I bought a gun to prepare for WW3

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Here is a brief history of gun politics in Canada. I may or may not agree with any of these policies but I must say that since 1995 it has been rather strict here and although I do feel that the media is controlled to some extent by the government I do not feel that there has been any mass extermination in Canada as your last post insinuates. That being said I do agree with many aspects of your views of gun control. I do feel that gun control does not necessarily mean gun prohibition or control of the people. I have managed to work within the controls of our system and I own several guns. I also know people in European countries who also work within their systems and own guns. I have to register my motorcycles that I use on public roads. I have to apply for a permit to carry a handgun and have the gun registered to be able to carry a gun in public. I am glad that someone in Canada cannot purchase a vehicle and drive it without registering it and posessing a valid drivers licence.

 

Just my views.

 

 

The following is a summary of information provided in History of Firearms Control in Canada: Up to and Including the Firearms Act, compiled by the Canadian Firearms Centre:

 

The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. It was an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.

 

In the 1920s, permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.

 

Legislation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm. Registration certificates were issued and records kept by the Commissioner of the RCMP or by other police forces designated by provincial Attorneys General.

 

In 1947, the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt

 

Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.

 

The categories of “firearm,” “restricted weapon” and “prohibited weapon” were created in 1968-69. Police were given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society.

 

Legislative provisions between 1977 and 1979 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates for all weapons and provided controls on the selling of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons were prohibited. Applicants for Firearms Acquisition Certificates were required to take a safety course.

 

Between 1991 and 1994, legislation tightened up restrictions and established controls on military, paramilitary and high-firepower weapons. Many of these "military, paramility and high-firepower" firearms were evaluated soley on the basis of their appearance.

 

In 1995, new, stricter, gun control legislation was passed. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licenses to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles. This legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000).

 

As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and will not prosecute long gun owners who do not register at all.

[Guest ratchethack]

I do feel that gun control does not necessarily mean gun prohibition or control of the people. I have managed to work within the controls of our system and I own several guns. I also know people in European countries who also work within their systems and own guns. I have to register my motorcycles that I use on public roads. I have to apply for a permit to carry a handgun and have the gun registered to be able to carry a gun in public. I am glad that someone in Canada cannot purchase a vehicle and drive it without registering it and posessing a valid drivers licence.

 

Just my views.

Heli-Jim, I appreciate your post and your views. I read your quote and appreciate you posting it, though since you didn't indicate it, I wonder about the source. Though I'm not nearly as well acquainted with Canadian gun laws as I am those of other countries including the US, I did a little research and found an interesting commentary by a Canadian Officer of the Law (Constable) and his link here, which includes a full curriculum vitae of the author:

 

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Gayder/Canad...un_Controls.htm

 

I would submit to you that gun control is most certainly control of people! If it's not control of people, is it really control of guns, when - regardless of gun laws - there's NO historical way to control their use by criminals whatsoever? The only real "control of guns" that's possible is by users of guns! IMHO, It amounts to all manner of responsible personal conduct with the gun, as well as the ability to effectively put metal on target downrange.

 

Here in the US, we have a traditional principle of government that has been pretty successful for over two hundred years. It's been so successful that it's sort of spread across the planet like wildfire, having brought millions of people in hundreds of Nations out of tyranny, repression, and crushing poverty. The principle was a free market-based, strictly limited government that very carefully protected individual rights from oppression by government, and stressed individual responsibilities. At the time we started this little experiment, it was unprecedented in history, and was in fact quite literally revolutionary. The Founders were bright enough to make certain, to the best of their abilities to ensure it - and those abilities were later proven to be formidable indeed - that the historically endless cycles of tyranny they had escaped in Europe would never be tolerated here.

 

Among the protected rights and responsibilites early on (the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, in fact) became the protected personal Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This was a fundamental, underpinning principle that upheld all other rights, and tended to keep goverment from getting the kinds of ideas for starting the historical trends that our Founders found repugnant to the point of intolerable.

 

At one time, today's much-reviled Independent American Free Spirit more or less became a beacon of sorts for the planet. Today such notions of patriotism and American Free Spirit are heaped with scorn, even in our own country, as demonstrated constantly, some would say progressively, by many of our own people, including on this Forum. It's one of our Nation's unique ironies that the free speech that protects such public displays of hatred for our Nation would be met with beheadings in countries who are as against our Nation's freedoms and principles as some of our most hate-filled anti-American citizens.

 

Since the days of the Founders, we've seen our early personal rights as a Nation eroded to a degree that to them, would've seemed beyond imaginable. Today, our government has for the first time routinely begun to confiscate private property from landowners against their will. Protection of property by governments and laws had previously been an untouchable, protected right and a taboo. But for several generations now, our government has also begun to prohibit the deveopment of private property by the millions of square miles under the guise of environmentalism. We now pay up to 50% (and far greater) of earned income in taxes. Our early Nation revolted at taxes of 1%. These trends continue steadily, incrementally, and unabated. We have a 2-party system that seems bent on continuing the steady encroachment of government that our Founders would have (and did) go to war and risk their lives and the lives of their families to escape.

 

Historically, gun control seldom results in immediate extermination of citizens whose guns have been consfiscated, though this has happened. It opens the door for the kinds of progressive encroachment of government that Europe experienced for thousands of years before the same principles of incremental tyranny began to unravel our Constitution here. Myself and millions of Americans like me believe that gun control would accelerate the destruction of our remaining rights and freedoms under our Constitution, and bring on more of the trends toward tyranny. We might not see extermination of millions following the pattern of history in our lifetimes, but some of us actually care enough about future generations to be focused on protecting the future for them.

 

There are millions upon millions of people both in this country and even more outside this country who will do everything in their power to bring incremental tyranny to our shores. Our Nation is deeply resented to the point of deep-seated hatred by those who have been culturally and institutionally raised and spiritually nourished on a steady diet of such hatred since birth. The same kinds of institutional and spiritual hatred exists within our country and is now openly not only tolerated -- but publically encouraged. We had a little reminder on 9/11/01 of just how determined some of these people are. The perpetrators were actually openly cheered by splinter segments of our own population -- and without question, those who are enemies of our Nation, both within and without, seething with propaganda and hatred, continue to cheer our Nation's enemies publicly today. They see our Nation as Imperialist, racist, and repressive. It's another irony that more emigrees of truly repressive nations come here - many risking their lives in the process - than anywhere else on the planet. Seems to me they must like our form of repression better than the one they're leaving.

 

I'm a principle kind-of-a-Guy. I seem to see very clearly things that people who consider themselves "sophisticated" cannot seem to see at all. What I often find "sophisticated" is the manner in which so many all across the globe are being manipulated beyond their carefully conditioned and dumbed-down ability to comprehend. Hatred does indeed kill and today it's on the loose like in no other time in my life. Self-defense is as basic and natural to mankind as breathing.

 

One of the most obvious principles underpinning free societies left to us on this planet is our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's beyond me how easily Propagandists have been able to demonize the concept. But with a knowledge of history, in a Popular Kulture dominated by the seductions of media propaganda, it's not hard to see all the same ancient historic patterns of tyranny asserting themselves again, is it?

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Well said.

 

I think my only concern is I believe in gun owners being qualified to own and use and not just a right that anyone can have, whether they are a crazed drug addict, a parent or someone who lives in a remote area. If you can't handle a firearm safely or have a history of firearm offences I don't think you have the right to own a weapon. Perhaps my thoughts are more about gun qualification than gun control. I certainly do not agree with the Canadian laws but it is possible to own and use many restricted weapons up here. It is truly a pain in the ass to do so but our present government is dropping the registration of long guns. I am still in favour of registering handguns but you'll be prying the rest of my guns from my cold dead fingers before they ever get registered.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . . . but you'll be prying the rest of my guns from my cold dead fingers before they ever get registered.

A guy from my home state of Michigan has been well-quoted with these same words. Name of Charleton Heston. I couldn't agree more. I've got a few I acquired that were never registered myself. They'll be safe long after the registered ones have been called-in. . . . .

[dlaing]

Uh, I haven't seen this kind of wild, flailing, spittle-spewing hysteria since Aunt Gertrude had her bout with irritable bowel syndrome and projectile diarrhea that she was stricken with during the second week of her change-of-life hot flashes.

Elegant

 

My friends, no single individual can make all of this up (see above). The genesis for most of this has been carefully synthesized and nurtured in focus group marketing studies by the best in the GROUPTHINK business, strategically positioned in hate-speech political propaganda, and evidently exacerbated in the minds of the lemming/sheeple by long-term effects of nitrous oxide narcosis on dark and purply planets, far far away.

Look in a mirror lately?

 

From the single topic of gun control, we've suddenly careened wildly off into such multiple Modern Classic Propaganda shibboleths as Dubya invading and conquering Iraqi oil fields for plunder, presumably pumping them dry -- straight into the Dubya Valdez and the invisible underground tank farm at Crawford Ranch, Texas. Rodney King. Sterilization. Racism. Concentration camps. Death camps. George Soros buying Saturday Night Specials for the Downtrodden.

 

[. . . .sigh. . . .]

 

Way to twist the words.

I simply pointed out that the war in Iraq was preceeded by clever and cowardly gun control...I should have said weapon control, but I'll bet it led US intelligence beeing able to determine where many guns were.

As far as I know it was the greatest and most cowardly act of weapon control ever.

But apparently you think that that gun control was good CAN YOU SAY "HYPOCRITE"? Maybe you are just blinded by your partisan allegiance.

I also pointed out the racist policies of gun controls....but you twist that into a statement of Liberal lunacy.

So, I guess either you are for gun control if it is racist or you are for attacking me for the sake of attacking me. Fight like a man, not a desperate hair pulling nut kicker.

[dlaing]

Dave. Germany has not been the only gun control lesson of history. You seem to've been stuck on stupid (on this topic anyway <_ since at least as far back post>

Please don't be so rude.

Point out what you disagree on, and stick to facts.

Your partisan rambling is preaching to the choir.

You simply try to associate me with what the right wingers on the list despise. Hitler used a similar tactic to malign his undesirables.

 

What part of the following do you seem to've had the most trouble with, then?

 

QUOTE FROM POST #79:

 

The anti-gun propagandists would have their target Proletariat remain ignorant of history.

 

Try to deny and then ignore any of the following:

 

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

IN 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves wre rounded up & exterminated.

 

China establisehd gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Guatemala establisehd gun control in 1970. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

DEFENSELESS PEOPLE ROUNDED UP AND EXTERMINATED IN THE 20TH CENTURY BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL: 56 MILLION.

 

The next time someone says they're in favor of gun control, ask them, "Who do YOU want to round up & exterminate?" With guns we are Citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

Enquiring minds just gotta know, for no other reason than the fact that we're simply fascinated by the vibrance and texture of y'er dark and purply, other-worldly, vivid hallucinations.

 

First of all, while there is much truth to those points, I can't think of any of them where a lack of control would have prevented the horrible killings.

Gun control does not cause genocide, it only enables an easier genocide.

How many of those gun controls were inacted by "Liberals"?!?!?

Do you think Liberals have a genocide agenda!?!?

Why aren't you whining about airline security, Homeland Security and all the rights we have given up?

Go on, you say you don't like Bush. so prove it!

Attack his setting up of Homeland Security with the same passion you do against me and Liberals in general.

Or are you really just another right wing hypocrite shouting for freedom to play with your toys and not giving a darn about the guy locked away without trial?

I hope not.

[Guest Nogbad]

Dave. Germany has not been the only gun control lesson of history. You seem to've been stuck on stupid (on this topic anyway ) since at least as far back as post #79.

 

What part of the following do you seem to've had the most trouble with, then?

 

QUOTE FROM POST #79:

 

The anti-gun propagandists would have their target Proletariat remain ignorant of history.

 

Try to deny and then ignore any of the following:

 

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

IN 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves wre rounded up & exterminated.

 

China establisehd gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Guatemala establisehd gun control in 1970. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

 

DEFENSELESS PEOPLE ROUNDED UP AND EXTERMINATED IN THE 20TH CENTURY BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL: 56 MILLION.

 

The next time someone says they're in favor of gun control, ask them, "Who do YOU want to round up & exterminate?" With guns we are Citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

Enquiring minds just gotta know, for no other reason than the fact that we're simply fascinated by the vibrance and texture of y'er dark and purply, other-worldly, vivid hallucinations.

 

You know what Hackman? I think you really are mad after all.

 

56 Million people were exterminated because other bad people wanted to exterminate them. Gun control had nothing to do with it.

 

Are you really proposing, for example, that the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto would have survived if they had been armed with a few handguns and fowling pieces? Hah! I don't think so. I somehow suspect that the glorious Wermacht would have gone in with a tank or two.

 

Ok, I give you that some might have died a "better" death than they actually did (though I am uncomfortable with such a concept) and you would have had a tad more property damage maybe. As for the poor victims escaping extermination? Nope, sorry.

 

Your whole argument is fatuous.

[docc]

Yet the Nazis 'allowed' Switzerland its neutrality. Even with it right next door.

 

I suppose somewhere between a few pistols in the ghetto and a Sturmgewher ( rifle) in evry man's skilled hands lies an enduring deterrent to the baddest of the bad guys.

[Guest ratchethack]

56 Million people were exterminated because other bad people wanted to exterminate them. Gun control had nothing to do with it.

Nothing to do with it! NO CORRELATION of any kind whatsoever!

 

Would it be possible for you to consider the undeniable link without imposing a requirement for a direct cause-and-effect relationship?!

 

Do you suppose Hitler enforced his gun control policies before or after forcing the Jews into ghettos??

 

Of course, there always have been and will no doubt always continue to be those who deny the most glaringly obvious, most significant lessons of history. The complete list of populations eliminated following disarmament got its most significant start long before firearms in the Bronze Age. The complete list of those merely enslaved following disarmament is no doubt far longer.

 

The familiar PATTERN has run continuously throughout recorded history, and will no doubt continue as it always has.

 

Well, [sigh] there always have been and always will be deniers of the holocaust as well. Al Jazzeera and Ahmadinejad spring to mind, both profligate sources of world Propaganda. Millions upon millions of victims of their propaganda believe it never happened. Are you one of them??

 

Ignorance is treatable, but it requires both an open mind and a willing student.

[Guest Nogbad]

I am certainly no holocaust denier, and I can fully sympathise with the Israelis wanting to be armed to the absolute teeth.

 

However, there is no guarantee that being armed to the teeth won't stop your enemy coming after you anyway. Both individually and collectively it tends to result in a competitive arms race and eventually to a suspicious (if potentially stable) stand off.

 

Strategically this is the MAD idea (Mutually Assured Destruction). Unfortunately the economic cost is very high and eventually the drain on one protagonists resource base brings them down.

 

I'm not saying an armed citizenry isn't a bulwark against tyranny or invasion, but it isn't a guarantee either. There were plenty of other reasons why Hitler didn't invade Switzerland. It has a lot of German sympathisers in it for one thing, and he didn't consider the Swiss an inferior race or need to acquire a load of watches and cuckoo clocks. The terrain is difficult logistically, and that kind of helps if the burgermeisters of Geneva are all tooled up.

 

Look at Africa - everyone is packing an AK in Mogadishu. Does this result in a pleasant law abiding life for the populus???? No. How come if you are so right about your childish assertion of direct proportionality between gun ownership crime and safety.

 

Sorry, you are just plain deluded. Guns are only a small factor in a complex social and economic interaction.

[Guest ratchethack]

Sorry, you are just plain deluded. Guns are only a small factor in a complex social and economic interaction.

Nog, may I suggest you consult the leading scientific studies on this before you make accusations of delusion. You've provided no evidence that you have any understanding whatsoever of the leading expertise on the subject of gun control.

 

In keeping with my habit on this forum, I've backed up my position in this thread with the most credible backup reference on the subject extant. See post #98 on p. 7 of this thread. I've purchased and read the book. It's fully referenceable, widely corroborated, and it's the most comprehensive scientific reference work on the subject ever compiled. See also the associated commentary in the same post, including a brief bio and curriculum vitae of the author.

 

You're simply on the wrong side of the hard science with a personal opinion, and you've brought no scientific reference to the discussion to back you up.

 

Try to match my backup reference with something to refute it other than unqualified speculation, please.

[Martin Barrett]

Nog, may I suggest you consult the leading scientific studies on this before you make accusations of delusion. You've provided no evidence that you have any understanding whatsoever of the leading expertise on the subject of gun control.

 

In keeping with my habit on this forum, I've backed up my position in this thread with the most credible backup reference on the subject extant. See post #98 on p. 7 of this thread. I've purchased and read the book. It's fully referenceable, widely corroborated, and it's the most comprehensive scientific reference work on the subject ever compiled. See also the associated commentary in the same post, including a brief bio and curriculum vitae of the author.

 

You're simply on the wrong side of the hard science with a personal opinion, and you've brought no scientific reference to the discussion to back you up.

 

Try to match my backup reference with something to refute it other than unqualified speculation, please.

 

David Irving was a credited historian, but obviously went off the rails, he wrote books does that mean that the Holocaust didn't happen? Will the inside of an Austrian gaol change his mind?

 

I don't think you will change anybody's mind. We're all big boys and the occasional girl, our views will be based on our experiances, circumstances and understandings which will differ greatly. The only thing we have in common is a basicly simular language though nuiances and tha occasional word will differ.

 

The Nog has produced a valid viewpoint and a perception based on an unregulated culture, my last piece of "research" would have been "Black Hawk Down".

If you target is disarmed it is easier to coerce and destroy if that is your aim. But it takes a mind set as well. Gandi effectively threw the British out of India through passive resistance. In our "civalised world" the days of the Peterloo massacre are over. We've had bloody Sunday since and you've had campus riots. But they're not put down so heavy handedly now days.

You should bear heed to the lessons of extremisium from 30's Germany and not elect an extreme goverment. Appathy(amongst other things) at the polls will get you one.

At least you have Supreme courts and legal process to suport your constutuitional rights.

At what point would you suggest armed resistance to your elected goverment?

 

My understanding is that Switzerland and Israel operate similar policies in compolsory armed service and than you've an armed citizen base to call upon later-I could be totaly wrong but I've never planned to invade either so not bothered to check. Switzerland not likely to be be invaded currently, Israel need I say more, but a host of people that would gladly wipe it from the face of the world given the chance.

 

If states get ingauged in arms races we have seen WWI and the collapse of the Soviet Union, both have the arms race of the day as a significant factor. Good or a bad thing?

 

You'll never eliminate guns from the criminal fraternity, just the same you'll never get rid of nuclear weapons. If you have one at home for point defence all well and good, just remembered that South African rugby player who shot dead his daughter thinking she was an intruder perhaps not so good after all. If I come knocking early one morning I bear that in mind, I hope we get you "contained" before you reach for your gun ( I know that as a Guzzi Road Geezer I won't need to be putting your door in and dragging you from your bed) Do you wake coherantly and instantly? I hate accidents. I've allready expressed my concerns where Joe Average has one in the public domain and just makes a couple of bad choices.

 

I think you're playing on a different playing field and with a slightly different set of rules than a lot of us(Brits esp), and provided that everyone involved knows the rules all is well and good. We've seen several people shot by police with imitation guns or items that have been mistaken for guns. Perhaps they didn't fully understand the rules of the game have moved on.

 

My big question remains at what point do you(not just Ratchet) take up armed resistance to your elected goverments?

 

 

Sory about the spelling and grammar - 2pts of G&T

[Guest Nogbad]

Ratchet, economics and sociology are not true sciences in that there are no absolute positions to discover. It is all opinion and conjecture.

 

I find your overweening arrogance unhelpful.

[badmotogoozer]

Well said Martin.

 

Waving a so-hailed "bible" of gun control at me isn't going to do a damn thing. It is only one book written by one man and his opinions on the subject. Using "scientific" in the same sentence with "gun control" just gets my head shaking. Very rarely does one see both sides of the story in the same book (any subject).

 

We all make our decisions and form our beliefs from our experiences, from what we read (each of us determines for ourselves what is and is not a credible source), and from the experiences of others. I would think that with the vast majority of folks on this board (seemingly) being educated, intelligent people, our opinions and views should be respected by our fellow listers. I doubt that most of the people here would believe anything and everything that the "conspiracy theorists" are jamming down their throats without questioning it.

 

Just because one disagrees with another's point of view is no reason to belittle and chastise that person, or their opinion. To do so shows a distict lack of character.

 

As Martin has pointed out, having a handgun in the house is a dangerous thing. You are only 2 mistakes away from someone (likely you or a family member) getting hurt or killed. This is my point in the discussion. So far I've been belittled, berated, scoffed at, told to look up simple words in the dictionary, and ridiculed for that opinion. Not a single word on point.

 

Time to hit the G&T - I gotta catch up to Martin.

 

Rj

[Guest Nogbad]

So far I've been belittled, berated, scoffed at, told to look up simple words in the dictionary, and ridiculed for that opinion.

 

Don't worry, that's just Hackracks odd way of communicating. Not worth taking it to heart anyway.