Inimitable Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail on those who want the long-gun registry abolished; this, in what purports to be a news story at the viewspaper:
Conservatives exploit urban/rural divide over long-gun registry
…
The gun registry reflects a seemingly unbridgeable divide between rural and urban English Canada. (Support for the registry is higher in Quebec, where all 48 Bloc Québécois MPs support it.) Most urban Canadians can’t understand why hunters and farmers can’t make the effort to register a potentially dangerous weapon. Rural voters, the vast majority of whom are white, don’t understand why people in cities want further restrictions on their way of life and a culture that is under threat as Canada becomes ever more urban and multicultural…
Don’t it just suck being white (I am) and rural (I am not)?
Earlier at Daimnation!:
John Ibbitson’s supercilious and wrong-headed view of Canada
…
Mr Ibbitson seems to be insinuating that the “old Canada” is now somehow less Canadian, indeed less worthy of respect and consideration, than his cosmopolitan paradise in the making. How insulting and how misguided…Mr Ibbitson seems to be equating two cities, Toronto and Vancouver, that are exceptional in terms of foreign-born population with the future of the country as a whole and its politics…
The problem is indeed that two (actually three as Quebec is sui generis) Canadas are emerging with very different characteristics and views: the cosmopolitan metropolises of Toronto and Vancouver and the rest of the country…
And that rest of the country is by no means rural, or white, or aging. Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton are hardly impoverished. In fact this Canada includes the remaining large cities…
It is this fracture that is the real threat to the cohesion of Canada outside Quebec. It escapes Mr Ibbitson and many other pundits who cannot see Canada for Toronto (or Vancouver).
Mark
Ottawa
Just what did this jerk think Chretien and his cronies were doing when they slapped the long gun registry on Canadians? He was playing the urban/rural split and pandering to the lefties in the metropolitan areas, only in his case he was imposing a restriction on people, not relieving them of one.
Reality check for the Libluvin media
only 13% of Canadians think the GR prevents crime
only 1/3 think the GR should not be scrapped,
so it is not just white guys in rural regions,
it’s a majority of Canadians:
(43%) believe the registry has NOT been successful in preventing crime
(29%) think it has had no effect on crime
(13%) of respondents believe the Canadian Firearms Registry has been successful.
(44%) calls for scrapping the long gun registry
(35%) are opposed to this course of action, (including 51 per cent of Quebecers, so in the ROC somewhere around 25% want to keep it)
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/08/two-in-five-canadians-would-scrap-long-gun-registry/
It’s getting old hearing how many times they check the registry, I want to know what it is doing to help Canadians. Maybe one day they will show us a stat that this giant waste of money is actually lowering crime and making the country a safer place. I doubt it though.
Q: What do you call mostly rural white folks, with guns, in Canada?
A: The Armed Forces
Who cares what some pansy at a newspaper says? If you want a rifle they are easy to buy for cash. They are very easy to buy for cash if you live in a rural area.
I no longer care a bit what any city dweller says about gun ownership (against or supportive).
I’m no interested in their opinions and since it’s quite easy to ignore the law on this issue I’m not to interested in that either.
Are we entering an Ironic New Age where the smaller the poll numbers of support on the more the elitists in government, the media, & academia are convinced they’re right and the rest of us are all wrong?!
I think we should have a Toronto registry. I’d sleep better in rural SK knowing we are monitoring these loonies. These people are dangerous to the rest of Canada.
Robert W
You are exactly right. We actually entered the era when Peter Idiot Trudeau jammed his BS charter down our throats.
�White rural people� didn�t advocate the multicultural mess that the city dwelling liberal twits put themselves in.
Now they are expected to �bail them out� by giving up their lifestyles on once again false liberal logic that gun control is the answer.
You just don�t get it folks!
What is offensive is the Liberal disharmonizing of the country in their attempt to divide �urban verse rural Canadian�. BTW and they know this well, there are also millions of city dwelling legal and law abiding gun owners that feel the same way as the so called rural duck hunters.
The Liberals brought in the drug selling, gun killing third world, and expect everyone else to pay up with their freedom, liberties and in some cases their lives.
After Marian M went missing in Toronto, the police canvassed the area, asking to go into houses without a warrant.
Canvass the areas in Toronto where these gunplay fights are taking place and round up th eweapons and the gang members – screw the registry!
What passes for journalism….
Ibbitson:
(Support for the registry is higher in Quebec, where all 48 Bloc Québécois MPs support it.)
So a collective of socialist (and separatiste) politicians are taken for granted as speaking for their constituents on this matter?
The liberal narrative is perpetuated.
Oh wilson. This is meaningless.
There was a time when the majority of southern Americans believed African were inferiour and should be enslaved. Were they correct just because they were the majority?
What are you so afraid of? Are you worried that the campaign by the police chiefs will actually work, and that people will learn about the effectiveness and usefullness of the gun registry?
I think you are.
Ask Harper to release that RCMP report he insists on withholding from the public.
Sounds like he has something to hide.
Dear Gayle, I WISH people would learn about the “effectiveness and usefullness [sic] of the gun registry”.
To date it has cost two billion dollars, it has solved zero crimes and it has prevented zero crimes. On the other hand, it has been -very- effective at cowing senior citizens in Toronto, and letting us white conservative hicks know just exactly who is running this country.
Wilson’s numbers merely indicate the size of the group that isn’t buying into your fantasy.
“Conservatives exploit urban/rural divide over long-gun registry”
It might just as easily be argued that the Liberals were exploiting the urban/rural divide over long-gun registry when they legislated it decades ago.
Of course Ibbitson is never conscious of his own dualistic jibbering.
It isn’t just “white rural” types who own guns, in rural areas,there are also thousands of Native/First nations Canadians who own guns. I know many Natives on rural Rez’z,almost all of them own guns.
But,for some unfathomable reason,they are exempted from the Gun Registry,or the necessity of passing the firearms tests for a P.A.L.
I suppose Natives possess inherent knowledge of gun safety.
It Toronto wants to ban long guns within their city limits,I have no problem with it,but what’s good for Toronto is NOT good for the rest of the Country.
The City seems to be run by extreme “Big Government” types,so let ‘em make all the “Perfect World” laws they want, FOR TORONTO,and leave the rest of us the hell alone!
I’d prefer if Toronto was walled off from the rest of Canada,so they could conduct their social experiments in peace and security without outside interference from us Western Rednecks,who invariably own guns and are the usual shooters at Jane and Finch on weekends.
John Ibbitson… How can one man be so wrong so many times in a single column….
And what’s with the race baiting in the G&M? Do you know who else is mostly white? Quebecois! And they’re totally against the regist.. oh wait, they’re for the registry which completely kills that argument. Talk about race obsessed.
.
It’s really not that complicated a choice for Mr. Bagnell. The *consequences* of the choice might be unpleasant, but it’s quite simple. He should have the courage of his convictions and vote the way he thinks is right. That is what he is in Ottawa to do after all.
If he agrees with his constituents that it should be abolished, then vote to abolish.
If he actually wants to keep the registry, then admit he has been pandering to voters to get elected, tell them that they are wrong and that he is voting to keep it. He might not be re-elected, but a man cannot say one thing and do another without being a hypocrite.
.
Mr. Ignatieff is the author of his own humiliation if he is “humiliated” because a Liberal MP has the audacity to vote according to his convictions and the wishes of his constituents. The error is his in insisting on a whipped vote. It was his decision to do so. If it “humiliates” him, then that is his own doing.
By your post you prove that you, at least, know nothing about the effectiveness of the gun registry.
See, when you just say stuff, it does not make it magically come true, even when you say it over and over and over again.
Gayle, Your analogy of slavery with NOT registering guns is ridiculously over-the-top, not to mention wrong-headed. The more reasonable analogy would be slavery with forcing law-abiding citizens to register their guns. Both limit the freedom of otherwise free citizens.
And just because the police chiefs like it (the vast majority of cops do not) does not make it right. There is no convincing evidence that the registry does any good at all, much less justify its enormous dollar cost and its insult to liberty.
According the the liberal senator Keith Davies the plan was “screw the west, we’ll take the rest”.
I suppose Ibbitson could explain how that is promoting national unity?
That the RCMP would release a report that says the registry is ‘efficient’ ( @ $4 million/yr.) after the Liberals blew $2 billion to implement it is not surprising.
The RCMP receives millions of dollars a year from the federal govt to facilitate the program.
What would be surprising is for the report to mention the real costs, more than likely the better part of $14 million+/yr. and that the registry is far from complete and riddled with errors.
Why would you be afraid if the registry was scrapped? How would it affect you?
Since legal gun owners are already registered on a data base (as holding a license that would allow the purchase of the long gun that they want registered) it is merely a duplication of services. Many legal gun owners are on three separate data bases in Canada.
Criminals are not on data bases as they do not have a license for the illegal guns they have, and they sure as hell do not register them.
If you knew the hoops that Canadians have to jump through to legally own a firearm in Canada, this issue would not worry you at all.
I did not draw an analogy between the gun registry and slavery. I drew an analogy between wilson’s poll and slavery.
That is two different things. Try reading it again and get back to me.
As for your assertion the “vast majority of cops” do not support the registry, I would ask you to prove that – and in doing so refrain from using an unscientific self-selected email exchange between a cop and some people who claim to also be cops.
Kurtz
I believe it is important that the police have investigatory tools in order to do their job. I also know about the registration process. I grew up with guns and all kinds of family members still own, and register, their long guns.
What I am asking people is why you, and Harper, are so scared to let people know the facts. Why is Harper withholding this report?
But that was a real nice try at the deflection though.
Ah yes, the old tried and true conservative fall back position.
When you don’t like the message, attack the messanger.
ha ha ha
It’s interesting that you mentioned slavery and race, as the earliest efforts at gun control in the US were actually targeted at freed slaves. You should read Clarence Thomas’ opinion from the recent US Supreme Court 2nd amendment decision.
This article is contains excerpts:
http://tommydavis.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-ugly-racial-history-of-gun-control/
So?
Ah,the T & T Liberal position,always accuse your opponent of doing what you’re doing.
Attacking the messenger has to be the most T & T of Liberal tactics,right before feigned moral outrage.
Nicely done …
… as was your “I grew up with guns and all kinds of family members still own, and register, their long guns.”
Cheers
Bill Blair says the registry cost $4 million a year, the RCMP says it less than that.
Harper says that all of the 200 people at the registry will get new jobs if it is scrapped.
How do you employ 200 civil servants and pay all the expenses for the registry for $4 million a year?
The CTF says the registry costs us $106 million a year.
I don’t know whether that is accurate or not, but I do know you can’t employ 200 civil servants and pay all the costs of the registry for $4 million a year.
We have a bigger problem than a few unlicensed duck hunters, we have the head of the chiefs of police and the RCMP lying to us and a media that refuses to call them on it.
Heh.
“I know you are but what am I.”
Are we in junior high now? All you have done is, you guessed it, attacked the messenger again.
Stan
There is a really, really easy way to get to the bottom of this. All Harper has to do is release that report.
The local police had a RIDE program this weekend. The morning news reported something like; 300 vehicles stopped, 5 roadside suspensions and one impaired charge laid. It’s hard to argue with the effectiveness of that use of police resources, they give us the results.
If the LGR was such a valuable resource, why don’t the CACP and the LPC just publish a long list of crimes that have been solved courtesy of the Registry? Oh, wait…there isn’t one. They might check it 11 000 times a day, but it ain’t solving any crime. That means NO VALUE FOR THE MONEY. In my books, that means DITCH IT.
Spend my tax dollar on something useful, not hassling the law-abiding and pandering to the mis-informed.
It has been released, the RCMP say it costs between $1.1 and $3.6 million a year.
Which also seems odd….it sounds like a number pulled out of someone’s backside.
Try hiring 200 civil servants for $1.1 million a year…
Well then read the report and find all your answers! I am guessing that one might be that the employees are also responsible for the handgun registry…
Except for that whole Mayerthorpe thing…
By the way, got a link to the story where the report has been released?
Come again, Gayle? Mayerthorpe?
WTF are you talking about? Explain to this dumb rural hick how the LGR did, or didn’t, have an impact on the 4 Mounties that were killed. I know you are a Liberal, so logic isn’t your best suit, but try to wrap your head around this:
2 scenarios, if you will. First, If the nutbar who shot the mounties had registered his rifle, He would have had a piece of paper with the serial number of his rifle on it in his files. So would the governmemnt. He shoots and kills 4 Mounties. They are dead.
second scenario. He doesn’t register his rifle. He shoots 4 Mounties. They are still dead.
Care to explain how the LGR would have changed the outcome?
Getting or having un-registered guns of all kinds is easy. There is a thriving black market in guns. They are available everywhere. If you already owned them you just refuse to register them. The data base is now totally corrupt, and useless. Even if 100% of all gun were registered, they cannot prevent a crime. They are immune to ‘pieces of paper’ that do little to make people safer. If a gun is found at a crime scene, it can be traced to an owner(if stolen) or in the remote chance, the killer.
Being as this hasn’t actually happened yet.. where the LGR has been used to solve a crime, prevent a crime, or saved “If it saves but 1 life…” as the narrative goes… but it hasn’t. 2 billion dollars down the drain and for what? For a partial data base of law abiding hunters and shooters. Not a single criminal is on the list. And fully 50% of all long guns were never registered.
The ONLY purpose for the registry was confiscation on the whim of a future Government.
C-68 was an assault on liberty like nothing ever thought up before. warrant-less searches, invasion of privacy and making a person a criminal for doing nothing. The sheer waste of billions of dollars is just disgusting. And what did it do to enhance anybodies safety? Are the Mounties in Mayerthorpe still dead? Or Jane Creba? Did the registry save her?
How about the Gill fellow.. his gun WAS registered. Did it prevent the loss of life in Montreal? In all those cases, it did nothing to prevent or solve the crimes. 2 billion, Gayle, and for what?
Clearly, Gayle cannot understand the reasoning behind a cost/benefit analysis.
What’s the matter, Gayle? Cat got your tongue?
Your analogy clearly involves policies (slavery and gun control) and the degree to which they were/are supported by citizens. An “analogy between [a] poll and slavery” makes even less sense. My comment stands.
“… email exchange between a cop and some people …”? As reported in the media it was the result of a survey of 2631 cops in the national police magazine, “Blue Line”. And there’s no credible evidence to the contrary. Need refs? Try Google.
Wow. Okay, first thing – Ibbitson’s piece was published under “Columnists” (at least on the Globe website). I assume that in the paper edition, it was topped by a picture of him, or some other indication that the piece was comment. Thus it was not “… purport(ing) to be a news story…” as the post states.
However, that being said, man he was dumb, wasn’t he? What the hell does skin colour have to do with this issue?
While it’s not exactly Pulitzer-prize stuff, his basic summary is not far off the mark. Here, read it without the race words:
“Most urban Canadians can’t understand why hunters and farmers can’t make the effort to register a potentially dangerous weapon. Rural voters, …, don’t understand why people in cities want further restrictions on their way of life and a culture that is under threat as Canada becomes ever more urban …”
That’s not that wrong. Not all THAT insightful, but okay. Relevant to point out that neither side in this debate understands what the hell the other guys are thinking.
So why in the world did that paragraph, argubly the fulcrum of the whole piece, have to mention that “the vast majority of” rural voters “are white”, and that Canada is becoming more urban “and multicultural”? (To fill in the bits I left out above.)
Many people on these comment boards have a bit of a persecution complex, and assume that Ibbitson was chiding them, and people like them. I would suggest that he was just as possibly complimenting Conservative strategy. He certainly doesn’t seem to be suggesting that anything the Liberals or NDP are doing is particularly inspired…
However, I think that it’s totally legitimate to question why the hell a discussion of urban/rural split, relevant to this issue, suddenly became about race.
Not cool, Mr. Ibbitson.
I read the piece in print and it was presented as a news story.
A thoughtful comment but do read again the “Daimnation!” link. Mr Ibbitson has consistently derided white, non-”metropolitan” Canada. And seemingly unaware of million-about cities such as Edmonton, Ottawa, and Calgary. For small-town Ontario reasons whose reasons one dare not speak:
http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/m4028/
The fellow is very smart, sometimes quite right, actually and effectively, in his writing–and very prejudiced. “Not cool” indeed.
Mark
Ottawa
It was not a survey. It was a request posted on an on-line forum to send an email to the cop with their opinion. That is what is called a “self-selecting” sample, and is utterly worthless as a sign of anything. Furthermore, since it was self-selected, there is no evidence the people responding were actually cops, or that one cop did not respond 20 times.
But since you rely so much on the media and Google, I suggest YOU Google it and see what the publisher of Blue Line had to say about this particular little PR exercise. You probably will not like what you see though.
Stopped reading after the first paragraph.
I never said the registry prevented the murders – that is kind of obviously untrue. However, Mike here was suggesting it has never been used to solve a crime, and, well, it WAS used to solve this one.
What the hell is wrong with you? Don’t you know some of us have actual jobs, and cannot simply run to the internet every time someone posts a question?
Sheesh.
Clearly Ha cannot understand plain English.
Just how did it solve Mayerthorpe? I was under the impression that good old fashioned police work did that.
The firearms used by Roszko were illegal. The registry would have told those officers, if they had checked, that Roszko DID NOT HAVE FIREARMS because he was under a firearms prohibition. If you can claim the LGR solved that crime, then there is even more grounds to claim the LGR failed those officers and ultimately contributed to their deaths.
see 3 posts down
I said it was used to solve the crime. No one thing ever solves a crime.
Here is what happened: Hennessy (one of the guys convicted in the murders) gave his grandfather’s registered long gun to Rozko. The next day he realized Rozko killed 4 cops, and he was the one who gave him the gun (not the murder weapon, as it turned out, but a gun that was found in Rozko’s possession). Hennessy and grandpa go to the police and falsely claim the gun had been stolen months ago. Now Hennessy is on their radar. The police of course found it highly convenient this was the time they finally report the weapon as stolen.
At the same time, Cheeseman confessed to his boss. If admissible, this confession would sink him, but was useless against Hennessy.
Next comes Mr. Big undercover operation, and some “confessions”, the admissibility of which, and reliability of which, is unknown.
The sum total of the evidence led to these two men pleading guilty.
Now here’s the thing – without the gun the only evidence on Hennessy was a confession as part of a sting operation – the use of this tactic was highly questionable and no one could say whether a jury would believe the confession to be true. However, there was also the evidence of the gun, which could be traced back directly to Hennessy.
Urban Canadians have been sold a ‘Bill of goods’, Gayle. The registry does nothing. Even your example of Mayerthorpe is wrong. Rozco killed 4 cops.. his body, holding the murder weapon was found on the scene. The registration proved it’s uselessness AGAIN, because a piece of paper doesn’t change the lethality of a gun in the wrong hands. It isn’t the gun.. it’s the person. No shooter or gun owner objects to licensing. They object to a list that holds the records of what guns and how many they have, from FUTURE confiscation. Nowhere in C-68 are the gun -owners protected from unlawful confiscation at some point. C-68 ‘SPECIFICALLY’ allows for that in a simple act of ‘Order in Council’ the Federal cabinet can confiscate any gun, at any time, for any reason. in the future.
Guns cost real money. I have at least 3 rifles that cost over $1000 dollars. When you say or agree with the asinine comparison to registering cars or dog licensing, you fail to include the COST of private, legal property being STOLEN. If you fail to register your car, they don’t steal it from you. They don’t come take your dog away or charge you with a criminal offence. I bought my guns a long time ago and it was a perfectly legal thing to do. Now, if I don’t jump through the hoops, I’m a criminal, liable to illegal search and seizure, and arrest. Tell me.. if your license plates lapse, do you go to jail?
You FAIL badly to understand the basic concept of liberty. I have no criminal record, never harmed a soul in my entire life, and expect to have no dealings with law enforcement except if I do something wrong. But now.. I’m a criminal if I do nothing.. My home can be searched without a warrant. How would you like your home invaded without cause or warrant to search for knitting needles? Or a blender or any other object you bought legally? Because its a firearm, it suddenly takes on mythical status of a ‘dangerous weapon’ when it resides in a gun safe almost all the time except hunting season or a bit of range time. If your blender was deemed illegal, would you think it retarded that it posed a threat to society because you made a margarita 2 times a year?
When you allow any object to be criminalized, be it a rifle or a blender, you open the door to ‘arbitrary’ government control of your personal liberty. The ‘government’ has no right to intrude into your life or mine on a witch-hunt. I’ve committed no crime.. So why should I be subject to warrant-less search and seizure? What did I do to deserve that? I bought a rifle 20 years ago when the laws were such I broke no laws. Change the word ‘gun’ for any piece of property you own now. Knitting needles can kill.. so are they dangerous? How about your butcher knife? Can you not see the obvious connection between a tool and a weapon? An axe, a knife or a a blender can become killing tools. A rifle is the same. But a hammer, a screwdriver or a blender are tools. A rifle is also a tool. And after reading your posts of nonsense, I think you may be a tool also. A urbanite, brain-dead, indoctrinated tool. Show some common sense, woman. Use some logic.
We have a licensing regime now that vets the gun owner.. why on earth does it matter the make, serial number and caliber of the individual rifle? If the RCMP thinks I’m ok to own a gun, then what the hell more do you need? They have my home address, phone number and DOB. Do you think they need my DNA or fingerprints too? Lets have all that info on YOU for having a blender or a car. BTW.. the Magna Carta enshrines my RIGHT to being armed 800 years before the creation of our country, our charter and everything else before P.E.T came along and stole those rights from me. He didn’t grant me those right, nor could he take them away. This country and most of the people living in it, are Fu*cked if they think the GOVERNMENT ‘allows’ me any rights. I had god-given rights that pre-existed long before Canada existed. I will fight to retain them. Urban gun-haters will not take them from me without a fight.
Gayle, and people like her. should move to communist Cuba if they think otherwise.
Don’t tread on me.
“The registry does nothing.”
Not according to the police and every objective assessment.
“Even your example of Mayerthorpe is wrong. Rozco killed 4 cops.”
And the registry was used to solve that crime, just as I claimed. I was right. You are wrong.
“If you fail to register your car, they don’t steal it from you.”
They can seize your car and impound it, and then charge you extortionate rates to “store” it for you.
“Now, if I don’t jump through the hoops, I’m a criminal, liable to illegal search and seizure, and arrest.”
Both the liberals and the NDP have proposed removing criminal sanctions from the registry.
“You FAIL badly to understand the basic concept of liberty.”
Nope
“My home can be searched without a warrant.”
Not a big fan of that myself. This too is something that can be changed, if only the conservatives were willing to be reasonable.
“When you allow any object to be criminalized, be it a rifle or a blender, you open the door to ‘arbitrary’ government control of your personal liberty.”
First your comparison of a gun to a blender is ridiculous and not worthy of any further comment by me. Second, that is what the criminal law does. It is also illegal to harrass people on the phone. That is government control over personal liberty too. The government knows if we go to more than one doctor, and the government knows what that doctor has prescribed. oooo scary…
“How about your butcher knife? Can you not see the obvious connection between a tool and a weapon? An axe, a knife or a a blender can become killing tools. A rifle is the same. But a hammer, a screwdriver or a blender are tools. A rifle is also a tool.”
Some things are designed as tools, and can be used as a weapon. Others are designed as weapons and can be used as tools. Guns are designed to kill. What other use are they?
I am not sure why some people believe they should not be mildly inconvenienced in order to provide assistance to the country as a whole. I have long recognized the need to negotiate between rural interests and urban interests, I just wish some of those rural dwellers were willing to consider the needs of urban dwellers for once.
PS – I suggest YOU move to the US. I think you might be happy there.
OS – check out that RCMP report, and the number of long guns used in homicides in Canada.
This comment section demonstrates exactly the reason we have a LGR. A quick count shows me that 24 different users have commented on this article. Out of those 24, only ONE person is decidedly against it racking up over 1/3 of the posts in the comment section.
The voice of the electorate has never been reflected on the LGR. Lobby groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control, the CACP, IANSA and others run around in the spotlight and fire up the emotions of the ignorant. In the mean time, the folks most likely to have a long gun go about their daily toils, mostly wanting to be left alone but being reluctantly dragged into the debate. As the electorate begins to learn – finally – what a vicious piece of legislation that C-68 is, more and more people will demand a complete overhaul of the Firearms act. That day can’t come soon enough.
I guess the views presented on a conservative blog is what conservatives consider to be accurate polling these days? Thanks for the laugh.
And how utterly and demonstrably untrue. Are you actually suggesting gun owners have remained silent in this debate? Really?
If so, you need to get out more. Try Google, It is your friend.
And speaking of ignorant, how many people here have posted the gun registry has no value, and how many RCMP reports say the EXACT OPPOSITE!
Ha ha ha ha ha
Gayle, yes, gun owners were largely silent in the early years of the LGR, they are slowly waking up though. My point being it was the vocal minority that has pushed this registry from day one, you being that minority. Weren’t you suggesting earlier that posters learn to read what you wrote? I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in an RCMP report about the usefulness of the registry. If I had a resource that guaranteed me millions in funding from the government and said program was sitting in parliament about to be axed and I was asked to produce a report extolling its virtues, do you think that report is going to say “don’t scrap it, I can prove it solved ONE CRIME…sort of”?
Nope, I’m going to fill it with meaningless statistics with #’s crunched 5 different ways, I’d highlight how it is accessed 11,000 times a day – probably 12,000 by now. I’d be cashing in favours with all the other hogs at the trough getting them to ramp up their rhetoric about the LGR in its final days.
The RCMP’s handling of Mr. Dziekanski’s death at Vancouver airport demonstrated to the general public how much they should be trusted. I suppose, Gayle, you are going to jump to the defence of the officers and the Brass that defended their actions…the same Brass that is trying to hoodwink the public now.
Also, the CACP doesn’t speak for the officer on the street despite their inference that they do. I tend to think that the CACP is speaking out for the registry because they want to continue to receive 6-figure donations from CGI group, the company that supplies them with computer software for the LGR.
Gayle, perhaps you can clarify if it was the same CACP that is on record with this gem of a quote “The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is of the firm opinion that a Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in the Constitution is neither necessary nor desirable”? Was is not the head of the CACP that was caught red-handed lying to the public about the 5 metre rule during the G20? Google that, I’m told it’s friendly!
Your blind faith in anything coming from the mouth of a politico with a badge is disappointing, though not surprising. I’m of the opinion that they should earn our trust, not demand it.
Still laughing?
The really sad thing, Mike, is that the people who strongly support the LGR, such as our friend Gayle, really do not have the slightest clue about guns, or especially gun owners. They have not read the onerous parts of Bill C-68, do not understand that the attack on liberty that it really is and how quickly the ‘slippery slope’ of government control creeps into our lives. She said her house can be searched without a warrant.. not true. If she were to be accused of murder, hypothetically, the police would require a search warrant to enter her home. But a legal gun owner is not afforded that basic legal right. We are considered guilty before the eyes of the law. We can point out obvious facts of the failings of the registry itself, and it’s ineffectiveness all day long but it’s the attack on personal liberty of one small segment of society that is ‘allowed’ because of irrational fear of somebody who owns a gun. If we were to suggest they could abuse the legal rights of a gang-member or all drug dealer or ex-convicts in this manner, the Left would be all up in arms about protecting their legal rights. But not so a law-abiding gun owner. Hypocrisy in spades.
The people who are killing others are indeed the thugs and drug dealers. But with the mounting death toll in T.O. by these punks, we rally around protecting their rights and making excuses for them, and misdirect our efforts to go after the law-abiding citizen.
Gun owners willingly took safety courses, got licenses and properly store our firearms because it’s a good idea. We are responsible. But the registry is, and always was, about collecting names and addresses so that one day, after some other Gill or Lepine nut-job kills somebody, they can quickly use that list as an excuse to round up all the guns to satisfy the fearful urban masses who are STILL ignorant of guns and what they are, and are not, in the hands of responsible people. Mayor Miller closing down gun ranges in Toronto accomplished what, exactly? Thugs don’t do target practice except in the streets and apartment buildings. Why not infringe on their ‘rights’.. they are the ones killing people. But Hug-a-thug Liberals want to nurture them instead.
Gayle, and the rest of the gun-haters are so mixed up. Solve the real problem, not attack rural Canadians who want to do the right thing, but fear the eventual confiscation of their hard earned stuff. Guns are top of the list..but we’ve already seen cities enact pit-bull dog bans and recently the legal attack on that couple in the ‘burbs’ who held a libertarian rally on their own private property. THAT, Gayle, is what I mean about protecting your personal liberty. The Government has no right to infringe on your right to peaceful assembly. Ready your Charter. There are plenty of laws to get people who break them. Murder, assault, robbery.. why do we need pre-crime laws? What makes you feel safer knowing the Government has my rifle serial # on a list somewhere? It will neither increase the risk of me shooting somebody or decreasing it. It does exactly nothing except to have the location of my gun safe available to the gun confiscation squad. Nowhere in C-68 does it use language that protects my rights or free me from confiscation. Quite the opposite language is used. I’ve not harmed anyone. Why do you think I should be stripped of my basic legal rights?
[...] Then there are those nasty white people and their long guns. [...]
Yes, but now I am laughing even harder.
I live in Alberta, and I know full well gun owners were NOT “largely silent” in the early years. I remember the signs on the lawns during the first election after the registry complaining about it and telling people to vote ABL. You are either horribly mistaken, exaggerating, or lying. Whichever one, you are definately wrong.
But I must say I love your “attack” on the RCMP report. Like many conservatives before you, and no doubt many after, instead of addressing the content of the report you attack the messenger.
You know what that means? It means you are incapable of addressing the report on its merits. I look forward to the first gun registry opponent who does, but I am not holding my breath if the posters here are anything to go by.
“really do not have the slightest clue about guns, or especially gun owners.”
Except I spent most of my life living with guns, and gun owners, and count them amongst my immediate family and close friends. But other than that, suuuuure…
“She said her house can be searched without a warrant.. not true.”
When did I say that? Do you really think fabricating things actually makes you more persuasive?
As for the rest of your rant – easily debunked by reading the RCMP report.
I mis-quoted you on the warrant-less search. i see that mistake. sorry.
If you know so much about guns and owners, you’d already be anti-registry. We all are for a reason. You just chose to ignore it.
Oh brother.
The point I did a poor job of re-stating is that the electorates voice has never been properly represented in the HOC on this issue. Perhaps “largely silent” as a blanket statement was an error on my part however it applied to my corner of rural Ontario. Let’s move on to present day…
It’s not an ‘attack’ on the RCMP when I tell the truth. Is it not a fact that the RCMP has a lot of their own problems to deal with right now? If they can’t keep their own house in order, should we be turning to them to influence national policy? I’ll pass, thanks. I would hope any sober voter capable of independent thought would as well.
I noticed no comments on the CACP. Still Googling? Please, feel free to comment, I’d like to hear an explanation as to why their opinion is “state of the art” this time around…Really…
You’ve become a one trick pony Gayle…Your fallback is a single report? After years of the LGR being in place you still need a report that will cherry pick statistics? Statistics that will be eagerly countered with equally damning numbers from the anti-registry crowd I might add. We’ve been down that road ad nauseum. I’d rather you explain why you have no problem with a fellow Canadian having their Charter rights trampled? Explain why you have no problem with your tax dollar being pissed away by bureaucrats and politicians alike? Arctic_front summed things up rather eloquently in his most recent post, are you readying a response to him right now that attempts to smear his ability to make a sound, reasoned argument?
I’d really like right now to call you a useful idiot for gun control but I’ll refrain, name-calling will remain your domain. By the way Gayle, I’m Libertarian, not Conservative…I sincerely hope that doesn’t kill your buzz.
Gayle, pretty much none of Arctic-fronts reply is “easily debunked by reading the RCMP report.” Are you so blind that you can not acknowledge that a valid point has been made that counters your rabidly defended opinion? For Christ’s sake, to lend yourself some credibility, try to make one post that addresses your approval of why a gun owners Charter Rights are ok to violate, and for the love of all things holy, don’t tell me my post has a chapter all to itself in the RCMP report.
You are still exaggerating. Fighting the gun registry has been on the radar of the Reform/Alliance/CRAP/CPC since 1995. They have been in the House since 1993.
You are not dealing with the report, other than your unsubstantiated suggestion they handpicked statistics. You are saying we cannot trust the report because the RCMP had another report once that was not well done. That is called attacking the messenger. Deal with the report. Though I look forward to the anti-gun registry crowd proving the registry is not at all useful to the police. That should be fun!
What exactly do you think I should say about the CAPC. Are you actually suggesting that their opinion on the Charter, from over 25 years ago, somehow debunks their research, which has been independently audited, on the gun registry? I was not aware they did a fully audited report on how people’s fundamental rights and freedoms were never violated anyway, so no need to enshrine them in the constitution.
Do you know what it means when someone says your argument is a stretch? If not, I suggest you look it up.
If you are referring to the search provisions, you might have noticed that I have already said I am not a fan of those. However, that alone is not a reason to get rid of the registry. It may, however, be a reason to amend some of the provisions. I do hope you understand it does not have to be all or nothing.
Nope. That was a real nice try though.
I am, however, seasoned at arguing this point, since I have to every time it comes up at Sunday dinner.
His “valid” point involves some paranoid conspiracy theory about how the government wants the registry so they can take away our guns, and then operate as a dictatorship.
Not. Buying. It.
Oh, and that guns are only used by gang bangers for murder – except the report says over half all murders committed with guns were with long guns – in rural areas – as domestic disputes.
Anyway…
Paranoid conspiracy theory? Not buying it??? Get a clue!
Stolen from LUFA:
Statements made prominent Canadian politicians makes it painfully obvious that confiscation is the ultimate aim and the Firearms Act is the leading edge of the slippery slope.
“I came to Ottawa…with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.” – former Liberal Minister of Justice Allan Rock 1994
“C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada.” – Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs 1996
“Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the World.” – former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy 1998
“This government does not believe that public safety is enhanced by carrying weapons. In fact, it has been a long-standing Canadian government practice to discourage the use of personal defense weapons.” – former Liberal Minister of Justice Anne McLellan 1999
Couple that with the fact that they have been confiscating firearms with vigour since 1993, usually following a “re-classification” and I am dismayed that you can make such a statement. You are either knowingly lying, or are so woefully uninformed you haven’t the background to begin to wade into a debate as complex as the debate that surrounds the LGR.
Unfortunately, Mike, anti-gun folks don’t like reason and logic. It’s always only about emotional, knee-jerk fear of anybody having a rifle/pistol. I suspect, Gayle excluded, that 90% of people that support the registry somehow feel that its about their own lack of understanding of guns in general. They pigeon-hole us as ‘crazy’ zealots hell-bent on recreating the wild, wild west. What always amazes me is why urban folks are so afraid of guns when they themselves are most at risk of a home invasion, or being mugged by armed criminals. It behooves me that they cannot understand that THEY are the ones who could most benefit from being armed. I suspect they actually believe that the OPP or RCMP will be there in time to save them in a time of need.
Why, oh why, dear Lord, can people still think that the cops could possibly be there in time to save them?
I’m not suggesting, or promoting they own a gun for self-defense, but they abrogate their own survival to the police some miles and many minutes away. The police will tell you straight-out that they can’t come save you.
Why do people not take their own protection into their own hands with pepper-spray, a bat, a golf club or a double set of dead-bolts? Once they kick down your door, or pry open a window and are inside, they are now effectively defenseless. The law permits you to defend yourself at any level if you truly feel your life is in danger. You have the legal and morally ‘just’ reason to use lethal force.
For the rural Canadian, that threat to life and limb may be a Coyote(as recently seen in the park in Cape Breton) or a cougar or a bear. In a wilderness setting, there are no police to call. It’s you and the wild animal. The law, obviously, allows you to protect yourself.
My point? Not only rural people have a decidedly good reason to defend themselves. Be it thugs or bears, we are are vulnerable to attack if unarmed. Like I said, in an urban setting, a gun may not be the best choice, but being armed with something is a given. In a rural setting, the rifle is by far the best choice. Why do urban folks feel so afraid to allow rural people the tools best suited for their needs? Add to that, putting food on the table, or dispatching livestock-killing predators? It seems an illogical and patronizing way to think. It comes down to fear and acceptance of the nanny-statism where we willingly give up our personal responsibility for self-defense to others. The laws of this land have morphed over years to discourage self-defense in favour of running away or surrender. I believe any thinking person knows that running or surrendering is often fatal when dealing with fearless modern criminals and the newspapers remind us daily the folly of such a tactic.
So? Now what?
Register our rifles? Feel any safer? Move next-door to the police station? Hide in the hills?
Obviously guns in the wrong hands can be deadly. An un-trained shooter is as much a danger to themselves as anybody near-by. A gun in the hands of a criminal is worse.
Here is a good way to demonstrate my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyLxbecE3R0
Gayle, I have no animosity towards you, but I seriously suggest you to use reason and some common sense here.
Guns can be used for good and evil. Who would you prefer own guns? Criminals? Or good and decent citizens who’ve taken the legal steps to own and use them properly, safely, and for good?
When the police are 30 minutes away, and you have a rapist or a killer standing in your bedroom, who is gonna save you?
Hyperbole? Or hedging your bets? What about a bear between you and the house?
You have car insurance. You have house insurance. You have have personal protection insurance… don’t you? Don’t you?
OR, I do not subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories.
Maybe if you loaned me your tinfoil hat?
I never said you cannot own your own gun. I have no problem with long guns.
I just think they should be registered.
“Paranoid conspiracy” is right! History is full of examples of what a registry means. I guess history is only in the eye of the beholder. Or the blind.
Had the bill, C-68 made, ‘specific’ reference to there never being possible, confiscation, gun owners wouldn’t be so touchy. Sadly, there is NO mention of protection of our legally owned property from said confiscation. It could have been easily added, but was not. Error in omission? Gayle, What do you think? After reading the quotes from the above mentioned politicos… fact or fiction? Paranoid? Ask those gun owners who’ve already had guns confiscated on entirely arbitrary grounds. Look it up. It not a paranoid fantasy, its a current reality.
All those ‘law abiding’ citizens who took the bait had some of their guns confiscated already because they tried to be law-abiding. Some were war relics and antiques, but because they were determined to be (by ignorant bureau-weenies, ‘deemed’ to be prohibited) they are taken. Their reason? “Because we said so”.
Still think we are paranoid?
My father had a very rare German pistol brought back from Europe after WWII that was arbitrarily deemed ‘prohibited’. They took it without compensation. it is the VERY same pistol we all see James Bond use in every movie. EVERY Bond flick. This pistol had never been fired since it came to Canada. It was rare because it belonged to the German civil police force. It had Nazi hand-grips and was a museum piece. Always locked and never used. A collector’s item to be sure. Why was it deemed to be prohibited? It was small. No other reason. Google it, Gayle.. A Walther PPK in 5.65 mm. or .32 caliber. It was safe, secure and until C-68, in our family since the early 40′s. Always registered too. Perfectly legal to possess. Until it suddenly wasn’t. Value? Thousands of dollars. It even had original bullets that were silver-topped (perfect if there was ever a Vampire outbreak). Oh, and did they pay us for our giving it up? Nope. It went into a smelting pot.
Am I still being paranoid? Groundless concern? Baseless worry? So tell me, Gayle… how would YOU react to THEM arbitrarily coming to take something you hold dear to you? Your ‘blender’, a treasured heirloom… because one day they deem it illegal? Slippery-slope and all that ‘bogus’ clap-trap. The precedent has been set. What is next? And you can be SURE there will be a ‘next’
If you cannot see the obvious connection between me losing my charter rights and you one day losing yours… then I really feel sorry for you. You are a miss-guided soul worthy of being tested in your ‘faith’ in Government. Someday, in the future, you will lose your rights to arbitrary ‘government’ regulation and only THEN will you figure out how strongly I feel about his particular issue. It isn’t an ‘if’…but a when. Once that door is opened, it cannot be closed.
To paraphrase a famous quote: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it”
When my property and rights are tossed under the bus, yours will soon follow. Tyranny is not a paranoid conspiracy. It’s a slippery slope that has a proven track record. Believe it. What makes you think that what you hold dear is exempt? your car (because it is ‘deemed’ too polluting?, or your beloved porcelain dolls (because of lead paint? Or your light bulbs
are regulated out of existence?…Ooops, already happened!) Do you not see my point?… Or do you put on the blinders because the current topic is guns that you personally deem unacceptable? Do you differentiate a citizen’s rights through your own personal prism of correctness, or do you see all citizens rights the same? Inquiring minds want to know.
To cut to the chase, are your rights more important than mine? If you think so.. congratulations… you are a fascist.
Over half of all murders committed with guns were with long guns in domestic disputes? The most recent #’s across the board are for 2004;
That year there were 52 firearms homicides attributed to long guns (7% of total firearms deaths, 780 total). Out of those deaths, there were 7 victims (male and female combined) of spousal homicide committed with a long gun Canada-wide.
No matter how I crunch those #’s I can’t make the result equal or greater than 50%.
Spousal homicide with long guns as percentage of total firearms death in Canada: 0.89%
Spousal homicide with long guns as percentage of total long gun homicides: 13.5%
I endeavour to know my facts when I discuss a topic. Gayle, could you please inform me what page of the RCMP report contains the statistic you quote, and for what year? I am most sincere with my request. Thanks.
PLEASE, Gayle… How does registering my guns make them safe? I implore you to make a detailed argument how that works. and after that, explain to me why it works… and how it makes anybody any safer.. Feel free to quote chapter and verse the RCMP, CACP reports. They can’t claim that the registry can prevent a crime, so explain the anti-crime reasons? I’ll bet you can claim how it will save a life, solve a crime or prevent a crime with your deep knowledge of the registry. Please be as detailed with links, quotes and anecdotal examples. I just know you can.
I’m waiting with baited breath with your insight.
A list that is 50% inaccurate is worth what? If half the gun owners that registered one of 10 guns they own makes the registry useful how? Every gun owner I know has only registered a fraction of the guns they own.,,,usually the cheapest .22. This makes the registry useful how? Do you support the anti-charter invasion of these people’s homes to verify that they registered their guns? Search their homes to ensure compliance?
Lets face it, Gayle, compliance is a total joke. Criminals certainly didn’t register… and even those who got their PAL didn’t. So what do you propose they do to get 100% compliance except to be even more intrusive and search their homes? Is that not completely over the top, or do you support that?
Do us all a favour and answer the following questions:
1) Do you support the violation of Canadian citizen’s charter rights to force compiance with C-68?
2) Do you agree that illegal search and seizure is appropriate to get 100% compliance?
3) Is the arbitrary confiscation of private property an acceptable reaction to gun owners who refuse to comply with C-68.
4) Do you agree that the government has reasonable grounds to do all of the above?
5) Show where the effective use of the existing registry makes the policeman more safe.
6) Has the registry got the support of front-line police officers who deal daily with domestic calls?
7) Would the violation of ‘known to police’ individuals charter rights be a much more effective way to keep communities safer than harassment of rural or even urban gun owners who try to comply with the current law?
(you will prove your ilk on this one)
Please refrain from deflection, distracting false arguments and if you MUST refer to the CACP or RCMP reports, give us relevant links or direct quotations that directly support your answers.
Personally, I suspect you are not going to support your answers or be able to defend your arguments without spurious arguments or deflection because you have a completely faulty hypothesis. PROVE ME WRONG. Use your RCMP and CACP reports to answer ANY of my questions. (use additional pages if required)
The fact is, Gayle, you are barking up the wrong tree.
The history of existing confiscation, the inability of the registry to prevent a crime, and the effective inability of the registry to even solve a crime is very clear.
If you can’t give a reasonable answer to all of these questions, with an impassioned argument to support them, then you should just go away. Your opinion is suspect and, as I’ve suspected all along, an emotional screed without merit. I give you the chance to make your point and the opportunity to support it with a logical and reasonable argument based on factual evidence or practical use.
If you cannot, pleaee pardon my crudeness, but STFU
I doubt we’ll be hearing any more from you.
Oh, I totally forgot the biggest elephant in the room.. 2 billion dollars to achieve what exactly? How many lives saved, how may crimes prevented? Do the RCMP or CACP reports make any estimates? How many crimes solved for 2 billion?
However, they have lots of stats on how many guns were confiscated and how many were surrendered.
I’m curious, Gayle… how many guns did the thugs, gang-members and drug dealers surrender?
did those RCMP reports tell you that number? NOPE.
Only law abiding people surrendered any guns.
Feel any safer now?
Do you?
Still think I should comply? What good will it do? (I have complied, BTW, but not willingly)
I will be a happy man when C-391 passes. I’ll probably go buy a few more guns. Big ones too. Just to SPITE people like you.
A failed idea, a failed ideology and a failed way to squander 2 billion dollars. Think about that 2 billion when you are sitting in an emergency room for 5 hours. Think about THAT.
I wish only supporters of the gun registry had to suffer those long waits… but alas, we ALL suffer for this disaster. You should be deeply ashamed for that. To support such a total waste of needed dollars is in itself, criminal
Gayle… 2 friggin’ BILLION dollars! Make excuses for that.. Please try.
Are you paranoid? Yes.
Are my rights more important than yours? No
Do you think YOUR rights are more important than mine? Apparently so.
Oh look, 2 people said something that might be interpreted to mean they should be confiscating all guns. The odd thing is, that over 10 years later, no one, NO ONE, has done anything about confiscating all guns.
Funny that.
All that said, I know it is impossible to reason with someone who is paranoid, so I will leave you to your Armagedon fantasies.
Cheers!
1-4 false questiions. Perhaps you can first demonstrate HOW your charter rights are violated. Got any case law to back you up on that one? You cannot state a false premise and demand I defend it. Nice try though.
5-7 – your answers are in the report. Do your own research.
snort
I do not know where you get your numbers. The report says something very different.
That said, I am not sure I am correct that domestic homicides account for over half. I was trying to quote from what I saw on the news.
Just read the report pages 25-26 for the numbers. In 2004, 61% of all firearm murders in rural Canada were committed with either a rifle/shotgun or a sawed off rifle/shotgun.
As for domestic homicides, the stat is that out of those committed with firearms, over half are committed with long guns.
Forgot this one:
“Is there any acceptable reason to violate ANY citizen’s rights to achieve a desired social conclusion/outcome?”
Here you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge of the Charter. Built within the Charter are measures that permit the limiting and violation of people’s rights for the greater good.
First, section 1 allows for the infringement of your Charter rights that can be reasonable in a free and democratic society. Second, section 7 allows your life, liberty and freedom of the person to be limited in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
As for your question 7, thanks so much for demonstrating your willingness to trample all over the rights of others just so you do not have to register your gun. I think that says a lot about you – and not in a good way.
Warrant-less searches.. that’s how. They can enter my home at any time, search without a warrant. Add to that, I MUST fully co-operate or face additional charges. A murder suspect does not have to co-operate. He has the right to remain silent and is afforded a lawyer. A gun owner.. not at all. There is case-law in Yukon and also Ontario where a man who was cleaning his guns on the kitchen table was charged for ‘un-safe storage. He was cleaning them.
The fact that private property can be siezed with an ‘Order in Council’, in other words, a stroke of a pen. It’s already happened twice so far. Initially, many rifles and guns became restricted or prohibited. That list was expanded some time later. Paranoid? Many rifles were simple semi-automatic repeaters. But because they were made from black plastic, and ‘looked’ menacing, were added to the list of prohibited rifles. They were not full-auto, or otherwise illegal, but they ‘looked’ scary.
Maybe you need to do some of your own research.
Questions 1-4 are not false at all.. you just refuse to answer them.
Do you think it’s ok to have the powers given to police to search a person’s home without cause?
Even if they don’t do it daily, they CAN. A murder suspect must have police convince a judge to grant a search warrant after being convinced it is justified. A policeman or the registrar of firearms can do it on a whim. No judge to pass a ruling on if it is legally justified.
“fundamental justice” Who decides that? Bill C-68 decided that the owner of a firearm’s fundamental justice is not as strong as a regular citizen.
As for question 7, are you kidding me? A known or previously convicted criminal should have more rights than me…with no record, or illegal associations? I’m not suggesting we trample anybody’s rights, but you seem to think I’m such a threat to society, that’s it’s ok because I am a licensed gun owner. I think YOU are suggesting we trample. Until i break a law, I am a free, up-standing citizen. By passing C-68, you made 7 million people a criminal for not doing a thing. Having a rifle in the basement was not criminal if you didn’t register it. That is your idea of fundamental justice? People who had no illegal record of using their private property, or just owning something, could now be criminals. This isn’t fair, and it’s unprecedented in Canadian Law.
Lots of folks tout that we don’t have in the Charter a ‘right to own a gun’ May I remind you to look in the charter where it says I can’t? My ‘right’ to own a gun pre-existed the charter. Unless it it specifically mentioned in there that I don’t have the right, then my right still exists. It’s not a right a mere politician is empowered to revoke. For further reading, see the Magna Carta. The right to safety of the person and self-defense is a god-given right. and THAT, my friend…is written into the charter.
Further more.. how do I violate your rights by having a gun? I have not uttered a threat, made any violent gestures towards you(or anybody else) and by the simple fact I own a piece of wood and steel, that is totally inanimate and inert until I pick it up, I am violating your rights…
You explanation of that I just gotta hear.
Your rights are not violated by me. They are violated by Government and unjust laws. Until I do harm to you or your family… your rights are just fine. I’m no threat to you no matter how many guns I have. The axe murderer or rapist that may attack you might be.. but never me.
Get over your hysterical fear or guns. And gun owners. You were just as safe before C-68. Nothing has changed. Only a stupid waste of tax dollars was pissed up against a fence. The same people who are prone to commit crimes, still do. Only they don’t register. I did.
Didn’t the SCC already rule on this? Do you have anything other than YOUR opinion on whether this violates the Charter. I find it odd that after 15 years not one of your colleagues would have sought fit to raise a court challenge.
If you even had a legal opinion that would help.
“A known or previously convicted criminal should have more rights than me…”
Not more, just not less.
“you seem to think I’m such a threat to society…”
Not because you own guns, but maybe because you are paranoid.
“That is your idea of fundamental justice?”
My idea of fundamental justice is irrelevant. It is the court’s idea that you should think about.
“May I remind you to look in the charter where it says I can’t?”
Who’s stopping you?
“how do I violate your rights by having a gun?”
I never said anyone owning a gun violates my rights.
Try again.
[...] kill people…but white people must want to kill [...]