Hmmm. Yea, having first time license applicants have to participate in classroom safety courses seems to be a weaker version of what it was before. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Printable View
Hmmm. Yea, having first time license applicants have to participate in classroom safety courses seems to be a weaker version of what it was before. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
That wasn't the whole content of Bill C-42.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
There's also the whole long gun registry thing ... abolishing the registry unquestionably removed a control. Whether that had any effect is a separate question.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Oh I know. I was just picking something out. Didn't the current PM agree the abolishment of the registry was a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I think he has made a remark to the effect that the registry was a mistake.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Canadians electing that self entitled son of a Cuban dictator was a bigger mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Remarks like this do not serve the gun lobby or gun owners or hunters very well.
If you are going to knock people or voters in a personal way you hurt your cause.
WHEN THEY GO LOW WE GO HIGH.
I stand by my words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Just so I understand this.
Only a few still argue or try to argue that the registry was anything but a wasteful mistake.Fewer still try to make cases that it did any good, let alone good that outweighed the harm.
So Im just curious how something, no matter what "it" is, if it adds zero, once its removed results in something that was weaker ( or less) than what went before.
Only fuzzy anti gun math or political math can do that. How does removing a redundant, non effective, wasteful, harmful layer of security (lets call it a firewall) make the existing framework/firewall/fortress behind it any weaker. Or since when, does +1 ( Our effective gun controls) + 0 (the registry) Inplain English it did no good, added zero and even they now admit was a huge mistake.......- 0 ( the registry) result in anything less than 1. The claim being thrown about by them, and think?? the rcmp?? (to sure on this) and the Pro GC crowd is that Harper weakened Gun Controls.
Have to laugh.
on one hand they admit it was a colossal waste and mistake that did nothing and are afraid to broach the subject anymore.
on the other hand they "blame" Harper for weakening gun controls
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Talking as a former LEO the removal of the gun registry from a law enforcement point of view presents more difficulties.For example:
The job becomes more dangerous as their is no prior notification long guns are in a dwelling where a call for service has taken place. Yes I know we would take precautions in any call but a heads up about firearms is always better.
Now lets say we are at a domestic call and one of the two parties has access to a long gun, unless its declared by one of the parties it would not be seized and could be used later on.
Or how about I locate a bunch of long guns on a bad guy, no registry, so the lawful owner no longer gets them returned.
Or how about a person convicted and the officer is ordered by the courts to seize all firearms in the accused possession, well now pretty much impossible.
I could go on and on about this but my position is well known and that is why most all police services across the country and their union,s wanted the long gun registry to stay.
My last point is one I have made on here for years. When gun owners did register long guns they looked like moderate people who were willing to compromise and I always thought this made us look good.
Now that the registry is gone, guess what still no peace, the anti gun lobby will keep on and find new ways. So now they are highlighting "straw purchasers" and using this as a call for action.
This thinking caused 2 LEO's to be killed in Alberta. The registry said the fella had no gun's to young Cops went in shot and killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy