Throne Speech: Liberals to introduce Gun control measures

Some people say they want to have a discussion, but only if they agree with your opinion.

All of JT's platform panders to folks who just want to "feel good". He and wynne have everything in common. I don't feel very good about where we are heading as a country.

But Harper lost so for the next 4 years keep a handy supply of Vaseline ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

All of JT's platform panders to folks who just want to "feel good". He and wynne have everything in common. I don't feel very good about where we are heading as a country.

But Harper lost so for the next 4 years keep a handy supply of Vaseline ready.

---

Pretty much, we elected a dictatorship lover, we can see Quebec putting through legislation to create it's own long gun registry and we know that handguns and "assault weapons"... what ever that means (semi, pump, lever musket..?????, their definition) will be reclassified... it will be an interesting January and February, I think I will be watchinghttp://www.therebel.media/ more and more as I am trusting the rest of the media less and less!

For example, which one seems to be on the honest gun owners side?

Gun Registry?
http://www.therebel.media/gun_regist...ne_speech_said

Australian gun laws...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/we...d-20-years-ago
Pushed through by John Howard, the conservative prime minister at the time, the National Firearms Agreement prohibited automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles and pump shotguns, in all but unusual cases. It tightened licensing rules, established a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, created a national gun registry,

* Note... just this year... "The introduction to the Australian market this year of a shotgun that allows rapid fire using a lever action rekindled debate over the restrictions,
...
The government banned a version of the shotgun that holds seven rounds but approved a five-round version. There are also efforts to lower the legal age of supervised shooters in Tasmania, to 15 from 16."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Pretty much, we elected a dictatorship lover, we can see Quebec putting through legislation to create it's own long gun registry and we know that handguns and "assault weapons"... what ever that means (semi, pump, lever musket..?????, their definition) will be reclassified...

---

No, we don't. No one has proposed to reclassify handguns or "assault weapons."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Alcohol is actually a very good analogy for gun control, much better than cars, which is what people usually talk about.

Alcohol is not something people need. It has many well known, documented ill effects. And for that reason, we regulate alcohol in various ways (age limits, liquor licensing, penalties for drunk driving). We also see relentless messaging re problems with alcohol, urging people to drink responsibly, not to drink and drive, and to recognize the signs of problem drinking.

We don't seek to ban alcohol. Some people will say that's because Prohibition tried it, and failed, but that's not true. Prohibition failed because of the reason we don't seek to ban alcohol: we don't seek to ban it because lots of people like it. We recognize that people ought to be allowed to do the things they like, and that we need to balance that freedom against the public interest, and we are reasonably comfortable with the balance we have.

Guns are similar: they are not (excepting the remote north) a necessity. They are associated with well documented problems, e.g. higher rates of suicide, higher risks for domestic homicide, etc. We regulate them to mitigate these problems. But the difference is, we are not happy with the balance that is struck. This applies on both sides. Some people continually demand greater controls, and unlike alcohol prohibitionists, they are not seen as loons. Other people insist there should be no controls.

Also, unlike alcohol, guns are a partisan political issue. This is a serious problem.

We don't see drinkers complaining that drunk driving laws infringe on their rights and that people ought to be allowed to drink and drive as long as they don't get drunk and cause accidents, and we don't see one political party pandering to that point of view while another continually proposes lowered blood alcohol limits with the goal of getting to zero. Instead, we have broad agreÉement that there is a problem and that we have to deal with it. We can put anti-drunk driving ads on TV without a backlash. We can't do that with anything gun-related. We are unable to reach a consensus on guns. This is not purely a problem caused by pro-control activists. There is no shortage of people who would read Terry's first two sentences and call him a Fudd, ready to throw everyone under the bus, etc. The problem is caused by people dedicated to polarizing the discussion (and to perpetuating the idea that the left is coming for your guns) because it serves their ends.

---

Thanks for the reply welsh,and a very good one ,i might add. I was not looking for a confrontation,just your thoughts. And no Rugger i am not attacking anyone.

Actually welsh I find you one of the more moderate and balanced persons on the forum that has different views than myself and the majority of us that post on the political aspects of our discussions.

Would I be wrong in suggesting alcohol (and or drugs) is also likely involved in most of the homicide and suicide cases.....that involve guns......You can regulate,state,initiate and legislate anything and everything you want to try, everything but insanity and mental illness that is. And there in lies the problem. Striking a harmonized balance between ,gun and non gun owners,differing political views,urban and rural citizens, and misinformed individuals that have no clue and care less as to what legal gun owners have to adhere to , in order to keep guns.

I personally like the bomb and bomber analogy verses the gun and shooter one!!!!same but different,different but same, if that makes any sense!!!!! Unfortunately most of our politicians ,citizens and news media never want to look at it objectively........ they only want to demonize guns, any and every chance they get.

On a lighter note , i like the picture of your springer on your profile.Raised a few litters with my son and trained a few .Truly enjoyed them.

cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Some people say they want to have a discussion, but only if they agree with your opinion.

---

Hello pot meet kettle.................lol ..

Three sides to every tale or story,,, mine, yours and the truth,,,.....personally I like mine, you like yours ,,, go figure....alas we are no further ahead lmao,,,

If a Conservative doesn't like guns he just doesn't buy one. When a Liberal doesn't like guns he wants them banned. Carry on boys........:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushman

Would I be wrong in suggesting alcohol (and or drugs) is also likely involved in most of the homicide and suicide cases.....that involve guns.....

---

You'd be absolutely right on that. Alcohol is usually involved.

As it has been stated, the Throne Speech was vague and therefore anything from it is pure conjecture. Having said that, there is a current news story that is a little telling of where this may go. The recent announcement to add members to the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee is concerning.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politi...y-board-member

If the first goal is to get illegal guns off the street then its a winner. If it goes sideways then it becomes an issue quickly.

It will be interesting to see if they actually keep their promise of not having the long-gun control. It is upsetting that one government goes ahead with a planned action and then the next government reverses that action and on and on it goes, a big waste of time money and effort.