CANADIAN freedom and right to own a Firearm

[TAR 21]

Greetings fellow firearms owners and enthusiasts .. I am pleased to join GOC and be able to share my passion with fellow owners

Just a quick 'heads-up' to everyone who enjoys the FREEDOM to own and shoot their prized possessions. Lets make sure we keep that FREEDOM and not let the ANTI GUN LOBBY Bureaucrats deprive us of that enjoyment.

Unfortunately there are plenty of them out there that are waiting to seize on the opportunity to ban EVERY FIREARM they can, many are trying right this moment to 'jump on the band wagon' after the very sad events that have recently taken place in the US and the relentless MEDIA frenzy to ban firearms!

I, like many of you, have kids and they are the most precious part of our lives, none-the-less I know, like the rest of you, that guns will always be available to the crooks and lunatics on this planet..whether firearms are banned or not...I know this for a fact....

I used to live in the UK and had my firearms confiscated as did other legal gun owners after another lunatic, in the late 80's, went into a school and shot many kids...The BRITISH GOVERNMENT seized this 'ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY' to take away ALL our guns..
"THIS BAN WILL CUT GUN CRIME IN THE UK" was their rhetoric....TOTAL B.S.!!!

GUN CRIME HAS GONE THROUGH THE ROOF SINCE THE BAN!!!! As the only people that have guns now are the crooks!

SO, CANADIANS WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER AND NOT GIVE AN INCH TO THESE PHILISTINES!

Be safe out there:shoot:


***** GUNS ARE NOT DANGEROUS ...BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE! *****

[Strewth]

Welcome...great first post!

[telecaster]

Welcome!

[Space Shuttle Door Gunner]

Welcome, I share your sentiments entirely

[Drache]

Hate to say it but Canadians don't have a right to own firearms at all. We have the privilege that the Government allows us to own firearms. Been this way long before I was born sadly....

[YukonLeftie]

Which, perhaps above all else, needs correcting. But; given there isnt yet a single party within Canada willing to stand up and do that...

[awndray]

Hate to say it but Canadians don't have a right to own firearms at all.
Don't we?

http://www.rkba.ca/
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/common_law_right.htm

[Drache]

Don't we?

http://www.rkba.ca/
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/common_law_right.htm

I've read those arguments before and when I first joined CGN I was one of the ones always claiming we had that right. But we don't. We have the right to self defense which is clearly stated. It also state we have the right to over throw a tyrannical ruler. But it doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms.

[awndray]

So if nothing about it is mentioned, does it mean we explicitly don't have the right, or simply that we don't have a protected right? ;)

[3MTA3]

welcome
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/news/?id=358

[Edenchef]

This is my first post to this forum, so please forgive me if I sound like a newby. I’m not new to this game.
I have read a lot about how the “right to bear arms” is the final protection against government tyranny. An unalterable human right, something beyond mere law; something that belongs to “justice”, this I believe with all my heart (ex. RCAF Officer). All of what I have read, on this, many other gun forums, firearm websites, and in the truly free press; talk as if this is an event that might occur in the future and we need to be ready to stop it, when it happens. Question????? What if this tyranny by our government has already occurred? Not a fear for the future, but a thing of the present. These new gun laws and the courts support of them are just recognition of the fear of the power of this “human right to bear arms” in fighting the already existing tyranny. Now the tyrants and their servants are slowly, very slowly taking away our arms, hoping that by the time we wake up to this violation of our basic human rights; we are disarmed and helpless? Unable to mount an effective resistance to their “will of the state”.
Let’s look at this situation very, very carefully….. government makes these gun laws, courts make rulings on those laws, police enforce(with threat of application or actual application of deadly force, including firearms) those rulings of the courts; against it’s own citizens, effectively disarming them and rendering them ineffective in resisting.
Let’s look at the major players in this game:
Government – Our elected representatives – whose first priority once getting elected to a position of power, becomes staying in power, not representing the citizens(us), who put them there.
Judges – appointed by and paid by (guess who?) government, but misrepresented as being the independent “impartial arbiters of law”. Do they think we are that stupid? How can they possibly be “impartial”? They know who put them there, who pays their salaries, and who builds their grand palaces (law courts).
Police—again, hired by, armed by, paid by; government. For the sole purpose of application of force against it’s own citizens.
The minor, supporting players:
Bureaucrats, civil servants—the nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable; the true enemies of freedom (as accused by Marcus Tulius Cicero, in the time of Julius Caesar). Guess who makes up the lists of restricted and prohibited guns?
The news media—“Freedom of the press” What a crock of fertilizer. Who do you think the greatest buyer of advertising is……so think they are unbiased?
I have probably violated the forum rules many times already, but my point for everyone is….THINK, please. This might not be a problem for the future, but a cold hard fact of our present. Thank you, Cheers!

[walperstyle]

If that long gun registry ever comes back, I forsee a lot of people officially not owning any guns. I really hope it doesn't. Terrible waste of money and didn't accomplish anything.

I don't mind the police knowing what I have, but some random office somewhere (that will possibly be outsourced)... no thanks. I don't like that information floating around for bad people to find out.

[Steveo9mm]

If that long gun registry ever comes back, I forsee a lot of people officially not owning any guns.

"Sorry officer, what guns? I lost them in a game of truth. Check 2 towns down."

[Senor Frio Maldito]

If that long gun registry ever comes back, I forsee a lot of people officially not owning any guns. I really hope it doesn't. Terrible waste of money and didn't accomplish anything.

I don't mind the police knowing what I have, but some random office somewhere (that will possibly be outsourced)... no thanks. I don't like that information floating around for bad people to find out.

Agreed. Not a fan of the CPC (Cheryl Gallant's) proposal to "privatize the functions of the firearms registry".
Privatization means "for profit", which will come out of our pockets, and it means efficiency, so instead of a phone call from the gov't, we might end up with Blackwater kicking in our door.

I wish the Libertarian Party of Canada wasn't so disorganized and amateurish. I joined anyway - $10.

[Waterloomike]

Hate to say it but Canadians don't have a right to own firearms at all. We have the privilege that the Government allows us to own firearms. Been this way long before I was born sadly....

Government is in the business of denying rights, not enforcing Rights.

The Rights exist, even though their paper work may claim otherwise.

Governments are force and force alone. government is a gun to your head.

The thing they fear most is guns in the wrong hands. Your hands are the wrong hands.

That is the fundamental reason, they only issue a temporary permit and have made it illegal to own guns under any other condition.

They do not fear guns in the hands of permit holders. We are few and we obey the law, regardless how onerous it is. We are the low hanging fruit that can easily be stripped of access for any reason they care to concoct.

[awndray]

Do you always speak in doomsday verbiage?

[Waterloomike]

This is my first post to this forum, so please forgive me if I sound like a newby. I’m not new to this game.
I have read a lot about how the “right to bear arms” is the final protection against government tyranny. An unalterable human right, something beyond mere law; something that belongs to “justice”, this I believe with all my heart (ex. RCAF Officer). All of what I have read, on this, many other gun forums, firearm websites, and in the truly free press; talk as if this is an event that might occur in the future and we need to be ready to stop it, when it happens. Question????? What if this tyranny by our government has already occurred? Not a fear for the future, but a thing of the present. These new gun laws and the courts support of them are just recognition of the fear of the power of this “human right to bear arms” in fighting the already existing tyranny. Now the tyrants and their servants are slowly, very slowly taking away our arms, hoping that by the time we wake up to this violation of our basic human rights; we are disarmed and helpless? Unable to mount an effective resistance to their “will of the state”.
Let’s look at this situation very, very carefully….. government makes these gun laws, courts make rulings on those laws, police enforce(with threat of application or actual application of deadly force, including firearms) those rulings of the courts; against it’s own citizens, effectively disarming them and rendering them ineffective in resisting.
Let’s look at the major players in this game:
Government – Our elected representatives – whose first priority once getting elected to a position of power, becomes staying in power, not representing the citizens(us), who put them there.
Judges – appointed by and paid by (guess who?) government, but misrepresented as being the independent “impartial arbiters of law”. Do they think we are that stupid? How can they possibly be “impartial”? They know who put them there, who pays their salaries, and who builds their grand palaces (law courts).
Police—again, hired by, armed by, paid by; government. For the sole purpose of application of force against it’s own citizens.
The minor, supporting players:
Bureaucrats, civil servants—the nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable; the true enemies of freedom (as accused by Marcus Tulius Cicero, in the time of Julius Caesar). Guess who makes up the lists of restricted and prohibited guns?
The news media—“Freedom of the press” What a crock of fertilizer. Who do you think the greatest buyer of advertising is……so think they are unbiased?
I have probably violated the forum rules many times already, but my point for everyone is….THINK, please. This might not be a problem for the future, but a cold hard fact of our present. Thank you, Cheers!

That was brilliant Sir.

I'm an old fart just like you.

I've been witness to just how far this country has gone towards the Orwellian nightmare and every word you spoke is true.

[Waterloomike]

Do you always speak in doomsday verbiage?

Only when we're talking of doomsday.

Otherwise, I'm fairly upbeat.

Do you take exception to what I said?

[awndray]

I'm curious about the reason for capitalizing the word right. Are you implying something that I fail to see or comprehend? I don't know that I take exception to your thoughts necessarily, but certainly the way you say it. We do indeed have rights and freedoms afforded to us by the Charter. We do indeed also have other rights, as prescribed by Section 26 of the Charter. I understand that much. The reality is, as much as want to refer to the English Bill of Rights and the British North America Act, we don't truly have those rights. Sadly, we have the Firearms Act. We have privileges. The only reason government is in power is because we've given them that power. Our families, friends and neighbors are just as much to blame for this. They too are holding the proverbial gun to our head.

Please don't take this as an anti gun rights rant. I fully support and a donating member of our CSSA and NFA. I do what I can to promote our sports and hobbies. I also write my regional, provincial and federal officials. I want nothing more than to enjoy a life without the many restrictions place upon me, but I live in a society that won't allow it. I'll keep fighting it though.

[Waterloomike]

I'm curious about the reason for capitalizing the word right. Are you implying something that I fail to see or comprehend? I don't know that I take exception to your thoughts necessarily, but certainly the way you say it. We do indeed have rights and freedoms afforded to us by the Charter. We do indeed also have other rights, as prescribed by Section 26 of the Charter. I understand that much. The reality is, as much as want to refer to the English Bill of Rights and the British North America Act, we don't truly have those rights. Sadly, we have the Firearms Act. We have privileges. The only reason government is in power is because we've given them that power. Our families, friends and neighbors are just as much to blame for this. They too are holding the proverbial gun to our head.

Please don't take this as an anti gun rights rant. I fully support and a donating member of our CSSA and NFA. I do what I can to promote our sports and hobbies. I also write my regional, provincial and federal officials. I want nothing more than to enjoy a life without the many restrictions place upon me, but I live in a society that won't allow it. I'll keep fighting it though.

It is true, that all we have, officially; in so far as government goes, are state granted privileges. However, the state only exists through the privilege of it's people. I like to remind people of that. Especially state agents. they serve us, it is not the other way around. Though, it's difficult to recognise it that way at this time. It sure seems to not be the case. It seems a great deal more as if we serve them. And I hate that with every fibre of my being.

I don't know when I started capitalizing Rights. I see them as special and more than just rights with a small r. I may have seen it written that way somewhere.

As long as you keep fighting, and as long as we stand together, we haven't lost.

[Wildcard82]

Here is a great read on the history of Gun Control in Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/Arming-Disarming-History-Control-Canada/dp/144264639X

From the Government actively subsidizing rifle marksmanship courses and zero control to today's totalitarian mess. (However onerous, I prefer what we have over California, DC, or NYC!)

[Edenchef]

Here is a great read on the history of Gun Control in Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/Arming-Disarming-History-Control-Canada/dp/144264639X

From the Government actively subsidizing rifle marksmanship courses and zero control to today's totalitarian mess. (However onerous, I prefer what we have over California, DC, or NYC!)

As they say "cheer up it could be worse; so I cheered up and sure enough.......things got worse."

Cheers!

[Kobs]

That was brilliant Sir.

I'm an old fart just like you.

I've been witness to just how far this country has gone towards the Orwellian nightmare and every word you spoke is true.

X2 for old fart and what was said ;)

[Petamocto]

TAR 21,

Welcome to the forum. World record for the most FREEDOM in all caps, too. As everyone knows, it's not free, it costs a-buck-o-five.

[ePhoenix]

I've read those arguments before and when I first joined CGN I was one of the ones always claiming we had that right. But we don't. We have the right to self defense which is clearly stated. It also state we have the right to over throw a tyrannical ruler. But it doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms.

A right is not something that needs to be outlined specifically for specific situations or items. Private property is private property. You can buy something, anything. It is how you use it that makes you a responsible peaceful person or a criminal. Assault is not a type of weapon. It is an action. There is no law against owning or carrying a firearm because it would be anticonstitutional. There is a still unchallenged law that states that someone will decide arbitrarily if you can carry one or not. When it is challenged in the Supreme Court, it will be killed as it was for Illinois for example, where everyone can now carry a concealed weapon after the very stiff state law was destroyed.

[Gaidheal]

My son got his 1st gun at the age of 3. It was a single-shot, bolt-action Chipmunk. The rules were always clear and obvious: no fooling around or we go home.

A buddy of mine still has the 1st shell from his 1st shot, 18 years ago. He put a lot of adults to shame that awesome day.

He's now in the military, putting himself through nursing school.

He is a member of his local club and shoots everything from hand guns to shotguns (he's contemplating shooting competitively)

He has welcomed his girlfriend into the world of shooting and she is now an active participant in the sport.

We need to introduce more non-shooters!

[Foxer]

We need to introduce more non-shooters!

Rarely have truer words been spoken. (well - typed anyway.)

[awndray]

There is no law against owning or carrying a firearm because it would be anticonstitutional. There is a still unchallenged law that states that someone will decide arbitrarily if you can carry one or not. When it is challenged in the Supreme Court, it will be killed as it was for Illinois for example, where everyone can now carry a concealed weapon after the very stiff state law was destroyed.
You're clearly talking about a country other than Canada.

[6MT]

You're clearly talking about a country other than Canada.

:agree:

[Malus]

This is my first post to this forum, so please forgive me if I sound like a newby. I’m not new to this game.
I have read a lot about how the “right to bear arms” is the final protection against government tyranny. An unalterable human right, something beyond mere law; something that belongs to “justice”, this I believe with all my heart (ex. RCAF Officer). All of what I have read, on this, many other gun forums, firearm websites, and in the truly free press; talk as if this is an event that might occur in the future and we need to be ready to stop it, when it happens. Question????? What if this tyranny by our government has already occurred? Not a fear for the future, but a thing of the present. These new gun laws and the courts support of them are just recognition of the fear of the power of this “human right to bear arms” in fighting the already existing tyranny. Now the tyrants and their servants are slowly, very slowly taking away our arms, hoping that by the time we wake up to this violation of our basic human rights; we are disarmed and helpless? Unable to mount an effective resistance to their “will of the state”.
Let’s look at this situation very, very carefully….. government makes these gun laws, courts make rulings on those laws, police enforce(with threat of application or actual application of deadly force, including firearms) those rulings of the courts; against it’s own citizens, effectively disarming them and rendering them ineffective in resisting.
Let’s look at the major players in this game:
Government – Our elected representatives – whose first priority once getting elected to a position of power, becomes staying in power, not representing the citizens(us), who put them there.
Judges – appointed by and paid by (guess who?) government, but misrepresented as being the independent “impartial arbiters of law”. Do they think we are that stupid? How can they possibly be “impartial”? They know who put them there, who pays their salaries, and who builds their grand palaces (law courts).
Police—again, hired by, armed by, paid by; government. For the sole purpose of application of force against it’s own citizens.
The minor, supporting players:
Bureaucrats, civil servants—the nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable; the true enemies of freedom (as accused by Marcus Tulius Cicero, in the time of Julius Caesar). Guess who makes up the lists of restricted and prohibited guns?
The news media—“Freedom of the press” What a crock of fertilizer. Who do you think the greatest buyer of advertising is……so think they are unbiased?
I have probably violated the forum rules many times already, but my point for everyone is….THINK, please. This might not be a problem for the future, but a cold hard fact of our present. Thank you, Cheers!


Well said, and I wholeheartedly concur. Though the hardest part is getting people to "think" when media/government does it for them........

[Kobs]

^^^ Ain't it funny that you have to get into what is needed to oppose tyrannical oppression that you find out it's going on right under your nose and you barely noticed it before. Thanks to the media filling our heads with all kinds of unimportant BS .

Reminds me of this
Quote Morpheus "You've felt it you're entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that brought you here. Do you know what I'm talking about?

[CLW .45]

Rights are not conferred by government.

Their existence is either recognized or denied by government.

That recognition or denial is of importance because it may adversely affect your life.

It is also a gauge of the quality of that government.

[Foxer]

Rights are not conferred by government.

Their existence is either recognized or denied by government.

That recognition or denial is of importance because it may adversely affect your life.


One of those rare times when we tend to agree .

It is also a gauge of the quality of that government.
I'd say it's a gauge of the quality of the people. The gov't can inherently only hold what power the people are willing to abide them holding. In the end, you only really have those 'rights' that you can clearly articulate and are willing and able to defend, and that's true as individuals and as a people.

[Edenchef]

But it is easier to defend your rights against an armed government when you are armed as well. JMHO

Cheers!

[Foxer]

But it is easier to defend your rights against an armed government when you are armed as well. JMHO

Cheers!

Goes without saying. For a gov't to actually be 'of the people, for the people, by the people' it must exist only at the sufferance of the people. Which means if they can't remove it, then it's not 'for them'. Normally we can remove gov'ts without bloodshed or the like, but given enough time history shows that SOONER or LATER, a gov't will come along that doesn't want to be removed. Might only happen once every few dozen generations if you're lucky but when it does the people must have the means of resisting that gov't.

[Malus]

There is "no" reason except one for government to disarm citizens. Control. Its not for the children or "safety" or any other line of bs. Disarming a country's population only means that something crappy is coming down the line and the PTB don't want the average joe to be able to do anything about it. Under the BNC, we have the "right to arms", sure it doesn't specify what those arms might be and thats the angle this criminal legalese system works on. The definitions. Like a weapon, could be anything you choose to use, not inclusive to guns alone. Unless we stand up for our "right" as we see fit and not dictated by an agenda driven political ideology, sooner (more so than later), our guns will be gone and we'll be left with rocks and sticks (only the approved version) if something goes awry. And we've all seen how effective that strategy is. We are at the point of "NO COMPROMISE" (and we better mean it). Btw, "I" have the "right" to live and protect myself, regardless of what others dictate for me and expect me to do and that will never change........

[Emme]

Is anyone here a subscriber of Canadian Access to Firearms? I'd like to know what you think. http://canadianguns.com

[Foxer]

There is "no" reason except one for government to disarm citizens. Control. Its not for the children or "safety" or any other line of bs.

It's the same thing to them. We must be controlled for our safety.

[RangeBob]

We must be controlled for our safety.

These are the arguments I hear most often:

Everyone wants criminals not to have guns. ( or cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance)

So we have weapons prohibition orders, and laws against trafficking and smuggling, and licencing so that gun stores and millions of law abiding firearms owners can/must verify that the buyer isn't a criminal because the government doesn't trust criminals with guns. But I note that prohibition orders make no mention of edged weapons, blunt instruments, etc, so perhaps they're fine?

And we have the registry, because without the registry some gun stores and owners might be occasionally tempted to sell their guns to criminals, thus the registry is there because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns either.

And we have ATTs, because the government doesn't trust the background checked with where they might have their guns either.

And we have classification (non-restricted, restricted, prohibited, antique, replica, air rifle, toy, deactivated), because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns that send projectiles down a barrel either, but some of them are too popular and electorate supported to produce serious restrictions on without losing more than an acceptable number of votes.

[Foxer]

These are the arguments I hear most often:

Everyone wants criminals not to have guns. ( or cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance)

So we have weapons prohibition orders, and laws against trafficking and smuggling, and licencing so that gun stores and millions of law abiding firearms owners can/must verify that the buyer isn't a criminal because the government doesn't trust criminals with guns. But I note that prohibition orders make no mention of edged weapons, blunt instruments, etc, so perhaps they're fine?

And we have the registry, because without the registry some gun stores and owners might be occasionally tempted to sell their guns to criminals, thus the registry is there because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns either.

And we have ATTs, because the government doesn't trust the background checked with where they might have their guns either.

And we have classification (non-restricted, restricted, prohibited, antique, replica, air rifle, toy, deactivated), because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns that send projectiles down a barrel either, but some of them are too popular and electorate supported to produce serious restrictions on without losing more than an acceptable number of votes.

Those aren't "arguments". Those are mental health issues.

[sallen]

Is anyone here a subscriber of Canadian Access to Firearms? I'd like to know what you think. http://canadianguns.com

I subscribed for many years, but haven’t for the last few. It was a good paper and I purchased several firearms from it. I did find it getting smaller and smaller as sales moved to the Internet, however I suspect you will still get a few deals from it from older people that are not Internet savvy. It was also good for dealer advertisements of new products, that I would not normally see elsewhere. They did offer a free copy a few years ago, and I also see them for sale at some gun shows. You could pick up a single copy and decide for yourself.

There was also a similar publication called “The Gunrunner” that I subscribed to for several years as well. It kept getting smaller and smaller until it faded away.

[Kobs]

Rights are not conferred by government.

Their existence is either recognized or denied by government.

That recognition or denial is of importance because it may adversely affect your life.

It is also a gauge of the quality of that government.

A famous man by the name of Frederick Douglass once said

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Find out just what peoples will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them;
and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.