CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Should US gun laws be made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?
More Strict  0%  [ 0 ]
Less Strict  0%  [ 0 ]
Remain as They Are  0%  [ 0 ]
Unsure  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 0

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:42 pm
 


Good post CDN....you have revealed relationships that were not so obvious.....

$1:
CDN
I find it amusing to see those so adamantly pro gun control are the same people against control of illicit drugs or prostitution, preaching how legislation doesn't work and just creates a black market and those who want drugs or prostitutes will get them anyway. OR Let's teach sex ed in schools because education will teach them to have sex properly / safely and won't promote kids to have sex... but those same people think gun education in schools would be crazy because everyone would then want to go out and use guns.


The irrefutable logic is sure to have the anti-gunlobby spluttering.......

Most kitchens are currently well stocked with sharp things much more assessable than firearms in the case of the gun-grabbers great fear----impluse homocides.

There was much truth in the Gun-lobby slogan:

BAN GUNS BUT LEGALIZE MJ


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:15 am
 


toothpick toothpick:
canucker canucker:
I'm not aware of the restrictions on acquiring a fully automatic firearm


In the US, to get a fully auto firearm one must first apply to the BATF for a transfer permit. They do background checks and look at everything. People have been rejected for having too many speeding tickets. After that, you must pay a $200 federal Class III transfer tax and then find a Class III dealer who is willing to handle the sale. Find one of those, pay for the firearm (full auto are really expensive) and get it shipped.

i'd also like to add that if you do collect fully-auto guns in the usa you relinguish your 4th amendment rights..on the grounds that ATF can inspect your collection at any interval they see fit.their inspection even extends to rifling through anything that could even contain a small piece of paper.i read this about 6 yrs ago and i'm presently looking for something to verify this


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:19 pm
 


I recall a coffee-shop debate some years back when some C68 supporting idiot declared that this would eliminate/limit firearms crime. He then declared that for under $100 he could get a handgun within an hour. BY coincidence, I happened to possess two or three thousand $ bills. He just sat there and spluttered and then left in a huff when I proposed that he go fetch one and I would bet him the big bills he couldn't.....laughter followed him out. :lol:

Urban myths seem to persist however and they are the main ammunition of the politically correct control freaks. :twisted:


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 601
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:25 pm
 


Haha

I think you outdid yourself this time.


$1:
two or three thousand $ bills.


Carrying 1000 dollar bills around in cofee shops is not something that most people do.And you cant remember how many you had


tee hee

And what makes you decide someone is an idiot just because they think something you dont?

That must mean you think your parents were idiots, anyone in your family is an idiot.

In fact it means you think every single person in the world is an idiot




:D


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:29 pm
 


$1:
Baylee/Segment/Ladybug
Carrying 1000 dollar bills around in cofee shops is not something that most people do.And you cant remember how many you had


Most people have never had reason to. Actually there is little risk.....do you record the S/n of the $20's in your wallet? If you have purple bills, they are recorded when you get them and when you take them to the bank......that's why drug-dealer hate big bills.


Currently my opinion and the majority opinion here is that YOU are an idiot.
:lol:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:34 pm
 


Image

Keep it on the topic.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:08 am
 


ATTENTION MY FELLOW GUN ADVOCATES!!!
check this out..for those who know me i'm very much into guns and have a small but impressive(or so i think) collection:
!)glock 17
2)russian sks
3)remington 870 12 gauge
4)korean war m1 carbine
5)1900 remington 12 gauge double barrel(belonged to my grandfather)
6)1895 remington 41 cal double barrel derringer(also belonged to my grandfather)

now my dilemma is i have only a possession only firearms license and want to upgrade it to acquirement status...and of course the dying out libs structured it in such a way to cause as much grief as possible for this upgrade to occur(for example the safety courses for the non-restricted are a 30 hour course which take place on sat and sun morning(of course) costing 70$.now you can pay 40$ just to go in and write the test and i feel its most reasonable to assume they'll come up with asinine trick questions just to increase the level of absurdity.several months ago they showed the questions you'd be faced with on the web but surprise surprise theyve vanished.so does anyone out there know how i can pull the wool over the eyes of liberal ghosts and get access to the questions they may be presented?this would be a wonderful blow to the dying liberals anti-gun agenda


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 265
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:42 am
 


I think the gun registry was an ill-concieved debaucle that was poorly planned and improperly executed. It cost more money than it should have, and was mired in red tape. A chimp with a pencil between his teeth could have done a better job.

The sad part is, the idea was good. To make a person prove they are responsible enough to accuire and own guns is very important. So what if it costs money to be allowed to accuire guns? This prevents people from impulse buying and then being irresponsible with their firearms.

Think about it. If you had to go out and lose a full weekend to a handling and safety course, pay 70$ for the priviledge to do so, and then write a test to prove the knowledge sunk in, you will be more likely to handle the thing in a responsible way. The process proves you are responsible enough to lock your guns up, with a trigger lock, and lock your ammo seperately. There is less chance of an accident with your firearm, and less chance of theft of your firearm.

Ah yes, the big T-word, theft. That gun looks real nice to a criminal. They would love to have you just leave it sitting out in the open so they can grab it. Or your kid's friends would take it to show off with, and all the better with a few bullets. The process is there to make sure the lazy and stupid have a harder time getting their hands on guns. That is the real point to it. It protects you as well.

The other point is to let law enforcers know, when responding to a call at a home, that there may be firearms on the premisis. This helps to ensure they are not surprised in a situation, and that they know what may be leveled at them if things are going wrong. No, it is not perfect, as there may be illegal arms on the premisis, but it is a help in any case.

I personaly feel better knowing that anyone in Canada will have to jump through a few hoops to accuire a gun of any kind, as it will make sure many of the irresponible will not be able get a gun. I personaly look forward to going through it if I intend do buy a gun, too, even though I am totaly qualified already as it is.

As I said earlier in this post, the registry was botched. It was implimented poorly and the cost was too high. These are small drawbacks compared to the help this thing will give to you, the gun owner, and the police.

My last thought. What is the problem with registering your guns? Do you have anything to hide? If you are law abiding, you should have no problems. It's just a little red tape, and if you are able and responsible, the process should be almost painless (short of any screw ups within the system itself).


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:02 am
 


george123 george123:
I think the gun registry was an ill-concieved debaucle that was poorly planned and improperly executed. It cost more money than it should have, and was mired in red tape. A chimp with a pencil between his teeth could have done a better job.

The sad part is, the idea was good. To make a person prove they are responsible enough to accuire and own guns is very important. So what if it costs money to be allowed to accuire guns? This prevents people from impulse buying and then being irresponsible with their firearms.

Think about it. If you had to go out and lose a full weekend to a handling and safety course, pay 70$ for the priviledge to do so, and then write a test to prove the knowledge sunk in, you will be more likely to handle the thing in a responsible way. The process proves you are responsible enough to lock your guns up, with a trigger lock, and lock your ammo seperately. There is less chance of an accident with your firearm, and less chance of theft of your firearm.

Ah yes, the big T-word, theft. That gun looks real nice to a criminal. They would love to have you just leave it sitting out in the open so they can grab it. Or your kid's friends would take it to show off with, and all the better with a few bullets. The process is there to make sure the lazy and stupid have a harder time getting their hands on guns. That is the real point to it. It protects you as well.

The other point is to let law enforcers know, when responding to a call at a home, that there may be firearms on the premisis. This helps to ensure they are not surprised in a situation, and that they know what may be leveled at them if things are going wrong. No, it is not perfect, as there may be illegal arms on the premisis, but it is a help in any case.

I personaly feel better knowing that anyone in Canada will have to jump through a few hoops to accuire a gun of any kind, as it will make sure many of the irresponible will not be able get a gun. I personaly look forward to going through it if I intend do buy a gun, too, even though I am totaly qualified already as it is.

As I said earlier in this post, the registry was botched. It was implimented poorly and the cost was too high. These are small drawbacks compared to the help this thing will give to you, the gun owner, and the police.

My last thought. What is the problem with registering your guns? Do you have anything to hide? If you are law abiding, you should have no problems. It's just a little red tape, and if you are able and responsible, the process should be almost painless (short of any screw ups within the system itself).

yes i do have something to hide..the cops have no business knowing what property i have when i've had some of them since childhood..and ive ALWAYS been in compliance with how my guns are stored..my political affiliation is in the center swinging to the right meaning i want as little govt in my life as possible.now as far as my handgun is concerned..yes the cops have the right to know about that..but all else..no dam way


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 265
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:47 am
 


Why does it matter if the government or the police know what you own? It's fine to post it here for the world to read, including criminals and the like, but not for the government to have a list of your firearms? What? You don't think some enterprising hacker can't find your ISP and trace it to your internet account, then your home? I know people who can do it, so it can be done. What is the big deal with registering your guns? Get a permit to own any that might be hand-me-downs from family, it's called a collector's permit, and all is well.

As for the following the rules of storage and such, good for you. I have a friend who does the same thing, and he owns a LOT of guns. He does not care. He is responsible and follows the laws. What scares him, is the fact that there are people who own guns which are not registered because they are hand-me-downs, who have never taken the safety courses, and just leave the things sitting around. No locks, no trigger locks, just sitting in a closet or a drawer. They have the things, but did not go through the course to learn proper handling and safety. These are the people who would not have the guns in the first place, because they would not pass the course (or would not do it in the first place), and would therefore not be alowed to purchase the guns. These are the people we do not want to have guns, as they make it easy for criminals to steal them and then use them for crime.

It does not matter how personaly responsibe you are, it is the asshat who let's his guns get stolen that ruins it for us all.

As for the government having as little, or no, say in what you can and can't do or own; you sound like you would prefer true anarchy over rule of law.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 113
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:50 am
 


george123 george123:
The other point is to let law enforcers know, when responding to a call at a home, that there may be firearms on the premisis. This helps to ensure they are not surprised in a situation, and that they know what may be leveled at them if things are going wrong. No, it is not perfect, as there may be illegal arms on the premisis, but it is a help in any case.


The problem is it *won't* help at all. You pointed out the biggest hole yourself: illegal guns. A police officer who walks up to a home and dosent automatically assume they may be facing a threat from firearms is a negligent or poorly trained officer.

Also, when users are trained and licenced there is no need to register thier specific firearms. If a home has a resident who holds a firearms licence it's safe to assume there are one or more guns on the premisis.

george123 george123:
Do you have anything to hide?


Yes, the same thing as anyone else: my private life. Would you do away with search warrents and allow the police to search anywhere, anyone, anything at any time? No? Why not? Do you have anything to hide?

george123 george123:
If you are law abiding, you should have no problems. It's just a little red tape, and if you are able and responsible, the process should be almost painless (short of any screw ups within the system itself).


As we've seen with prohibition of alcohol, the war on drugs and now the gun registry, trying to force people to do something they don't want to do will simply meet with failure.

There are thousands of perfectly legal reasons why someone would not want to register thier guns and debating any one of them is pointless. The fact of the matter is that it is because of those reasons that the vast majority of firearms owners simply do not want to register thier guns.

That fact alone is what religates the gun registry into being both a money pit and a failure.

george123 george123:
I personaly feel better knowing that anyone in Canada will have to jump through a few hoops to accuire a gun of any kind, as it will make sure many of the irresponible will not be able get a gun.


This is absolutly true and probably part of the reason why the American expereince with guns is far different from the Canadian experience.

I would like to add though that because of our training and licencing scheme, the restrictions on what models of firearms you can buy and what features they can have are completly pointless. A trained, licenced and background-checked firearms owner shoudl be able to buy whatever firearms they want.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 12:04 pm
 


$1:
Toothpick
This is absolutly true and probably part of the reason why the American expereince with guns is far different from the Canadian experience.


Don't rely to heavilly on the MSM and gungrabber propaganda based on statistics from the 80's.

something a bit more uptodate and relevant

Even Allan Rock and Wendy Cukier in a bit of overenthusiasm betrayed the true intent behind the registry----- CONFISCATION .

"The Registry will allow seizure to be more thorough and complete."

"When I came to Ottawa I came convinced that only the police and military should possess firearms."
Allan rock
That is exactely what occured in Australia and UK. Registration led directly to confisacation.

And then is a little problem that George123 did not address.....the total lack of security with the "online registry".......criminals are using the registry to "case the joint" in preparation for burglaries and armed robberies. The "safe storage regs" guarantee that after they kick your door down they will be the only ones armed. One poster POOH-POOHED that with the declaration that would not happen.... but then he also declared that no-one in his neighbourhood had firearms and home invasions only occurred in the US.

:roll:


Last edited by sasquatch2 on Sat May 05, 2007 12:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 265
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 12:11 pm
 


toothpick toothpick:
george123 george123:
The other point is to let law enforcers know, when responding to a call at a home, that there may be firearms on the premisis. This helps to ensure they are not surprised in a situation, and that they know what may be leveled at them if things are going wrong. No, it is not perfect, as there may be illegal arms on the premisis, but it is a help in any case.


The problem is it *won't* help at all. You pointed out the biggest hole yourself: illegal guns. A police officer who walks up to a home and dosent automatically assume they may be facing a threat from firearms is a negligent or poorly trained officer.

Also, when users are trained and licenced there is no need to register thier specific firearms. If a home has a resident who holds a firearms licence it's safe to assume there are one or more guns on the premisis.

george123 george123:
Do you have anything to hide?


Yes, the same thing as anyone else: my private life. Would you do away with search warrents and allow the police to search anywhere, anyone, anything at any time? No? Why not? Do you have anything to hide?

george123 george123:
If you are law abiding, you should have no problems. It's just a little red tape, and if you are able and responsible, the process should be almost painless (short of any screw ups within the system itself).


As we've seen with prohibition of alcohol, the war on drugs and now the gun registry, trying to force people to do something they don't want to do will simply meet with failure.

There are thousands of perfectly legal reasons why someone would not want to register thier guns and debating any one of them is pointless. The fact of the matter is that it is because of those reasons that the vast majority of firearms owners simply do not want to register thier guns.

That fact alone is what religates the gun registry into being both a money pit and a failure.

george123 george123:
I personaly feel better knowing that anyone in Canada will have to jump through a few hoops to accuire a gun of any kind, as it will make sure many of the irresponible will not be able get a gun.


This is absolutly true and probably part of the reason why the American expereince with guns is far different from the Canadian experience.

I would like to add though that because of our training and licencing scheme, the restrictions on what models of firearms you can buy and what features they can have are completly pointless. A trained, licenced and background-checked firearms owner shoudl be able to buy whatever firearms they want.


First, if the guns in the house are registered, the police will know what to expect. For a police officer, this helps them a lot. It also tells them what specificaly to expect. I know as a soldier that if I go on patrol there is a chance of the enemy being in the area, but if I know they are there and where they are, I am much better prepaired for them.

Not to do away with search warants, that is an extreme, shrill statement. Firearms are dangerous weapons. Why should you not tell the authorities what you have? I see no problem with this. Especialy if they do happen to get stolen, your ass is covered.

This is not prohibition, this is regulation. The regulation of alcohol works just fine. You are not being told to give up all your guns, just show you are responsible and tell them what you have. They relly don't care what you have, as long as you tell them.

Also, tell me about those "perfectly leagal reasons" for not telling the authorities what guns you own. I am interested in this.

Your last statement is true, a liscenced firearms owner should be able to buy whatever guns they want. It's not prohibition, it's regulation.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1342
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 2:20 pm
 


george123 george123:
toothpick toothpick:
george123 george123:
The other point is to let law enforcers know, when responding to a call at a home, that there may be firearms on the premisis. This helps to ensure they are not surprised in a situation, and that they know what may be leveled at them if things are going wrong. No, it is not perfect, as there may be illegal arms on the premisis, but it is a help in any case.


The problem is it *won't* help at all. You pointed out the biggest hole yourself: illegal guns. A police officer who walks up to a home and dosent automatically assume they may be facing a threat from firearms is a negligent or poorly trained officer.

Also, when users are trained and licenced there is no need to register thier specific firearms. If a home has a resident who holds a firearms licence it's safe to assume there are one or more guns on the premisis.

george123 george123:
Do you have anything to hide?


Yes, the same thing as anyone else: my private life. Would you do away with search warrents and allow the police to search anywhere, anyone, anything at any time? No? Why not? Do you have anything to hide?

george123 george123:
If you are law abiding, you should have no problems. It's just a little red tape, and if you are able and responsible, the process should be almost painless (short of any screw ups within the system itself).


As we've seen with prohibition of alcohol, the war on drugs and now the gun registry, trying to force people to do something they don't want to do will simply meet with failure.

There are thousands of perfectly legal reasons why someone would not want to register thier guns and debating any one of them is pointless. The fact of the matter is that it is because of those reasons that the vast majority of firearms owners simply do not want to register thier guns.

That fact alone is what religates the gun registry into being both a money pit and a failure.

george123 george123:
I personaly feel better knowing that anyone in Canada will have to jump through a few hoops to accuire a gun of any kind, as it will make sure many of the irresponible will not be able get a gun.


This is absolutly true and probably part of the reason why the American expereince with guns is far different from the Canadian experience.

I would like to add though that because of our training and licencing scheme, the restrictions on what models of firearms you can buy and what features they can have are completly pointless. A trained, licenced and background-checked firearms owner shoudl be able to buy whatever firearms they want.


First, if the guns in the house are registered, the police will know what to expect. For a police officer, this helps them a lot. It also tells them what specificaly to expect. I know as a soldier that if I go on patrol there is a chance of the enemy being in the area, but if I know they are there and where they are, I am much better prepaired for them.

Not to do away with search warants, that is an extreme, shrill statement. Firearms are dangerous weapons. Why should you not tell the authorities what you have? I see no problem with this. Especialy if they do happen to get stolen, your ass is covered.

This is not prohibition, this is regulation. The regulation of alcohol works just fine. You are not being told to give up all your guns, just show you are responsible and tell them what you have. They relly don't care what you have, as long as you tell them.

Also, tell me about those "perfectly leagal reasons" for not telling the authorities what guns you own. I am interested in this.

Your last statement is true, a liscenced firearms owner should be able to buy whatever guns they want. It's not prohibition, it's regulation.

"firearms are dangerous weapons"??..uh i thought for the longest time thats what weapons are supposed to be...oh but of course..if some burglar breaks into my house his safety should be my highest priority


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 2:41 pm
 


ROTFALMFAO

Good point George123.

If is wasn't dangerous it would not be a weapon.

In law there is such an item as "a weapon dangerous to the public peace."........which could be a screwdriver or hammer-----usage is largely what defines a weapon......

:lol:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.