Guest lundboy Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) So we need handguns in our houses now because at some point in the future, and we don't know when this may occur, the government that we elected will try to kill us or put us in bondage. Of course the government will have to take over the military and police forces across this vast country first. At that point they will try to control the population and those that have the guns will be the initial resistance force that leads to the eventual overthrow of our despot leaders. Either that or UN forces hell bent on controlling the world will collect along our boarder and oceans and destroy our military and police forces. A guerilla war will ensue and the citizens resistance force will save the day by igniting a general uprising. These remote possibilities in distant years are the justification for useless death....right here and right now? By the mere fact that you have stated the above, shows your inability or choice not to perceive what is going on in the world around you. You argue points that are meaningless. I could provide you (and have provided everyone here) with GOVERNMENT ISSUED DOCUMENTS and UN ISSUED DOCUMENTS including AGENDA 21 which clearly states their intentions and time lines, which include gun confiscation, and population reduction. If you don't want to read them and prefer to be in denial, you are lost, and a good global citizen. The powers love to brag, and recently they are letting the cat out of the bag for the sheeple since they know you don't pay attention anyways. Here is something that you are more likely to be able to understand since it comes from the "Main Stream Media" Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8052203380.html Let's play devils advocate and say all of the Global takeover stuff doesn't exist. Let's say things continue on the path that they are on right now. Gas goes to $2.50 - $3.00/liter, food becomes scarce or so expensive you can't afford it, and there is rioting in the streets. You, taking the prudent advice of someone on this board stocked up with a years worth of storable food, and a source of water. And a "crazy" as you put it has desires to covet your stash of food and your wife and kids, and is armed with an illegal firearm and you aren't armed because your government took that ability away from you. You try to call the militarized police (under control of the federal gov), but they are too busy quelling food riots and beating the heads of starving people, and the phone is down anyways. The military is used to protect a far off nation, since they are under control of NATO. Hmmm sounds like you have a problem and probably wished you never wanted a gun ban. I hope it doesn't come down to what the plan entails, but at this point it is looking very likely to be. Edited May 30, 2008 by lundboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbo Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) Easy LB, we will Adapt & overcome. Peace is Divine.. Edited May 30, 2008 by danbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 So we need handguns in our houses now because at some point in the future, and we don't know when this may occur, the government that we elected will try to kill us or put us in bondage. Of course the government will have to take over the military and police forces across this vast country first. At that point they will try to control the population and those that have the guns will be the initial resistance force that leads to the eventual overthrow of our despot leaders. Either that or UN forces hell bent on controlling the world will collect along our boarder and oceans and destroy our military and police forces. A guerilla war will ensue and the citizens resistance force will save the day by igniting a general uprising. These remote possibilities in distant years are the justification for useless death....right here and right now? WOW, after reading this post I have to ask, are you a VERY LIBERAL politician or belong to the LIBERAL party because this is basically how their thinking goes. Have you ever heard of Adolf Hitler. One the first things he did was take disarm the German people and then get them to conform to his way of thinking. In all communist countries the government has disarmed the people and enforced the so called "police" and "military" to keep their citizens in line. Canada like the USA is a GREAT country as we speak. However, there are MANY among us who want the government to control the people and not the people to control the government. VERY dangerous thing that must be kept at bay. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) A number of you think that an armed takeover of Canada by UN forces or our own government is imminent. You worry about those who want power like the communists or another potential Hitler and think the only way to protect yourself against such dangers is to own guns. The bigger danger may come from ultra-libertarians who hate government like the person who did this in Oklahoma. Edited May 30, 2008 by scuro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I there are no handguns, you will not need one either. Right, because making them illegal will suddenly make them all disappear. Since everyone knows robbers obey the law to the fullest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbo Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Very tasteless pic scury! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 We as Canadians have no right to bear arms. Doesn't that presuppose a very literal interpretation of the entire body of Canadian law? JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lundboy Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) A number of you think that an armed takeover of Canada by UN forces or our own government is imminent. You worry about those who want power like the communists or another potential Hitler and think the only way to protect yourself against such dangers is to own guns. The bigger danger may come from ultra-libertarians who hate government like the person who did this in Oklahoma. Why would you post this? Your misunderstanding of who actually instigated OKC, PROVES that you have been indoctrinated by the system. I feel very sad for you, because some day you are going to say "What happened?". I know you won't research anything because it is too painful and unbelievable for you, but just in case you have never heard of government sponsored terror: http://thenewamerican.com/node/1316 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...cveighvideo.htm http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=terro...mp;sitesearch=# You can also google: -Reichstag Fire -U.S.S. Liberty -Operation Gladio -Gulf of Tonkin -Cubana Flight 455 -Operation Northwoods (this one shows to just what lengths government will go to, and is so shocking and incredible, I've pulled it up for you): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/index.html Taking away a citizen's ability to arm themselves will allow tyranny to reign. It's all been done before, and will happen again, because we never learn. That's all I can do for you Scuro, the rest is up to you. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana Edited May 30, 2008 by lundboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 So we need handguns in our houses now because at some point in the future, and we don't know when this may occur, the government that we elected will try to kill us or put us in bondage. Of course the government will have to take over the military and police forces across this vast country first. At that point they will try to control the population and those that have the guns will be the initial resistance force that leads to the eventual overthrow of our despot leaders. Either that or UN forces hell bent on controlling the world will collect along our boarder and oceans and destroy our military and police forces. A guerilla war will ensue and the citizens resistance force will save the day by igniting a general uprising. These remote possibilities in distant years are the justification for useless death....right here and right now? I disagree that everyone needs a gun of any kind in their home today, for now or the future. This is still Canada, and despite the efforts of the press to sensationalize an isolated problem usually usually involving street gangs, drug dealers, or psychopaths, we don't have to live in fear here. I think the NRA types have made an error in using old-style life insurance sales tactics (fear mongering) to support their battle for the vaunted second amendment. It's backfired on them, and we're suffering the blowback here, too, as evidenced by the kneejerk reaction on the part of some members of the public and the lawmaker/regulator/administrator types. There are lots of potential dangers out there today in our Canadian lives - and as far as ranking them, I doubt gun incidents involving non-criminals are pretty low on the charts. Why not look for solutions that address the problem directly rather than putting bandaids on the symptoms just because the fearful public can then see something being done. It's a placebo only to shut down gun ranges, about as effective for stopping gun crimes as making everyone wear a sweater at all times to prevent the common cold. A lot of folks will feel better because something's being done and never notice that the number of colds has not really declined. Much is made of statistics that say crime has decreased when guns are banned, but I'm reasonably certain that if a truly objective study was done in any of those countries and/or states that claim a decline in gun crimes there would be far more compelling reasons for the decline than the restrictions imposed on responsible gun owners. Unfortunately these studies always seem to come from a group or individual with a vested interest in the process. The NRA can produce just as many studies speaking to the positive effects on crime of allowing CCPs in a state as those who point to the various countries or cities that claim a decline due to a ban or severe restriction on guns. Surely there's a middle point that actually does work. I'm a typical Canuck living in a typical Canuck town and I can honestly say that never in my life have I felt like I needed to be armed with a gun to be safe. In my 60-something years I've had occasion to use my fists (reluctantly, infrequently & long ago), once an axe to scare off a drunk brandishing a broken bottle on our Ipperwash campsite, and once a hockey stick to shorten the life of a rather large dog that knocked me off my bike and was determinedly trying to remove a piece of my 12 year old ass. Other than that I've not felt seriously threatened in my life, certainly not to the point where I wanted a gun to deal with the threat. I suppose in some instances a gun would have been handy but I was able to cope with the tools at hand. Guns in Canada, outside the needs of the criminal element, the military and law enforcement, are for recreational use primarily, the occasional varmint eradication, and personal protection from dangerous critters for folks in some of the less developed parts of our country. I don't particularly want any vigilante protection. The police are doing just fine in my little corner of the world. I simply want to see the gun owners who act responsibly to continue to be able to enjoy their hobbies or work, whatever their needs, with as little interference from the regulators as possible, and trust that they in turn will respect the rights of those who choose to live in a world as unaffected by guns as possible. Over-regulating the law abiding gun owners will do little if anything practical to curb gun violence in our world. Criminals are notoriously bad at paying attention to the laws, and if they want guns, they'll get 'em, one way or t'uther. If the day ever comes when I feel the need the protection of a gun, laws be damned. I'll have a gun, and so, I'm sure, will any of the rest of you. Then we'll all be criminals because of some ill-conceived reactive legislation. That's just one man's opinion. YMMV. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 I there are no handguns, you will not need one either. Right, because making them illegal will suddenly make them all disappear. Since everyone knows robbers obey the law to the fullest. Exactly... You can slice it up anyway you want with Graphs, and Stats, but at the end of the day that’s one fact to rule them all. Taking Guns away from Responsible law abiding citizens does NOTHING to help combat crime what so ever... I'd like to see a graph that illustrates the number of Suicides, Homicides, and accidental deaths in a controlled Study that looks at these targets Against legal guns owned by law abiding citizens, and Criminals.... And then while we're at it, I'd like to see the Same study data put against other common weapons such as say...Knives, and other clubbing apparel. Here’s something a bit more geared toward debunking the Firearms make Suicide easier debate raised in this discussion... Right from Stats Canada http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-0...ticles/6349.pdf Successfull Suicides, and failed attempts can be measured as follows in Canada Suffocations which includes hanging 39% Poisoning which includes Drug overdose and the inhalation of Motor vehicle Exhaust 26% Were Firearms attempts landed at only 22%.... The graphs posted here are slanted, and rather meaningless in this context of debate, as they are to broad, and only include Firearms stats vs tradgity....The case study is all wrong and needs to have other non firearms related variables to compare against other wise, it carrys no weitgh in this debate. But I guess We're just spouting opinions, which by the way is fine by me... Cause I know I'm right, and every one who disagrees is wrong Life is good when your a know it all (and yes...I'm kidding) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content...6692&page=2 Fact Check: the ban handguns campaign David Miller is talking tough on gun violence, but do his numbers add up? Chris Selley | Apr 18, 2008 | 5:39 pm EST "If handguns were illegal," Toronto Mayor David Miller told the city's Board of Trade last week, "John O'Keefe would be alive today." He was referring to the 42-year-old father of one caught in the crossfire outside a strip club in January, when an aggrieved customer opened fire on security guards. It happened just a few minutes' walk from where 15-year-old Jane Creba was mortally wounded by a stray bullet on Boxing Day 2005. For a safe city like Toronto, the optics are dreadful: two completely innocent pedestrians shot dead along a perfectly salubrious stretch of Yonge Street, the city's main drag, in the span of just 25 months. Both murders were allegedly committed with weapons that were, or had once been, legally owned in Canada—in the O'Keefe case, the handgun was allegedly fired by its registered owner; in the Creba case, it had been stolen from a private collection. As such, the incidents are very effective ammunition for proponents of handgun bans. "I say it's unacceptable for so-called hobbyists and gun collectors to put innocent lives at risk," Miller told the Board of Trade. The majority of handguns in Canada might be smuggled across the border, he argues, but eliminating all legal ownership of handguns would shrink overall the arsenal available to hardened criminals and unstable strip club patrons alike. But to get a complete picture of the handgun problem and the solution, policymakers need to know how many so-called "crime guns" were once legally owned and how many were smuggled from the U.S. They're pretty much out of luck. In 2005, Miller claimed that "about half" of the crime guns in Toronto were stolen. It turned out that was just a very rough estimate based on anecdotal evidence from police officers. These days, the mayor claims "one third to forty per cent of the handguns used in crime in Toronto are from domestic sources"—also a very rough estimate, a Toronto Police Service spokesman confirms. In 2002, the RCMP's National Weapons Enforcement Support found that fully 94 per cent of guns seized in Vancouver had originated in Washington State, suggesting huge regional differences in the sources of handguns. But neither NWEST nor any other branch of the RCMP has more up-to-date figures. Municipal police forces in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal were also at a loss. "We don't speculate on those kind of numbers," Montreal Police Service spokesperson Mélanie Lajoie told Macleans.ca. "We base the numbers we give out on facts and statistics." Because so many firearms are deliberately rendered untraceable by criminals, we don't even know how many lives Miller's ban might save. According to Statistics Canada figures, 108 handguns were used in a homicide in Canada in 2006 and only 35 were recovered. Of those, the ownership status could only be determined for 20, 12 of which, or 60 per cent, had been reported stolen—much higher than Miller's estimate of a third. If the truth lies somewhere in between, it suggests that a handgun ban had the potential to save between 30 and 65 Canadian lives in 2006—that is, as long as the assailants didn't get their hands on a smuggled gun instead. It's been estimated as many as 30,000 guns flow across the 49th parallel in a given year. Even if the real figure was just a tenth of that, the enforcement gap would still be enormous. In 2006, Canadian law enforcement agencies recorded just 141 incidents of trafficking, importing or exporting restricted firearms, and laid just 72 charges. And blind luck plays a disconcertingly leading role when and if guns do get discovered, according to a 2006 report from The Tyee. Smugglers often specifically recruit mules who are unlikely to arouse suspicion, Randy Wong of the U.S.-Canadian Integrated Border Enforcement Team told the Vancouver-based online magazine. "For whatever reason, the demand is there," he warned, "and so long as that's the case, someone is going to supply it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinker Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 (edited) The bottom line is in the last sentence. "Smugglers often specifically recruit mules who are unlikely to arouse suspicion, Randy Wong of the U.S.-Canadian Integrated Border Enforcement Team told the Vancouver-based online magazine. "For whatever reason, the demand is there," he warned, "and so long as that's the case, someone is going to supply it."". Ban them all ya want, it won't change a thing. There will always be guns. Sinker Edited May 31, 2008 by Sinker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts