Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate  (Read 699899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,380
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2004, 23:09:00 »
Quote
But Bowling for Columbine was at least entertaining propaganda
Well, I will agree with that.  I watched it and was entertained at some parts; I liked it when he walked through Compton for his piece on manufacturing fear.
In the end I can say I learned something...that Moore is still an idiot.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

wright.rj

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2004, 06:39:00 »
I am totally opposed to the gun control law, as stated in this forum the only people that this law is inconveniencing is the law abiding hunter or collector.  The practice of random inspections of gun owners' facilities rings vaguely familiar to the type operations done here in Bosnia; when we root through peoples houses looking for weapons, for those of you who don't know this is called  â Å“OP Harvestâ ?.  Now my question is: now that the government knows where all the firearms are, when will the Government of Canada conduct an â Å“OP Harvestâ ?? Moreover, how will you, as a soldier, feel about going door to door to confiscate your fellow Canadian's weapons?  I know that I would have difficulty.  I know that I'm not alone in this concern.  Also alluded to in this forum is the fact that buddy in down-town Toronto, Vancouver or even small town Alberta is not going to patiently wait, as Maxpower did, to get all of his paperwork in order and get permission to transport his Uzi to jack the local CIBC!

This law is just a way to make the left wing tree huggers FEEL safe at night in their $800,000 condo in Toronto! NOTE: I said FEEL safe, cause it won‘t make the country any safer.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 22,771
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,998
  • The usual suspect.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2004, 11:44:00 »
I can‘t believe I‘m actually going to say this Rob but....WELL SAID!

Can‘t believe you wrote that. You usually have a hard time walking up stairs...I‘m impressed!

 :D    ;)
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline Marauder

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 834
  • Dirty Infidel
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2004, 15:42:00 »
Even if you do jump through the dozen plus hoops and make the gov richer by another $250 or so, you can‘t defend your home with a firearm anyway. If you are ever in a situation where you blast some intruder who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you‘re gonna wind up charged with murder some liberal **** of a crown attorney. The Liberals think it‘s much better that you turtle and gamble that the piece of **** invading YOUR HOME will just rob you blind of things you WORKED FOR, and hopefully decides not to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY for a little extra sport.
That‘s why after going through the headache and expense of getting a PAL with Restricted, I now just keep a ball bat by the door of my bedroom. (I fiugre it will take another decade or so before they ban baseball and baseball bats in Canada.) I figure I can likely get away with just crippling anyone breaking in my home and then dumping them in the crackhouse part of the city. I doubt they‘ll tell the cops they got broken during the comission of a home invasion, and anyone seeing me dump the shitsack will only be some throwaway crackie anyhow.
"Lions mustn't concern themselves with the opinions of lambs."

logau

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2004, 16:58:00 »
Check this out. From  http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_040107.html

I think we`ve found 2 billion - 1 billions siphoned off by Jane Stewart (no puns intended - think about how you get gas out of a gas tank with a green hose) and 1 billion by Alan Rock on the gun control Farce.

Dear PM Martin

Since you never asked - we can be bought - about 2 billion for the Army would be in order - CASH - and then we may still vote you out.

The gun registry: A billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness

Jan. 7, 2004

For the second time in less than a year, parts of Toronto resemble a bad gangster movie.

Almost every weekend for the last while, one or more people are shot. Some are injured, others killed at clubs, at dances, on the street. There‘s usually a crowd present when the fireworks start, but there‘s hardly ever a witness with the guts to come forward afterwards. Vancouver is not as ripe with gun killings or injuries as Toronto, but there was one killing in Vancouver recently even more disgusting than some of the ones here. The young woman killed by a handgun was trying to help some poor character who was being set upon and kicked by a bunch of thugs. She got shot and killed in the downtown district of Gastown. It seems particularly miserable that the only person with spirit and conscience to interfere with a beating, a genuine good Samaritan, gets shot and killed, killed essentially for being a decent human being.

If this level of murderous thuggery were present in any other country but Canada, I suppose the public attitude would have to be one of despair and helplessness, but Canada, our dear Canada has had for a number of years now one of the most thorough and certainly one of the most expensive gun registry programs since the very invention of gun powder. And if we are to oblige the logic that went into setting up a system of registering firearms with the cost only slightly less than the missile defence program, it has to be that when a gun goes off criminally in this country, all the police have to do is tap the nearest computer keyboard, pick up the handcuffs on their way out, and nab the felon.

I know it will stagger everyone to hear this, but it doesn‘t quite work like that. Whether it‘s a rash of gun killings or just a single gun murder, our platinum priced gun registry with its billion-dollar cost overrun is not just ordinarily useless in cases of this kind, it is perfectly useless. It is useless without qualification. It does nothing. This may surprise a few anti-gun philosophers, but the knowledge that a farmer has a 12-gauge in Saskatchewan or a hunter has a .30-30 in Newfoundland is infinitely irrelevant. It is sublimely without purpose or point for a gang shooting in downtown Toronto or the butchery of a good Samaritan in the Gastown of Vancouver. You know why, of course. The very people who shoot other people as a hobby, a pastime, or a career are, wait for it, the very people who don‘t give a flying fig about registering their wretched handguns in the first place. People who shoot people do not join line-ups to tell police where they stole, smuggled, or bought their guns in the first place.

So now Paul Martin, staring down a billion dollars worth of ludicrously expensive wishful thinking, is about to look into the gun registry. If he doesn‘t scrap it all together, admit it was nothing more than wasteful piety from its very conception, and close it down, we will know he‘s only playing with the issue. It is a waste, he knows it‘s a waste, and a politically correct waste to boot. It‘s a billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness. Let‘s see him act on that knowledge.

For "The National," I‘m Rex Murphy.

matt wright

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2004, 20:25:00 »
Time to throw my two cents in. First of all, I think Canadian gun owners can relax a little. I don‘t know of any police officer who is going out of their way to invade anyone‘s privacy to check up on registration or lack thereof. They are just too busy, for one thing.

Police officers are Canadian citizens as well, and many of them are gunowners when they aren‘t carrying their sidearm at work. They also realize that criminals do not and will not ever, register their fireams.

However, there are some valid motivations behind the implementation of the gun registry. If a firearm is registered, by a law-abiding citizen, and is later stolen in a break-in, then it can be a) entered onto CPIC as stolen,
b) identified as stolen if encountered, even if it has NOT been entered on CPIC ie, it‘s in the hands of a suspicious person and not the registered owner,
c)successfully tracked back to and probably returned to the rightful owner if recovered.

Additionally, the firearms registry is a usefull tool for police officers when responding to a call, if they can check in advance and know that there are firearms in the residence, they can keep that bit of info in the back of their mind. I‘m sure everyone here has probably heard that domestic situations are one of the most potentially volatile encounters a police officer can encounter. Every bit of info gleaned before going into one helps manage the risk. "Time spent in recce is seldom wasted"

I am not for one minute condoning the outrageous cost overuns plagueing the program, and I am not advocating that we take anyone‘s guns away if they are not abusing them. I personally was sad to see collectors get the short end of the stick. I personally know many military members who have turned over their collections of automatic fireams as a result of changes in the legislation.

I am simply proposing that there are merits to a firearm registry. I don‘t look at it as "gun control". I see it as a tool that can be used to help solve crime, and something that needs to be used carefully, not abused.

Comments?

Offline Garry

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -25
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
  • Retired
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2004, 22:47:00 »
Recce,

I don‘t think I‘m going out on a limb when I say that most of us Military types get a long well with most of the Police.

Re: registry- if guns are stolen, the owner can tell you what the serial numbers are- and it won‘t cost anything. (note- if the guns weren‘t registered, you may not get any input- from an othewrwise honest guy)

Re: Arriving at a home, guns?- you do not need to register the guns to know the homeowner has guns- he‘s licenced.

I‘ve got a friend who lost all his guns- he invited a Cop Bud in for coffe, his partner noticed a .303 by the back door, (farmer,predator control, legal!!) and came back the next day...trashed the house. Why should Police be able to sidestep the requirement for a warrant to search gun owners homes? Court case pending, but....

Enforce the laws we have, require personal responsibility- and maybe treat criminals like the societal rejects they really are?

Offline portcullisguy

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 564
  • Border Services Officer
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2004, 03:12:00 »
To clarify a point made earlier, the amendments to the Criminal Code do not permit the police, or anyone else for that matter, to just waltz in to your home and inspect your firearms for safe storage.

S. 117.04(2) permits search and seizure without warrant because of a risk to public safety, based on reasonable grounds. Although this has not been defined, it is generally held based on precedence that this requires some sort of immediate danger to member of the public.

S. 117.04(1) permits search and seizure, based on reasonable grounds, if possession of a firearm, weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive is not in the best interest of the person or any other person, but this requires a warrant.

As always, search of a dwelling house without warrant is permitted if there are exigent circumstances (read: immediate danger to public safety).  This has always been the case, long before the Firearms Act made any amendments to the Criminal Code.

I cannot comment on Michael Moore, or his movies, not having seen any of them.  However, I suspect like most people in the media spotlight, he has found a way to manipulate the situation to suit his message (or the message to suit his situation, whichever).

Old School is right, we have had registration of firearms in Canada since 1930, in one form or another.

I think the majority of firearms users object to the need to register long guns.

Long guns are not commonly used in crimes, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that registering them is simply a "tax" grab (and an ineffective one at that, hence the cost of the registry).

Enzo‘s comment about not supporting Tec-9‘s as a hunting weapon is flippant.  Tec-9‘s are, and always have been, a prohibited firearm, and no reasonable sportsman has any wish to see that change.  Any Tec-9‘s that are legally owned in Canada have had to be registered, under the 1977 weapons laws, and the Firearms Act made no changes there.

Handgun hunting, on the otherhand, is a legitimate activity that has been banned in Canada for a long time, and law-abiding hunters who take an interest in that aspect of hunting have a reasonable issue with the firearms laws in that regard.  But this has nothing to do with the registry.

The fact is a vocal element of Canadian society believes the government should spend more money on healthcare, education, and other social programs.  A good number of these same people see no problem (I call them Liberal voters) with the government spending $1 Billion on a firearms registry which will clearly have no more than a marginal benefit to society, since it only adds (non-restricted) long guns to the list of firearms that must be registered, and these firearms have never factored significantly as being used by criminals in the first place.  The problem is clear:  money is being spent on a program with negligible benefits, and money is badly NEEDED in other programs which have wider impact or benefit.  And I haven‘t even included the military, simply because I don‘t think anyone here would disagree that the army needs more money.

Licencing?  A totally different issue, and one which I fully support.  Sport shooters in Canada should have at least some level of competence, skill, and knowledge of safety before being permitted to own or acquire any kind of firearm.  The military has a similar standard, I believe it‘s called a PO check.  My dagger on the sleeve of my DEU‘s tells the military community that I am trained to safely use various types of infantry small arms.

But we had licencing long before total gun registration.

Let me leave you with a few words from one of history‘s great supporters of total gun registration:

 
Quote
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
- Adolf Hitler, 15 April 1935.
(Caveat:  According to some internet source, this quote is "falsely" attributed to Hitler, but in any event did appear in contemporary publications and in any event makes clear German policy on gun registration, which likely went into effect much earlier under the Weimar Republic)
portcullisguy

non dormiverit gladius meus - dileas gu brath

48 Highrs

Offline portcullisguy

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 564
  • Border Services Officer
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2004, 03:36:00 »
17recce bring up good points, and Garry has excellent counter-points as well.

I wanted to expand on them a bit, from a law enforcement perspective.

CPIC does in fact register stolen property.  A lawful firearm owner should know the serial numbers to their firearms anyway, as he points out.  However, that‘s academic anyway.  If a bad guy steals a hunting rifle or shotgun from your house, he is not likely to have the required licence he‘d need if he was stopped by police and found to be possessing them.  He‘d be charged anyway for a licence infraction, and charged again if he were committing a crime, and charged yet again if there was evidence the guns were stolen, and that‘s even before the registry comes into play.  Tracing the shotgun or rifle would enable the police to return your stolen firearm to you, but the odds of that happening after the trial are slim to none, and in our current climate, they‘d probably want to charge you for unsafe storage.  End result = registration doesn‘t prevent the bad guy from stealing the guns in the first place, nor does it make your guns any more secure.  Licencing and other laws have already required you, the owner, to take reasonable steps in ensuring your guns are secure.

Finally, I can think of no more useless information to a police officer than knowing how many guns are registered to a particular individual or address.

If you are a police officer investigating a complaint involving a gun owner, and you run a check on CFRC and find out Bob Gunowner has 3 firearms registered to his address, are you seriously going to ASSUME there are ONLY three firearms at his house?  No.  Any sensible police officer will keep his mind open to the possibility that there may be many more, or none at all, or somewhere in between.

Likewise, attending an address where NO firearms are registered is equally misleading.  Especially if you are attending a complaint of "shots fired" or another violent incident!  The fact that a computer tells you there are no guns there doesn‘t change the fact that you, as a cautious police officer, will take reasonable and prudent care in your dealings with that, or any other call for service.

As a cop, are you going to believe a computer, or your observations?  Which one is admissible in court?

Registration is a "nice to have" not a need to have, to the front line police officer.  It is, like other databases, only an investigative tool which may, at times, assist you.  It is not an end-all-be-all answer to crime solving.
portcullisguy

non dormiverit gladius meus - dileas gu brath

48 Highrs

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2004, 04:43:00 »
It‘s a Joke!!!!
I just got the paper‘s just to see what they whant to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It‘s worse than our own Security Clearance !!!!!!

Just because I‘m married I need my wife‘s O.K. to own a rifle!!
It‘s very intrusive and going over board and I don‘t blame the Gun Lobby fighting this one!!!

The question‘s are beyond beliefe!!!!!!!!!!!!  :mad:
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline Garry

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -25
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
  • Retired
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2004, 14:38:00 »
A thought: we‘re all talking about "reasonable". Define reasonable. I guarantee that not all will agree.

We cannot legislate common sense, nor can we legislate inanimate objects into compliance with out version of good and evil.

We can legislate behaviour.

I think that there should be NO gun laws. You want to carry a gun? Fine. Act stupid, and you‘re gone. Personal responsibility.

Kinda tough in a welfare state, but an idea.....

Cheers-Garry

Offline Padraig OCinnead

  • Member
  • ****
  • 280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 207
  • Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2004, 22:22:00 »
And put thousands of otherwise useless leeches of society that lawyers are out of work and mingling with real people? C‘mon Garry, there is an entire sub culture dedicated to keeping people free from personal responsability. Blame McDonalds for being fat, blame your boss because you drank too much at the office party ignoring offers to call a cab and hit and killed someone on the way home, blame mom/dad for being a low life criminal. If we could make it on our own without having "special interest groups" at every corner representing slackers then this personal responsability that you talk of could actually work.

matt wright

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2004, 13:33:00 »
Portcullisguy;

My whole intent here was to add another perspective to further stimulate this thread, and it appears I succeeded.

One point I was getting at was that an experienced police officer will use every piece of information he can get his hands on when performing a risk assessment or conducting an investigation, and hopefully will not make too many assumptions. Of course I will trust my own observations over computer information which may or may not be accurate (garbage in, garbage out). But you would not believe how many bone-headed people out there do not have their serial numbers recorded or memorized (I realize this is an almost incomprehensible concept to any disciplined soldier). Anyway, I realize there are plenty of flaws with the system, and i agree the money could be much better spent in other areas.

On a side note, the vast majority of firearms that I encounter which have been used in a crime actually started out as long-barrelled firearms. Sawed-off shotguns and .22 cal rifles are by far the most popular.

Garry;

Sorry to hear about the individual who lost his guns, but without knowing all the facts I can‘t really comment. however, police do still require a warrant to search in most cases, unless there are "exigent circumstances", ie, immediate threat to public safety.

Offline Garry

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -25
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
  • Retired
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2004, 16:22:00 »
Recce,

Not your fault! ...but thanks, it was a little upsetting to all, this is a small community.

No matter what the trade, there will be a range of competence and professionalism. So far, the vast majority of Cops I‘ve dealt with have been pretty good.

I think the biggest thing here to note is that Cops enforce the laws that we, as a society, ask them to. I think everyone‘s day would be a little easier if we made things crystal clear.

Cheers-Garry

tmbluesbflat

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #64 on: January 30, 2004, 00:25:00 »
The gun registry, has to be a scam nobody but nobody is so stupid that they waste a billion dollars on this insanity, unless of course they have their hand in the till, when a very reliable workable system has been in place for 70 or more years. If it ain‘t broke keep your hands off! Recently here in B. C.  I understand some gunsel got probation for waving his weapon about, there are people doing hard time for flashing the real McCoy, go figure!

tmbluesbflat

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #65 on: January 30, 2004, 00:36:00 »
One reason the American people are so rabid about gun control etc, is that they know the treachery of their government adequately demonstrated over their history, and they know better than to trust politicians etc. past a certain point. We in Canada are not nearly as familiar with the things our Gov. is capable of and has done. We have many more recent immigrants per capita than the U.S. and these people have had dramatic experiences with weapons, many of them having lost most of their families in this generation also an experience most of us have not had. There is no excuse however for the conduct of this program it is and it has and it will be a criminal enterprise. We should set up a lottery to see what the final cost comes in at. I‘m thinking about 3billion. (and it won‘t work)

tmbluesbflat

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #66 on: February 14, 2004, 19:01:00 »
I see my previous prediction of costs and effectiveness are extremely accurate giving the Auditor Generals report, closing on three billion as we speak, I never thought of myself as a conservative. Graft, you don‘t say!!!!

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 22,771
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,998
  • The usual suspect.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #67 on: February 14, 2004, 20:44:00 »
Not too far off. I think it‘ll go as far as the Dudley-Do-Rights in Parliment let it.

Scrap it and give the coin to DND. At least you‘d see something tangible with the way the money was spent.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

tmbluesbflat

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2004, 22:56:00 »
It looks like a certain Quebec Company gets about as much of the budget as DND, pays to have friends in high places, doesn‘t it??

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,459
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2004, 19:39:00 »
Ah, Michael Moore.  Suffice to say if he were one of my political icons, I‘d be obliged to hang myself for the crime of not having any intellectual self-respect.

Any government program should be subjected to the question, "Why?", at least annually.

The registry provides no benefit worth the cost.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2004, 00:05:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by Franko:
[qb] Not too far off. I think it‘ll go as far as the Dudley-Do-Rights in Parliment let it.

Scrap it and give the coin to DND. At least you‘d see something tangible with the way the money was spent.

Regards [/qb]
Speaking of Duddley Do Right.

Did you know that the Queen‘s Cowboy‘s along with all Police force‘s in Canada need an F.A.C.!!

This is how stupid our law‘s are!!

Under the new law‘s Cadet‘s can no longer  compete for Bisley using the present  force‘s C7.

Why?It‘s an assault rifle.

Under the new Law only the Military and designated Police personnel are allowed to use  assault rifle‘s!

Our Olympic shooting team‘s can no longer own their weapon‘s because under the present law they are illeagal because of magazine size!!!
Present law for magazine‘s is 5 rnd‘s max!!

Yet here in Vancouver crime with hand gun‘s has risen!!

$2 Bill. all for nothing just to make criminal‘s out of hounest citizen‘s!!  :mad:
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline bossi

  • "vae soli, vae victus"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,763
  • The puck stops here ('War On Ice'!) Fight Smarter!
    • My pix (on MSN)
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2004, 01:50:00 »
Ah ... there‘s nothing like a spirited discussion!

(I just got back from Afghanistan, and this is the first thread I read ... hmmm ... I‘m a poet and didn‘t know it ... chuckle)

Congrats to everybody who contributed to this discussion - it warms the cockles of my heart!

(and, yes - I think the Registry is a fraudulent waste of taxpayer‘s money - another of Papa Doc Crouton‘s "legacies" to the Canadian sucker ... er, um, I meant to say "sheep who voted for Da Liddle Thug From Shawinigan")

I always liked that scene from "Red Dawn" - the bumper sticker that said "They Can Pry My Gun From My Dead Fingers" ... (pan to dead guy)
Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility.
-Feb 1955 Cbt Forces Journal
Those who appreciate true valour should in their daily intercourse set gentleness first and aim to win the love and esteem of others. If you affect valour and act with violence, the world will in the end detest you and look upon you as wild beasts. Of this you should take heed.
-Emperor Meiji: Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, 4 January 1883

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,380
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2004, 12:32:00 »
Welcome back Bossi.  Good to see you safe and in good spirits.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline portcullisguy

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 564
  • Border Services Officer
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2004, 17:30:00 »
Spr.Earl - The Horsemen (RCMP) and other police and peace officers in Canada do NOT require an FAC or any other firearm document to use/carry/transport service-owned firearms while performing their duties.

Any peace officer or public officer may use/carry/transport, in accordance with regulations regarding safety, any type of firearm or weapon provided it is part of their duties.  No documentation is required.

Yes, even a small town cop could, if that cop‘s Chief decided it was needed (and the province‘s police act allowed it), carry a fully automatic assault rifle, quite legally.

The Olympic teams face a myriad of obstacles and corresponding exceptions.  The first problem is not magazine size, but calibre.  The common handgun calibres for Olympic shooting were .25 and .32 calibre, both banned under the new laws.  I believe exceptions now exist, but I‘d have to research it.
portcullisguy

non dormiverit gladius meus - dileas gu brath

48 Highrs

MG34

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2004, 22:24:00 »
The .32 cal competition pistols are indeed exempt,not so for the .25cal which are still prohibitted. The gun laws in Canada are a farce.Indeed a special thanks must go out to the PC Party and Lieberals for a worthy piece of social engineering,which has alienated a chunk of the population of Canada.Once again a large  "attaboy" to the sheep of Canada who swallowed the whole package..thanks alot or better yet thanks for nothing.
 The laws were meant to reduce crime,..for the sake of the children or some such nausea,as has been pointed out here criminals will never register their illegal firearms.As a law abiding firearms owner I am appauled at the limitations placed on my freedom to participate in my chosen hobby/sport. If the same restrictions were applied to any other minority in Canada the public outcry would be loud and fierce,but since all legal firearms owners must be either Elmer Fudd types or raving lunatics on the fringes of society it‘s ok to discriminate against us and restrict our freedom of movement. Disgusting