Page 17 of 34 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 340
  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    This "control" is entirely illusory. The govt only thinks/hopes it knows where your firearms are as the system depends entirely on the willingness of law abiding gun owners to abide by the law. Should people decide not to abide by the law, the govt then has zero control over anything.

    The govt does not have the resources to track down millions of people who choose not to abide by a law. And even if they did, would our society really brook the jailing of gigantic numbers of otherwise upstanding citizens for paper crimes? I doubt it.
    I don't see this as correct at all. The control is very real. Retailers comply or they do not sell restricted firearms. Sure, you can act as the gang banger and buy a restricted illegally, but then your argument is based on the entire society ignoring the rule of law and following the path of the lawless. That is the premise of your position and it is simply not plausible. I doubt you would find 10% of the gun owners in Canada willing to walk that path and buy their weapons from the local meth dealer.

    The government maintains control of restricted weapons by maintaining a database of retail --> individual sales. There is nothing illusory about that. They know you have a restricted at time of purchase, and that in turn gives them ultimate control. You are entirely responsible for adherence to the law and proper stewardship of that restricted, at all times, should they come looking. That is ultimate control. Should they choose to negate your ownership based on claissifaction, they have that power, and that level of control. The only question before the courts in such a situation would be that of compensation.

    The government has whatever resources it wishes to have. If it so chooses, a mass verification, or removal, of restricted gun ownership is absolutely within their power and capability. It may not be popular with the firearms community, but that does not negate the fact that it is absolutely doable.

    That is at the very root of the 2A fight against registration in the US. It is not a matter of what will happen when the government has that info, it is what will potentially happen with that level of control.
    "The most important thing you can do in your life is not interfere with somebody else's life."

    -- Frank Zappa

  2. The Following User Liked This Post By Soph

    chuckbuster (05-15-2019)

  3. #162
    Canadian ForcesMember Grizz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by killer kane View Post
    Include unfettered carry and I'd be ok with it.
    Ive always said we should be able to, at our own cost, take the same training course as the police do with reference to carrying a firearm. Let us join their recruit class for that section only.

    The antis say its OK for them to carry because they have special training. If we were able to take the course too we would be just as qualified in their minds in turn removing their argument. In addition, it would raise additional funding that could be put toward true crime prevention.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Grizz

    IJ22 (05-16-2019), joe6167 (05-17-2019)

  5. #163
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    not far enough
    Posts
    4,530
    If I could buy a weapon from the meth dealer without legal complications, I would do it just to 'get it off the streets'.
    Far safer in my hands but dammit, that makes too much sense, they'd never allow it
    "If we had a vote tomorrow I would vote, once again, to keep the Registry..." - Justin Trudeau
    "... if Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians." - Justin Trudeau

  6. #164
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Soph View Post
    The government has control. If you are a restricted firearm owner they know where your weapons reside, and what you have purchased. Should they choose to remove your privilege of ownership, that is indeed control, and they have the ways and means.
    The government owns restricted firearms.
    A bureaucrat decides where they can be stored and for what purpose it can be removed from such storage.
    Most 12X prohibs are nothing but safe queens on death row waiting for their owners to die before being seized and shipped to the smelter.
    You can't use them for hunting. Expensive paper punches.
    Most 12Xs can't even be taken to the range.
    If a gun can't hunt it's no use to me.
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  7. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by LB303 View Post
    If I could buy a weapon from the meth dealer without legal complications, I would do it just to 'get it off the streets'.
    Far safer in my hands but dammit, that makes too much sense, they'd never allow it
    Correct, because by allowing it, the government loses "control"
    "The most important thing you can do in your life is not interfere with somebody else's life."

    -- Frank Zappa

  8. #166
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz View Post

    The antis say it’s OK for them to carry because they have “special training.” If we were able to take the course too we would be just as qualified in their minds in turn removing their argument.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The vast majority of leftists will just find (make up) another face value excuse. It's not actually about safety. The real reasons they do not want guns around is because 1) they are told not to like them by leftist totalitarians who don't want an armed populace, 2) because it is mostly a male hobby and masculinity = bad, 3) because it is a very white hobby and white people = bad, and my personal favourite and very common reason among leftists: 4) bc it is very conservative/right wing and out of spite they don't want you to be happy - they want to see rightwing people miserable.

    This is why leftists never stop at the next level of gun control and will come for your grandpas shotgun eventually unless they are stopped. It has nothing to do with logical reasoning, facts, or actual safety and 100% to do with left wing politics - which are tyrannical and want you broke, homeless and starving in the street with your kids hating you, if you are not part of their cult. Which is another reason why the right keeps losing - conservatives think if they keep playing by the rules and being nice and presenting logical arguments that the left will reciprocate and meet them half way. As a person who was born in a socialist country I can assure you of what they truly want and that they will never stop in the sense a moral, logical person would stop.
    Last edited by Formidable22; 05-15-2019 at 03:09 PM.

  9. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Formidable22

    LB303 (05-18-2019), Northshore (05-15-2019)

  10. #167
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    This "control" is entirely illusory. The govt only thinks/hopes it knows where your firearms are as the system depends entirely on the willingness of law abiding gun owners to abide by the law. Should people decide not to abide by the law, the govt then has zero control over anything.

    The govt does not have the resources to track down millions of people who choose not to abide by a law. And even if they did, would our society really brook the jailing of gigantic numbers of otherwise upstanding citizens for paper crimes? I doubt it.






    Conservatives and gun owners need to make a big effort to educate the public on the current state of our laws and specifically on how a semi-auto AR15 is functionally no different from a semi-auto Browning or a Remington 7600 rifle (both of which are non-restricted). Even the infamous Mini14 is non-restricted, so why on earth is the AR15 restricted when functionally it is identical to so many non-restricted firearms?

    We need to own the narrative and prevent the anti's demonizing us and our rifle of choice.
    Why?

    Because they were able to do it.

    As for the others, they believe they may be able to do it soon.

    Perhaps even make them all prohibs.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isnt hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  11. #168
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,131
    Get caught with a handgun at some place not covered by your ATT or ATC (especially a loaded handgun) and then ponder whether or not the government has control as you peer out between the bars of your jail cell.
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  12. #169
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunrunner View Post
    Get caught with a handgun at some place not covered by your ATT or ATC (especially a loaded handgun) and then ponder whether or not the government has control as you peer out between the bars of your jail cell.
    Doubt that you would even see jail!, The court system here in Ont anyway is so backed up. All your lawyer has to do is wait, remand the case when necessary and when your case hasn't been seen in a appropriate amount of time, case dismissed.( Statue of limitations ) this is why there are so many gang banging gun toting piece's of shit out there on the streets, thanks to weak ass outdated criminal system and greasy ass lawyers.

  13. #170
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    36,248
    [no need to watch]

    Michell Rempel
    Potential firearms ban by Justin Trudeau? | How do we ACTUALLY stop firearms violence?
    May 14 2019, 9 minutes


    Whenever justin has bad press, he calls for a firearm ban.
    When justin was in India and had bad press, and that was the first time this term the Liberals called for a firearm ban.

    Vast majority of firearms are illegally obtained, by smuggling from USA.

    Bill Blair didn't shut down Tony Clement's question, which he should have been able to shut down easily.

    Canada vs USA, Rempel has licence, subject to strict regulations on what she can use her guns for, under what circumstances, how they're transported how they're stored, and that's not the same as it is in the United States.

    Bill C-71 does nothing, but punish legally owned.

    Scheer, will reverse C-71 and reverse a handgun ban.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •