" if that means engraving a serial number not only will it damage firearms it is another registration tool. Expect the gun community to flip over this list and expect Liberal support to take a hit out West but increase in Quebec which is where they will benefit most. This was written to boot Mulcair out of Quebec.
That's the law in the US, where nobody seems too excited about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Well Trudough has been trending up for days and the other two trending down. Today on 308.com JT and Harper are basically tied. If this momentum continues that self entitled imbecile with a good family name will be running this country. That crooked incompetent Wynne must be just cackling at the prospect of running the country from the back room. We could be very well F'd.
Ruining... you meant ruining, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Yes sir, you really got to like it. Just when things were beginning to look like we were stepping back from a police state. The Liberal want to land us with both feet right back into one.
You don't stop hunting because you get old. You get old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut
all the costly nonsense, plus the spy option - or is nothing behind the border technology at all and it's only another empty promise?
not only tax $ to be wasted, firearm prices will go up too when they have to mark them by country (which does not serve any purpose as they are already marked by the manufacturer and can be tracked at the time of import)
I thought there were recent changes made to the advisory board; more law enforcement and police union representation (not that legal firearm owners were ever an issue). The people who were dumped represented retail. We will certainly hear more about border issues, but also complete hand-gun bans and less about how useful registration at the point of sale really is...
Perhaps some (I hope very few) firearm owners were okay with the long gun registry; however, looking at what they are going to do shows that the Liberals lost a sense of reality and financial accountability completely. If they get elected, it'll go beyond bringing the registry back
http://www.therebel.media/a_gun_regi...eau_or_mulcair
A gun registry by any other name: That's what Trudeau, Mulcair are vowing
I feel that anyone who would vote, or not, for any particular party based solely on their stance on firearms, is not looking out for our country , but just for themselves, and their own personal interests.
I absolutely agree. In the grand scheme of things,any firearm registry is small potatoes when we take into consideration the catastrophic damage a left wing government could do to our fragile economy,given that the world economy is teetering on the edge of another major retraction and their politically correct,pacifistic approach to Islamic terrorism. Very precarious times for Canadians,indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Agreed, sadly there are those that will not vote on any reason just on rhetoric and emotion. That seems to be much of the left voters, IF you look at debt, economy, corruption, firearms, world politics, terrorism etc. then I would say with the current Liberal and NDP there is no way any thinking person could vote for them... but many take great efforts to NOT think it seems. (Hence my post about the implications of voting in the Election area.)Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The plates are crown property. If they take them away, your truck is useless. Surely you wouldnt use a non registered truck...Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
what upsets me is not that some party has a different view on a certain topic (e.g. firearm laws) and that they spin it their way (they are politicians, what do you expect). nobody should solely vote for a federal party based on their view on firearms. however, if you see, just based on this example, how outlandish the Libs views are and what they propose, you have to wonder if any of their decisions will be based on facts or just extremists' ideology and personal gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
as I like to look for an universal pattern, firearm policy (a rather minor topic blown out of proportion) is not too bad of an indicator in this election
Both left parties have said they would end tax breaks and other benefits that take cash from my pocket, and give it to those who "need" it. ie people who dont work. Nothing like being punished for working hard and getting ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
This is about a lot more than firearms, thank you.
Agreed X2
Quote:
Originally Posted by blargon
Not necessarily. If it's perceived as a freedom thing, then it's a much bigger issue than being just about firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I see positions on firearms and freedom of expression issues as pretty damn good indicators of the overall "freedom index" of a particular party. They are kind of canaries-in-the-coal-mine as far as I'm concerned.
What does Bill C-51 say about the "freedom index" of the CPC?
You have to start with irksome. Irksome comes before P in the A. P in the A precedes radical stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Exactly. You get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray
Bill C-51 , talk about loss of freedom, this bill takes most of it.
What specifically is it in that bill that changes your everyday life negatively to the point you feel it trumps increased pressure on potential terror acts?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbear
Amen Bigbear, I couldn't have put it better myself.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
They are trying to convince the uninformed low info. voters of the "threat" of C-51, even the Liberals voted for it and now worse yet even said the Liberals wanted to change the CES to allow spying on Canadians.
https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2015/10...rty-go-silent/
Let's see the "freedom index"
NDP - track all guns -5
Liberals - UN treaty -5
Liberals - change CES -5
Liberals leader - favourite gov't dictatorship in China -10
C-51 - -1 if you advocate violence (both Liberals and Conservatives)
By my count NDP - negative 5, Liberals negative 21 and since I don't publish articles about committing violence and threats Conservative 0.
By my count on the freedom index stays unchanged as long as I vote Conservative, and I get to keep my tax cuts, I get to use the TFSA to save (I can use anytime and instead of the RRSP that is taxed) and Canada continues to stand up and try and protect those threatened by ISIL..... by my "wisdom count" that would make it:
Liberals -21
NDP -5
Conservatives 0 (+ 50 bonuses as above.)
That's where I would say the count is, two losers and one logical choice!
I'm thinking Bill C-51 is kind of off-topic here.
We were talking about freedom which fits right in here. Freedom to assemble with like minded people to protest against the government. Bill C-51 makes that against the law.
Sure enough. But this is the firearms forum, not the general democratic freedom forum, and I think we all know that if we continue down this path, this thread is getting locked.
Anyway, carry on. I won't stand in the way of anyone's freedom to talk about C-51. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Although this Bill was intended to target terrorist activities, the suspicions are that it could have broader applications affecting Charter rights and freedoms. However, the courts appear to have a final say, on any such applications. So I suspect that any concerns offered on the Left are really a tempest in a teapot, and an effort to make political hay.
You don;t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut.
Changes to the CSE have a much larger implications to Canadians but I see almost nothing about it.... odd eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2015/10...rty-go-silent/
http://www.therebel.media/trudeau_co...liberals_would
VICE News originally reported that meant the Liberals intended to give the Communication Security Establishment (CSE) new powers, since the agency is currently prohibited from “directing” surveillance at Canadians for domestic purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The first point in the gun policy section is a bit of a slap in the face.Quote:
- repeal changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, and we will put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians;
I wonder how they plan on wresting the decision making power from politicians, when that is how the system was set up to begin with? Or perhaps they would write into new legislation that FRT assignments are legally binding on those firearms without Ministerial sign-off? Since the Act gives the Minister the ability to make regulations, and classifications can be make through regulations, it seems a non-starter.
It also looks like I wrongly assumed that the Liberal Party talking points on the ATT paperwork change were just grandstanding. It appears they might actually believe the 'terror of unregulated prohibited and restricted transport' lines they were repeating.
On the other hand, perhaps the whole first point is just pandering.
I will have to reserve my judgement on radical, irksome, or some other animal, until the how-to for all of this is revealed.
You are going to drive the left on this board crazy with those...uhmm...hard results/facts.lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
C-51.. if you not doing anything illegal...then no worries.
Oh you mean just like checking all people carrying a bow or gun.
any LEO can do that already. Is there some reason you think LEO should not be able to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
The reason that C-51 came up, was that some on here, were-are upset the police would want people to report someone with a bow in the area where the shooting took place. They felt some of their freedom was being compromised because the police would dare check them out. Like being investigated because you dared to attend a rally against a pipeline, et al. How do you feel about carding? I guess you feel it is OK , but only if they check others, not you. You can't have it both ways.
If you really think you will be investigated for attending a protest then by all means vote Trudough. If due to softened security we have some extremist successfully perform some cowardly and savage act of violence on innocent people I hope you can square that circle personally. As for carding, go ahead card me. I have nothing to hide. But if carding assisted a cop in apprehending a known and wanted felon I guess that doesn't have any value to you because you know "you're a free man" right? I am personally ok with a little oversite if it prevents crime and cowardly terrorism.
No..... I am one of those who think it is completely acceptable. Others on here have said , it is legal to carry and have a bow, how dare you take away my freedom by checking me out. All those on here who said that, are the ones you should be preaching too. We likely won't be hearing back from them , as they feel it is only right to investigate the OTHER guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
They're basically giving the police what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
The police look at this like police: they have a charge in the Criminal Code for possession in a place not authorized, and they need to have the necessary evidence. The ATT gives them that. They don't like the blanket ATT because the burden of proof is higher: they would have to show that a person possessed a gun in a place that was not reasonably between any two possible points that would be covered by the blanket ATT.
This is, obviously, a funny attitude. But that's what the motivation seems to be when you look carefully at what the cops say.
I'd like to know how many charges they've ever laid for possession in a place not authorized against a person with an RPAL. Not many, I'd wager.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
May it wasn't, "a case of being upset the police would want people to report someone with a bow in the area where the shooting took place." Owing to the relatively short range of the bow, unbeknownst to the police maybe they actually spoke to the archer, who was doing some backyard target practicing, when a flyer took off on him, and accidentally found an unintended mark. I would have to surmise it might be something of shock, to the individual in question, being told by the police, about an arrow found in someone chest, that might in fact be the flyer they released. Labeling it as a homicide may very well, convinced the shooter to raise a concern.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut
I see that on the surface of their argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I guess my incomprehension comes from the fact that the police were already in a similar situation just some years ago in Ontario, and were still facing those blanket ATT conditions in various provinces or territories when C-42 was passed. The only real difference is that the RPAL holder could forget to toss that piece of paper in with the firearm.
I doubt that because a few CFOs decided to start cutting away valid locations on their ATTs, it helped police across the country in any significant way.
Even before C-42 received assent, in the more restrictive provinces, you could have some club invites in your pocket and reasonably claim you were headed to any of those.
It seems unlikely that the valid RPAL holder, with no flags on the system, conforming with transport regulations, and offering a reasonable and valid location would be out to cause trouble; or that the now standard ATT conditions will cause low compliance with regulations for transport.
It doesn't compute for me, although I don't think I'm their target audience - except on paper.
Gun control laws aren't based in logic but mostly politics. The transport process was ridiculous and consumed expensive police manpower. You were basically paying an OPP officer $100k a year plus pension to oversee RPAL owners to use the firearms in legal venues. These RPAL shooters had already gone through extensive background checks and testing and were approved as safe. I would compare the process to granting a person a motorcycle license after taking a course and passing a test and then requiring to clear all travel plans in writing with the DOT because a SUZUKI Katana 750 is potentially deadly and nobody "needs" a high powered sportbike designed to go 200kmh. using the lefty logic "NOBODY NEEDS A RACEBIKE LIKE THAT FOR TRANSPORTATION".
Carrying on, complete NDP platform released tonight. Contains no gun control proposals.
Honestly welsh, do you actually think they would mention gun control at this stage of the game???Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Angry Tom ain't the quickest bunny in the bushes, but he is a little quicker than a turtle. Any mention of gun control today would have been political suicide, and another nail in his coffin.
I don't know about that. It doesn't seem to be slowing the shiny pony down,at all,even after he just had his butt nailed by CSSA and NFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
You may have missed my long-standing point that, contrary to right-wing belief, the NDP is generally ambivalent about gun control because it needs northern ridings. You may also have missed my point that politicians do what they think will deliver votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
I'm not sure why people think gun control is "political suicide." Gun owners in Canada are a pretty small voting block and the people who act like single-issue voters on gun control would almost all vote Conservative anyway, if it were not an issue. Parties trot out gun control proposals when they think there's an advantage to be gained.
It is interesting that the NDP would still be silent on gun control given their need to rally support in Quebec. I half-expected them to include something in the official platform for just this reason. The Liberals apparently think gun control proposals will deliver votes. The conservatives have used the gun registry as a means of rallying the voting block of single-issue gun owners. But the NDP is declining to campaign on it.
In any case, it's the least relevant platform right now, because the NDP is no longer the front runner and is unlikely to form the government.
\Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Uh.... your proof? The empirical evidence says exactly the opposite and thanks to video we can even see every word.... your statement seems to suggest a wish rather than a reality. By his comments he talks about "the Liberal" gun registry.
"What kind of duck do you hunt with an assault weapon? A pterodactyl?" - Tom Mulcair
"Track every gun" - Tom Mulcair
You can hear him actually say it here.
http://www.therebel.media/a_gun_regi...eau_or_mulcair
Tom Mulcair says NDP would give police tools to track all guns
'What kind of duck do you hunt with an assault weapon? A pterodactyl?'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-...guns-1.2859581
Also in their 2015 policy they want to give municipalities and provinces the ability to ban handguns and you can listen to Mulcair here too.
http://www.therebel.media/the_ndp_wa...er_to_ban_guns
I'm well aware of those statements.
Go through Mulcair's history and you will find any number of statements on any number of subjects, at odds with current NDP promises and policies. Why? Because that was what he thought at the time, or that was what he felt would give him an advantage at the time. Politicians promise what they think will play well, and Mulcair is a politician through and through. He cares about votes. He cares about advantage.
The NDP has a long-standing ambivalence about gun control which is plain when you take a look at that party's history. That ambivalence is driven by simple electoral realities, i.e. their reliance on northern ridings for support. When Mulcair was quoted in the press saying he wanted the registry restored, other senior party figures promptly said the opposite and the issue was not mentioned again.
I'm just sharing the party platforms here, as I find them, and trying to clue people in to the electoral realities we see reflected in the polls.
Fact: no references to gun control in the NDP platform. This does not require proof. You can read it yourself.
.... actually FICTION.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
1) The tracking he has clearly said and two the ban is in their Policy book.
FACT:
https://charrois.files.wordpress.com...olicy-book.pdf
3.8 Justice and crime prevention
Stopping the smuggling of illegal firearms and
enable all municipalities, provinces, and territories
to implement a ban on handguns.
The policy book is old, and the party has said it is not their platform. Their platform was released last night.
No gun control in the current NDP platform. That's a fact.
You are free to believe that they have a hidden agenda, but don't present it as a fact. Just as you are free to believe the Liberals intend to bring back the gun registry, although they have said they wouldn't, or that the CPC intends further deregulation, which it has not promised and is not promising.
The platform is what the platform is.
I stand corrected it isn't part of their election platform......it is just what they said they will do and part of their 2015 policies... for after the vote...funny it was policy up until they thought they might win and it might cost them votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
So according to this... "resolutions passed at party conventions"
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politi...rm-ndp-advisor
From the Policy Book
The NDP’s policy book, reflective of resolutions passed at party conventions, is exhaustive. Among the policies the book says “New Democrats believe in”:
Infrastructure
“Improving rail travel for both passengers and goods, and developing proposals for high-speed systems.”
Jobs
“Creating jobs by investing in the real economy and regulating speculators.”
Trade
“Promoting trade agreements that include enforceable standards for human, workers’ and women’s rights and environmental sustainability, and that protect public services.”
Budgetary policy
“Balancing budgets and confining short-term deficits to severe economic downturns and national security emergencies.”
Agriculture
“Restoring the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk marketer for wheat and barley.”....
...
Firearms
“Stopping the smuggling of illegal firearms and enable all municipalities, provinces, and territories to implement a ban on handguns.”
...
The wheat board is another idiot move among many but saying they aren't going to do what they have passed and said is sort of like the Liberal's about Justin Trudope's comments about his favourite gov't...they can watch the video over and over and he can answer China's dictatorship but they won't believe the realities.
You're absolutely right, each to their own beliefs. And I fully believe either Tom or Justin,with a majority, will do something with gun control!!Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I sincerely hope I am wrong welsh and you were right all along with your thoughts and feelings on the issue.
It might not be in their Policy book, but considering Muclair has stated as recently as Aug he would be in some for of tracking who owns what gun's so the Police can track everyone. I guess I will go with what he actually has said. Has the NDP in the past month made any statement that what Muclair said in Aug was wrong??
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I sure hope that you're right,welsh,but,I'm still very concerned about Justin Trudeau's comments regarding implementing an "Australian system" which has all but destroyed the hunting and firearms industry in that country.
They haven't said anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
I tend to believe Mulcair would bring in UN marking rules and say this is what he meant. Nobody has the stomach to sell a new LGR.
Okay, but, are not the ledgers and notebooks saying CFO on them or any other types of notes gun shops record your info into still some form of registry? Gone are the days where you just show your valid pal, pay, get your item , receipt and go arent they?
Ive seen local gun shops my way record stuff into books, one outright with CFO on the cover. I bet bass pro lebaron and all them are saving record in some form. So the police and government still have means available to track who has what/buys what. or am i wrong?
Regardless of the political mandate or platform of any party....when there is a massacre of human lives, there is a knee jerk response due to public pressure. That is how we ended up with the LGR in the first place.
All you have to do is look at what happened in Australia....
(note it was a conservative government)
I still remember the images of the destruction of all those guns..Quote:
Just 12 days after the 1996 shooting in Port Arthur, then-Prime Minister John Howard – a conservative who had just been elected with the help of gun owners – pushed through not only new gun control laws, but also the most ambitious gun buyback program Australia had ever seen. Some 650,000 automatic and semiautomatic rifles were handed in and destroyed under the program.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...psaro7nk3u.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
It can,t be true a Conservative Government throwing hunters under the bus,where is Rob Ford when we need him,(I never throw my friends under the bus).
You can twist it any way you want to. Guns are a double win for the NDP an Libs. As we all know there is no longer a LGR, but we still have CFO, RCMP and PAL/RPAL systems. They will bend the gun laws so sideways, and heavily taxed it will kill us. So when you get a letter in the mail from the RCMP stating that as a gun owner, cause you have a PAL, please pay 100$ per firearms you want to legally retain and use. We will gladly pick up the rest. So you say FU, there is no proof. BUT you have a PAL??? TRUE, So ig you have no guns, why have a PAL, which by the way will get very expensive. AGAIN, you say FU, so one day on the way to marsh, you get pulled over for stop sign, speeding etc. WAIT you have a gun?? WELL that is nifty, you said you don't own any. AND so the media circus begins. CHARGES: Illegal possession, illegal transport, fraud against the crown, etc. ONE SCAPEGOAT for the media to hang, and the Libs and NDP to the praises of how they are making the streets safer.. And all by enacting a few back door bills.
The way some on here can see the future they must be very rich indeed.:joker: With this great ability did they buy Google stock at 8 bucks a pop when it came out?:sad:
I doubt anyone bought for 8 bucks since it originally opened at 85.00 bucks a share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
$85 a share
Earlier in the day, Google slashed its planned IPO by nearly half, cutting the expected price to $85 to $95 a share from its original range of $108 to $135 a share. It later confirmed its initial going-public price would be $85 a share.Aug 19, 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
OK pick another stock or the winner of next years , Queens Plate if you can see the future. " I know they are going to take away all my guns even though they are saying they won't".:whacked:
Oh yeah.....just because they said they won't. We can take it to the bank,right? Liberals have never lied to us before,right? ROFLMFAO!!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Yes but some people are saying that they KNOW that they will take away the guns, not that they THINK they will. Big diff, mind reader.
Are you saying Muclair was lying when he stated several times this Summer that he would put in place a way to track who owns what firearms using the serial numbers?
If that isn't a registry then I don't know what is.
Justin has also stated as recently as a week ago that he will allow Provinces to ban some guns if they wish. Is he lying when he said that??
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Can help but notice you are not making any reference this time to Australia.Rolling on the floor......off.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
That's exactly what I would suggest. Saying "we won't revive the registry but we'll magically track everything anyway" was just so much political noise: making it sound like you have a plan when in fact you're just trying to differentiate yourself from the other parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Politicians do this kind of thing all the time.
Well,yeah,Gilroy. Everybody knows that all the Aussies are completely nuts no matter their political stripe,right? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I was half expecting to see a slew of guys selling their semi's this morning while they still have some market value :)
Gave my m1-garand away in the spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I saw this coming and already sold my semi auto magazine fed BAR centerfire. I can always replace it if its a non issue but didn't want to get stung for a rifle of that value.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
BAR as in "full milspec" or just a modern BAR ? If it is as I suspect just a modern BAR you may have jumped the gun (pardon the pun)Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Honestly as much as I hate red I don't think they will because that was the old libby play book and he's trying some hard to look more like a new party rather than the old with a coat of paintQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The way some have jumped to conclusions, I thought Trudeau would have included a semi - auto and hand gun ban in his acceptance speech.
You haven't heard the throne speech yet.
They might even sneak in a second term, allegedly Doug Ford thinks he would be good fit as the new conservative leader. Not sure I could ever bring myself to support the Ford family.
I hope that isn't the case, but provincially we have shown that we (conservatives) are slow learners when it comes to picking the right front man.
I don't think guns will be brought up in the first throne speech, that just wouldn't be a neighborly thing to do...
Time to bury the gun safes in a deep hole!
Anyone got a chart that shows what size ABS pipe it takes for each model of gun?
Burial proof gun vaults !!!! I can see the market for that developing soon.
I don't own any semi's. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
I sold mine,lol.
Typical pattern: PM passes best-before date, placeholder leader gets killed, party struggles to find new, charismatic leader as opposing PM approaches best-before date.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
P.E. Trudeau -> John Turner
Mulroney -> Campbell (party meltdown follows)
Chretien -> Mr. Dithers (party meltdown follows)
Harper -> ???
The CPC may be entering a rudderless phase, but that's just where the Liberals have been for the past 10 years. It's the circle of life....
Now, apart from that....
I don't believe the Liberals plan any sweeping gun control measures, for reasons already explained. Chicken Littles all over the Internet right now, proclaiming that the end is nigh because of things said long ago. Politicians do what they think will win support. The campaign for 2019 is already underway, and there is no real sign the public wants new, expensive gun control measures.
Guns? What guns? I don't know what you are talking about sir, have a nice day.
How about Bernard Lord or Pierre Poilivere or Mike Harris or Baird?
Exactly, the registration cost a ton of money and crime did not drop, the registration was ended and crime did not go up, they now have evidence from a Canadian standpoint that the registration will not do anything, good or bad, for crime and even Justin said it was a waste of money and would not be worth it. Remember guys, the conservatives started the long gun registry, not the Liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
As for banning, I think the only way we see a ban is if there is a shooting, based on the events of last year they should ban cars and pre-64 Winchester 94 rifles in 30-30 before they ban semi's, it is all about perspective, if nothing happens then nobody will have a freak out. All we can do is hope that the people at the top have a head on their shoulders, I think that Tom would have been a lot worse on the gun owners than Justin as he publicly stated that he would ban semi's and it was very obvious for a while that Harper was not going to get back in, he overstayed his welcome for a lot of people.
I agree, sort of. I guess what makes me nervous is the promise to repeal C-42 and the idea of "doing a lot around classification". Reclassification can be so much worse that another registry. Welsh, you weigh in on nearly all of these types of posts and you seem to be very well informed. Do you think that nothing will change? I really hope you're right, but I have serious doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The facts don't matter. They just spin it however they want.
Hope for the best, expect the worse.
JT will pass the burden and political risk onto Wynne. She will see it as a "revenue tool" and will likely introduce some kind of licensing/ tax system. If you make it expensive enough many will give it up which is the real intent.
When it comes to gun control, the facts have never mattered. Emotion dictates the agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by upnorth
I fear you may be onto something here terry!! Maybe nothing will happen re gun control, but I have serious reservations that something will be coming down the pipe in the not too distant future.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Keep eps our fingers crossed and hope for the best. That's all we can do for now.
Well, things are going to change because they're going to do just what they promised. Fortunately, most of those changes are small but some are not really well defined so we don't know how big they might be. Just how will handgun RPAL background checks be "enhanced," for example? We don't know what that means yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Marques
Not repealing Bill C-42, btw: just rolling back the ATT to the way things were before, and putting classification back in RCMP hands. The rest of C-42 will stand, it seems.
Given that classification passes back to the RCMP, the Liberals would need to change the definitions of the classes to force any classification changes. That change will be bad for Swiss Arms owners (likely), but leaving it in the hands of a Liberal cabinet minister would arguably be worse....
I foresee that the next 'gun violence' massacre in Canada will force the governing politicians to boiler plate the Australian model and modify our present Firearm legislation to add further restrictions and reclassifications...it's inevitable.
Might as well bone up on the rules :)
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms.../australia.php
I suspect you are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
At least the Liberals don't have an issue with money, so there should be lots of funds avaiable to do a buy back of guns they no longer want you to have...I think Australia budgeted $500 million to compensate owners who found themselves now in possession of newly classified 'prohibited' firearms.
Quote:
The buyback program started in most states on October 1, 1996, and ended on September 30, 1997. More than 640,000 prohibited firearms were surrendered nationwide as part of the buyback program. In addition, it was reported that about 60,000 nonprohibited firearms were voluntarily surrendered without compensation. According to a telephone poll conducted in 1999 on behalf of the federal government by Gun Control Australia, there were about 3.25 million guns in Australia prior to the 1996–1997 buyback program. One study on the impact of the buyback states that “[i]n terms of the absolute numbers of guns destroyed, Australia’s gun buyback ranks as the largest destruction of civilian firearms in any country over the period 1991–2006.” The buyback was reported to have resulted in the withdrawal of one-fifth of the stock of civilian firearms in the country and substantially reduced the number of households possessing a firearm.
sorry double tap
RELAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Sorry if all this talk has you on edge Standup....maybe you need to sit quietly out in a tree stand for awhile. We're just musing over a possible reality down the road :)Quote:
Originally Posted by standup
Ya but all I'm saying is, ain't gonna happen. Not a lyberal alive that doesn't know mention of anything from the old play book (registry included) wouldn't kill them come next election. They know they only won cause Harper was up and turdole had the rock star appeal. They know darned well we're going to have a Kenny, Raitt or Baird in there so their not going to want baggage. I'd bet the AK I just bought on it.
SO RELAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm saying it'll be beyond their control....it will happen because of events, not political posturing.
I'll agree. If one of the 25,000 Syrians he's letting in w/o decent clearance shoots us all up then You and I will be punished. Did something sound truthful yet phuked up in what I just said?
Things like this don't help, and it isn't always the immigrants http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/10/22/...ond-rd-robberyQuote:
Originally Posted by standup
Ya and I'll reiterate res and proh stuff will be leaned on. Note it was not a long gun
I don't think they will discriminate, if and when they open the can of worms.
just because he is white does not mean he is not an immigrant. plenty of white immigrants come from Europe and they still require an in depth security check.
there is quite a misconception between immigrant and refugee!Quote:
Originally Posted by wannafish
an immigrant has to meet criteria (for the SOLE benefit of Canadians), and with the exception of 'family reunion' (which not many Europeans apply for), those are not easy to meet.
refugees need to be just that and Canadians will accommodate them (zero benefit for Canada required).
for example, you cannot immigrate to Canada if you have a substantial criminal record or HIV.
if you a refugee, you don't need to show proof of your criminal record and can have HIV or other things that will have a significant financial impact on the health system. to add to that, if you look at Sweden (and some other countries who accepted large numbers of muslim refugees), you will have to notice that they will share in a say non-consensual way HIV, HepC and all the other nearly forgotten deceases
Incase people were thinking semi-autos were not being looked over by the Police.
And on the Liberals Radar they are.
You can bet your coffee Liberals are reading this carefully and ideas are being thought up to ban semi-auto's
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp...atic-1.3284661
certainly nothing new. a full automatic is simpler than a semi; anyone with the most basic understanding of how things work mechanically can convert a semi into a full automatic - and that is the no. 1 reason for the magazine limitation!
5-6 cartridges in a semi are way more dangerous than in a fully automatic weapon. so unless you have a high capacity magazine you must not only be nuts, but really stupid on top to convert a semi-automatic rifle over.
with the same token, common sense will not prevent the left and the media to exploit it...
"There are no documented cases where the [blanked out] technique has been used in a criminal offence in Canada. Should this technique be encountered in Canada, law enforcement has the power to act by laying charges under the Criminal Code."
And that should stop this right in its tracks. But it wont. The Libs are dying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
Read that this morning and was surprised the CBC waited till today to start the fear mongering about semi-automatic guns. I figured they would have started Tuesday morning. The young Liberal of Canada group and Senator Hervieux-Payette must be jumping with glee reading this.
I hope not I'm hoping my boy is going to have a good hunting opportunity with my firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
re-classifying 'dangerous' semi-automatic..... that can be converted to automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdaddy
I'd like to point out this article.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/...pons-1.3117883
he made semi-automatic weapons in his tool shed..... like seriously. all you need is bare essentials to make them. just like grease gun. but explaining it to a liberal it's just making my head nauseous
Reclassifications, restrictions, idiocy..... that is what we can expect from the LIEbrals Personally (I have no evidence... yet) but the Australian model where pumps, semi's and anything they can willbe reclassified and turned in and scraped. Heck I wouldn't even be surprised to see the requirements for an ATT for those firearms left over not in police and military hands.
Gun registry? This expert says what Liberals have in mind is MUCH worse
http://www.therebel.media/cssa_direc...a_gun_registry
All through the election campaign,the Liberals stated,unequivocally,that there would be no return to to a LGR "under a Liberal watch". The media and the opposition worked their collective arses off to make sure gun control didn't become an election issue,stifling questions at every turn,of course,I'm using 20/20 hindsight. It was enough to swing "red" Tories who were very,very leery of some Conservative legislation (C-51) and foreign policies that wrankled their feathers.
My "read" on this is that all parties know how gun control is pure political poison and want to back away from it as much as possible. After all,there's much more important fish to fry than POing a few million gun owners....again. Would they betray that promise in a first term that will certainly get them booted,maybe forever,in four short years? I don't think they're that stupid....I hope.
no kidding, I sure hope they prioritize the legalization of pot :)Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Just make sure you own lever or bolt action guns GW...and your kids will be good to go :)Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
These are ideologues and it is a Trudeau, with advisers like Gerald Butts and Omar Alghabra they will push through as much as fast and as hard as they can, they will make the Australian 28 days look slow if they can get away with it. No I think they have alot of legislation that will be pushed through as fast as they can and are already written, items like rolling back accountability for Unions and reserves, rolling back tax cuts, carbon taxes, rolling back C-24, rolling back C-42, rolling back mandatory sentences, abandoning the fight against terrorism (ISIL, etc) maybe even the self defense/citizen arrest (Lucky Moose bill) and of course firearms will be one of the first. They will want to do as much damage as fast as they can in the hope that before the next election they can say "see we were right" or people will forget. It will be a real change.... not a good on for most Canadians but a real change.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The prime mission of all politicians starts the very first day they take office and that's to get re-elected. The amount of work required to do what you describe could never realistically be accomplished in one term especially with a very strong opposition and if they do,the Liberals will have the shortest government since Kim Campbell.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Don't forget "Joe Who?"Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
This is the thing everyone keeps forgetting.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
And by the way, there's no reason why the Liberals would repeal the Lucky Moose bill, considering that it was passed with unanimous support. In fact, the original author of that bill was Olivia Chow, who tabled it as a private member's bill. (She was the local MP.) The government defeated it so that they could reintroduce it, and take the credit.
It's also about time people stopped saying the Liberals are planning to repeal C-42. They aren't. They're repealing two provisions only.
That only works if we take the time to re-register. I won't be taking part in that madness.
During the entire time we suffered through the registry, I was never asked once to produce a registration card at my home, at the range nor in the field. Why would anyone think enforcement would be any more effective this time around?
Confirming the sale of a non-restricted with the CFC is not in C-42 but I'll bet before two years are up, legislation is tabled where anybody calling in a transfer, the details will be recorded. What details will be recorded, however, remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The actual registration, if enacted would be the least of our worries ! Reclassifications and firearms marking will be more intrusive. I predict that anything that remotely looks like a military firearm, will be either restricted or prohibited !
Oh I know. I'm just pointing out to be prepared for this manoeuvre by the Libs as well. There were two things that WC kept harping on since the passing of C-19 - first was tracking firearms sales/transfers of non-restricted and second was reclassifications - all those semi-autos she despises, disappeared in the wind. (Mike in Canmore!) I believe, this time around, there would be massive non-compliance with any ban and firearms owners could hold on for 4 years and try for change in Ottawa to reverse any legislation. We'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
I was a victim of reclassification once - a firearm I owned went from non-restricted to prohibited. I'll leave it at that.
Its all well and good to say you would refuse to register, if it came to that, and I agree with the sentiment. However, unless you quit hunting, and don't take your firearms out of the house, you run the risk of being caught with an unregistered firearm. All it would take is something as simple as being caught for speeding or get into an accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by annuvin
Exactly. Im not prepared to stop hunting nor do I want to risk being charged for a firearms offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
It is a legitimate concern for all of us;
but we should also be banging the drums for the controls we currently have in place, the paths that have to be followed to obtain ANY firearm. And after that, what we have to do to be able to use them in the field or range. Handguns are another matter entirely and have a very successful set of rules for their purchase, training and use.
Bleeding hearts forget that we have one of the most successful systems in the world which includes proper storage and transport. Politicians on the other hand care less since it is a vote gathering tool for them.
While I understand your concern, it should be pointed out that there is no way the Liberals have either the resources, space nor manpower to charge us all nor lock us up in jail. Hell, they can't even deal with the criminal element that uses illicit firearms while committing violent crimes, never mind the millions of Canadians that own them legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
The only way a registration or ban would work is if we all comply with it. Otherwise, it becomes yet another piece of failed legislation and the party that passes such nonsense simply look like dopes in the process... Especially when said legislation has just recently been rejected by the majority of voters in this country.
They don't have to jail you.
Do you have any idea what a criminal conviction will do to your life?