CANADIAN freedom and right to own a Firearm

Waterloomike said:
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.
Click to expand...

X2 for old fart and what was said ;)
 
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.
 
Drache said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
ePhoenix said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're clearly talking about a country other than Canada.
 
Edenchef said:
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!
Click to expand...


Well said, and I wholeheartedly concur. Though the hardest part is getting people to "think" when media/government does it for them........
 
^^^ 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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

One of those rare times when we tend to agree .
It is also a gauge of the quality of that government.
Click to expand...
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.
 
But it is easier to defend your rights against an armed government when you are armed as well. JMHO

Cheers!
 
Edenchef said:
But it is easier to defend your rights against an armed government when you are armed as well. JMHO

Cheers!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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........
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing to them. We must be controlled for our safety.
 
Foxer said:
We must be controlled for our safety.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RangeBob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those aren't "arguments". Those are mental health issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now
or