Canadian elected's weighing in.... Scary

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
57,913
Location
Ontario, Canada
So, we have a bill going through parliament that simplifies/streamlines some parts of the firearms ownership process. None of the rules regarding restricted/non-restricted change and what would be in place is still vastly more strict than how things used to be before the whole gun registry fiasco and gong show that created.

However, our elected officials apparently have a serious lack of reading comprehension and/or a complete fundamental misunderstanding of the laws already on the books. How are you qualified to speak on a topic when you aren't even aware of what it applies to??? How can you speak authoritatively on a bill when you don't even understand it?

These comments are absolute gold (taken from a post on Gunnie Spot):

Quote:
Comments made by opposition members at C-42 3rd reading:


Quote:
Alain Giguerre, NDP, Marc-Aurele-Fortin:

Farmers who want to guard against foxes do not need a machine gun. We are talking about a fox. Could we agree that some firearms are dangerous, that they should not be owned by just anybody and that regulations are needed? Anyone who goes duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG probably has a problem between the ears, and it is perhaps a good thing that they cannot get that type of weapon.


Quote:
Adam Vaughn, Liberal, Trinity – Spadina:

How does making it easier to bring a gun into the city, easier to travel around a city with a gun, and easier to use a gun in a city, where no one is hunting ducks, no one is hunting raccoons, and no one is going after the squirrel population, make our cities safe


Quote:
Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber:

We expect people to register their cars. There are serial numbers on cars. Automobiles are things that are used for useful, peaceful purposes. Guns are made to kill. Whether they are made to kill animals in hunting for pleasure or they are made to kill humans, they are made to kill.


Quote:
Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca:

What we are talking about here is that when the police stop someone, under Bill C-42 that person would not have to have an authorization to transport the weapon in the car, but they could automatically talk about five different categories of places they could be transporting that gun to. We are not talking about the law-abiding sport shooter. We are talking about the ability of the RCMP to enforce the laws against illegal transportation of guns on those who are in fact interested in gun violence and crime.


Quote:
Adam Vaughn, Liberal, Trinity – Spadina:

Do the Conservatives not believe that there should be restrictions on selling ammunition, particularly in urban centres where it is not used for any rational purpose? No one is hunting squirrels in downtown Toronto that I am aware of.


Quote:
Pauline Ayala, NDP, Honore Mercier:

I am very concerned about that because there are so many weapons out there. On one hand, the government talks about national security, and on the other hand it allows weapons to be transported without much oversight.


Quote:
Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois Rivieres:

The main objective of this bill is to pander to a minority of firearms owners for whom safety is an afterthought. True to form, the Conservatives are driving a wedge between Canadians in different communities. I urge all members to vote against this dangerous and ineffective bill.
 
Overkill, it's heartbreaking to read what has been passed into law in Canada. Sadly the anti-gunners are coming after us..led by Bloomberg. Washington state fell last election and they've got Nevada and Arizona as top priorities now. We have a fight on our hands to keep our freedoms. Hope you can take any victory and build on it.
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Overkill, it's heartbreaking to read what has been passed into law in Canada. Sadly the anti-gunners are coming after us..led by Bloomberg. Washington state fell last election and they've got Nevada and Arizona as top priorities now. We have a fight on our hands to keep our freedoms. Hope you can take any victory and build on it.


Just out of curiosity, are you concerned about any other freedoms being infringed upon?
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Overkill, it's heartbreaking to read what has been passed into law in Canada. Sadly the anti-gunners are coming after us..led by Bloomberg. Washington state fell last election and they've got Nevada and Arizona as top priorities now. We have a fight on our hands to keep our freedoms. Hope you can take any victory and build on it.


Well the bill has got as far as it has in spite of these dolts so the hope is it will be passed into law shortly.

Amazingly, back before it was decided we all of a sudden needed to register and track our guns, people were not mounting .50 cal machine guns to their jeeps and shooting down planes, so I'm not sure where that idea (or perhaps where in said individual's posterior) it was pulled from but it is such a marked departure from reality that I'm actually stunned that it was used as an argument.

Similarly, for those who are going to be moving around restricted guns, already in possession of the license to do so, this just makes that process a bit less cumbersome. Those transporting illegal arms for the purpose of selling them on the black market aren't authorized or licensed in the first place, so how does this law (with regards to the requirement for an ATT) have ANY bearing on that? Subsequently, the comments that are speaking as to this aspect of the legislation are completely off their rocker and obviously have zero understanding as to what is required in the first place nor about how the criminal element operates.

It blows my mind that the concept of the criminal element not following the laws on the books in the first place, hence them being the criminal element, is somehow lost on these people. That altering the rules for the law abiding somehow changes how the criminals operate
crazy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It blows my mind that the concept of the criminal element not following the laws on the books in the first place, hence them being the criminal element, is somehow lost on these people. That altering the rules for the law abiding somehow changes how the criminals operate
crazy2.gif



Bingo.
 
Originally Posted By: BubbaFL
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It blows my mind that the concept of the criminal element not following the laws on the books in the first place, hence them being the criminal element, is somehow lost on these people. That altering the rules for the law abiding somehow changes how the criminals operate
crazy2.gif



Bingo.


Hard to believe criminals not wanting to follow the law. Its crazy...
crazy2.gif
 
Unfortunately, many people up here have little knowledge of the firearm regulations that are in place. Its not just politicians. I really wish we could go back to pre C-17 days when there was many less regulations.
 
Originally Posted By: slowdime

Just out of curiosity, are you concerned about any other freedoms being infringed upon?


Sure am. Just out of curiosity, are you aware of the difference between rights and freedoms? Are you more concerned with freedoms or rights?

Example: Under our Constitution we have the right to vote and the freedom to vote for whomever we choose.

If you're a gun control advocate consider this, in Arizona from 2006 to 2013 all categories of crime except rape have decreased in crimes/100,000 people. During this period many laws relaxing gun controls have been passed. Coincidence? Population during this time has increased over 7%. The government does not need more gun control laws, the government needs to enforce the laws that exist now.
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: slowdime

Just out of curiosity, are you concerned about any other freedoms being infringed upon?


Sure am. Just out of curiosity, are you aware of the difference between rights and freedoms? Are you more concerned with freedoms or rights?

Example: Under our Constitution we have the right to vote and the freedom to vote for whomever we choose.

If you're a gun control advocate consider this, in Arizona from 2006 to 2013 all categories of crime except rape have decreased in crimes/100,000 people. During this period many laws relaxing gun controls have been passed. Coincidence? Population during this time has increased over 7%. The government does not need more gun control laws, the government needs to enforce the laws that exist now.


I'm well aware of the difference between rights and freedoms and I strongly support the freedom of individuals to live as they see fit and to exercise the rights they choose. Speaking abstractly, when freedoms of one infringe upon the rights of another, those freedoms need to be reconsidered and/or regulated if need be.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Overkill, it's heartbreaking to read what has been passed into law in Canada. Sadly the anti-gunners are coming after us..led by Bloomberg. Washington state fell last election and they've got Nevada and Arizona as top priorities now. We have a fight on our hands to keep our freedoms. Hope you can take any victory and build on it.


Well the bill has got as far as it has in spite of these dolts so the hope is it will be passed into law shortly.

Amazingly, back before it was decided we all of a sudden needed to register and track our guns, people were not mounting .50 cal machine guns to their jeeps and shooting down planes, so I'm not sure where that idea (or perhaps where in said individual's posterior) it was pulled from but it is such a marked departure from reality that I'm actually stunned that it was used as an argument.

Similarly, for those who are going to be moving around restricted guns, already in possession of the license to do so, this just makes that process a bit less cumbersome. Those transporting illegal arms for the purpose of selling them on the black market aren't authorized or licensed in the first place, so how does this law (with regards to the requirement for an ATT) have ANY bearing on that? Subsequently, the comments that are speaking as to this aspect of the legislation are completely off their rocker and obviously have zero understanding as to what is required in the first place nor about how the criminal element operates.

It blows my mind that the concept of the criminal element not following the laws on the books in the first place, hence them being the criminal element, is somehow lost on these people. That altering the rules for the law abiding somehow changes how the criminals operate
crazy2.gif




Well that's just it isn't it overkill. Criminals are already breaking the rules. So it's not going to change how criminals operate. What it succeeds in doing is re-defines what is now considered criminal. Potentially turning peaceful law abiding citizens who may be collectors or hunters or nothing more than range shooting into possible criminals which then opens the door for police to conduct investigations which could include seach of your home and property and potential seizure of the vehicle transporting the unlawful firearm as well as seizure of the property used to store the firearms.
And when it comes to seizure they take it on the spot and you have to fight to get it back.
The reality is that gun violence won't be affected whatsoever and the only ones who will feel the brunt of this is law abiding citizens being told what property they can have in their homes.
Taking away our rights one sliver at a time.
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
I offered my sympathies for the sad state of gun control in Canada.... where are you going with this?

slowdime, is there any hope?


Not going anywhere. Just asked a simple question, what I got was a patronizing answer. I don't know what hope you're speaking of, but sure, I have some.
 
I meant

Overkill is there any hope?

No intent to patronize you just trying to understand the direction and intent of your question. What other freedoms were you thinking about?

Whether in Canada or the USA enacting more gun laws does nothing to stop criminals who ignore them anyhow.
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
I meant

Overkill is there any hope?

No intent to patronize you just trying to understand the direction and intent of your question. What other freedoms were you thinking about?

Whether in Canada or the USA enacting more gun laws does nothing to stop criminals who ignore them anyhow.


The original post I replied to had a tinfoil hat sound to it so I was asking if you were concerned about other freedoms as well, such as the freedom of participation in the democratic process. If a politician runs for office and holds a position favoring gun control and he wins the election, the right of the people to vote for a candidate they mostly agree with has been exercised. The initiative in Washington state you speak of was voted on directly by the people, their rights were exercised and the outcome reflected popular opinion within the state.
I have no problem with gun ownership at all. Personally I would never own one, but I know plenty of people that do, and that's fine.
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill. I don't disagree one bit that criminals will not comply with any government action to restrict the purchase of guns.
However there are plenty of folks out there that either lack the proper judgement or are mentally unstable.
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace, that's about as accurate as saying that the death penalty is a deterrent against murder, it still happens anyhow.
 
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill.


Guns are not "used to kill". They are designed to kill. If, how, and when they accomplish that task is up to the person who picks it up.
 
My gun has not killed anyone in almost 40 years! This despite the fact it is loaded and either near me or on me all the time.

The facts are that crime is DOWN where folks carry, and the NRA has to publish all the pro gun stories because the media will not.

Forget about outlawing guns, it's a silly idea as there are many millions out there, and folks are only buying more now because of what they perceive as a negative attitude by their elected officials...
 
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I have no problem with gun ownership at all. Personally I would never own one, but I know plenty of people that do, and that's fine.


If law and order breaks down in your town/city(Katrina, LA Riots, Ferguson, Baltimore), you would prefer to not be armed and only the police and bad guys be armed? Ok....



Originally Posted By: slowdime
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill.


Sure thing. They are tools. They are used to save lives and prevent crimes eons more than they are used to kill.


Originally Posted By: slowdime
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace, that's about as accurate as saying that the death penalty is a deterrent against murder, it still happens anyhow.


Laughable statement. People in the know would highly disagree. Like police officers. As a former police officer I can 100% disagree with your assertion. As would all of my coworkers. Hundreds of thousands of police officers would disagree with your uninformed nonsense opinion.

Originally Posted By: slowdime
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace


Hypothetical question? You have just been elected dictator. What do you do to combat crime? What ideas do you implement? What do you think will work?
 
Originally Posted By: slowdime
AZjeff said:
If a politician runs for office and holds a position favoring gun control and he wins the election, the right of the people to vote for a candidate they mostly agree with has been exercised. The initiative in Washington state you speak of was voted on directly by the people, their rights were exercised and the outcome reflected popular opinion within the state.


This thread about Canada is going sideways and I apologize but would like to respond to this. The democratic process is being corrupted by outside influences for their own ideals. Michael Bloomberg of NEW YORK spent millions of dollars in Washington and Oregon on his propaganda campaign. The pro-gun/pro-rights side was outspent and out maneuvered. The ultimate goal is gun registration, not background checks, and the next step is confiscation. RE Canada and Australia. This is confirmed proven fact by documents and statements by Bloomberg etal. Read this: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC

Believe it or not but do some research and decide if the democratic process is truly being exercised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top