Long gun registry

[blarg]

You need to look no further than your own riding to know that's false. The sault is NDP, algoma manitoulin is liberal... voted in by the citizens... MANY of whom are hunters... Surely the majority of the people in the Soo have at least a family member who hunts, if not themselves!

 

The Long Gun Registry is bogus, but it's a MINOR issue compared to the problems that we face as a country. But tinfoil hat wearing types like yourself love to drum up fear that the man is going to come and take your guns away and try to make the gun registry seem like a bigger issue to most canadians than it is.

 

I'm not going to take your guns, but us "liberals" also aren't going to let you try to scare people into voting conservative. Where would the right wing be without it's fear campaigns.

 

 

So because some people vote for parties that support the registry those parties won't ever ban handguns or semi autos's, or anything with a scope..they call those 'sniper guns', they have already proposed doing just that, both the liberals and the ndp. The rcmp have already used the registry to confiscate guns that they deemed prohibited after they had been available for sale under the current rules.

 

But whatever believe what you like, some people are principled enough to want it gone, it still costs 20 something million a year to run (yes 20+, the 4million number is a fallacy, the rcmp have said so) and it doesn't prevent crime. Do I like the fact that the conservatives are the only option, not really, but then should I vote for the NDP many of whom used the promise of voting to get rid of the registry to get elected and then flip flopped?

 

So is it a big deal right now, not at all, I'm all registered, but this is an issue of principle, it is a bad law, cost a lot, and targets the wrong people, we shouldn't just accept that. Btw the elitist attitude on this board really shows up quick when something like this comes up, just remember, a lot of recreational fisherman are also hunters.

 

It's also funny how the "liberals" will bash conservatives and the conservative party every chance they get, with the usual, o they want the death penalty, they will ban abortion, they hate women, etc etc etc, meanwhile show one bill they passed that give any indications that the 'hidden agenda' really exists? At the same time the liberals have passed bad laws like the registry, cut health care more than anyone, stole or lost billions, raided the ei fund for 50 billion, illegally, and it goes on and on.

 

Vote what you feel is best for you but honestly there is no need to bash someone elses choice, they all have blood on their hands.

[archie_james_c]

You need to look no further than your own riding to know that's false. The sault is NDP, algoma manitoulin is liberal... voted in by the citizens... MANY of whom are hunters... Surely the majority of the people in the Soo have at least a family member who hunts, if not themselves!

 

 

I'm not going to take your guns, but us "liberals" also aren't going to let you try to scare people into voting conservative

 

 

The Sault is NDP because of the 2 economic extremes here in SSM, heavily union based economy and poor, minimum wage earning or welfare candidates. The NDP platform is extremely pro union and has many promises for the more unfortunate in our town.

 

Oh Luke, I know YOU won't take my guns, but the Liberal Party of Canada would if they had the slightest chance...

 

Ban hand guns in Canada.

 

There are only two reasons to own a hand gun, one is to shoot at a target and the other is to shoot at a person. The Liberal Party is committed to banning hand guns in Canada and I will make sure they stick to that commitment.

 

http://andrewlang.liberal.ca/news/blog/jack-gun-control/

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

Btw the elitist attitude on this board really shows up quick when something like this comes up, just remember, a lot of recreational fisherman are also hunters.

 

 

also remember, liberals and dippers hunt and fish, contrary to what conservatives would have you believe. have you ever looked at who the people in the north consistently elect? (i'll give you a hint, it's not conservative)

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

 

 

Oh Luke, I know YOU won't take my guns, but the Liberal Party of Canada would if they had the slightest chance...

 

 

 

http://andrewlang.liberal.ca/news/blog/jack-gun-control/

 

since when did we start talking about handguns?

[archie_james_c]

since when did we start talking about handguns?

A gun is a gun Luke. I know many people who own 10+ handguns and not one of them has killed anyone...they must be defective I guess

 

I am a law-abiding gun owner, I will stick together with every other law-abiding gun owner wether they shoot trap, hutning rifles, handguns, scary black rifles etc.

 

If the Govt. wanted to ban Walleye fishing and you were just a hardcore steelheader would you let your fellow Walleye anglers get thrown under the bus, or would you help them?

[archie_james_c]

also remember, liberals and dippers hunt and fish, contrary to what conservatives would have you believe. have you ever looked at who the people in the north consistently elect? (i'll give you a hint, it's not conservative)

 

Its also not Liberal. The NDP dominate for one reason and one reason only, they are the union, hard workin man with mixed religious feelings (as to not offend anyone) and want to govern the living crap out of Canada (look at their platform, its scarily close to communism, just with fancier words.).

Edited April 18, 2011 by archie_james_c

[Roy]

 

If the Govt. wanted to ban Walleye fishing and you were just a hardcore steelheader would you let your fellow Walleye anglers get thrown under the bus, or would you help them?

 

Tell them you're fishing for pickerel. It might save you from being squished by a bus.

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

archie buddy...

 

the difference is that you are bringing restricted firearms into a debate surrounding a long gun registry. they aren't the same. i have no problems with restricted weapons, but i agree completely with their special designation.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

Its also not Liberal. The NDP dominate for one reason and one reason only, they are the union, hard workin man with mixed religious feelings (as to not offend anyone) and want to govern the living crap out of Canada (look at their platform, its scarily close to communism, just with fancier words.).

 

McCarthyism is alive and well.

[archie_james_c]

the difference is that you are bringing restricted firearms into a debate surrounding a long gun registry. they aren't the same. i have no problems with restricted weapons, but i agree completely with their special designation.

 

 

Sorry for kind of being all over the place in my argument. What I meant right from the get-go was that I know the Liberals stance on guns IN GENERAL. Not just long guns, letting the Liberals into our gun cabinets in any way is like letting a fox into a chicken coop

 

Thats not to say us "Cons" are perfect, but I'd say we're 99.99% there

[archie_james_c]

McCarthyism is alive and well.

 

Ah never mind...I had a bunch of the NDP's goals as outlined in their platform that are just plain wrong...

 

But anyways I'm going out to look for some bow's. Look for the burgundy intrepid if you're out that way. No political talk if you come out!

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

Ah never mind...I had a bunch of the NDP's goals as outlined in their platform that are just plain wrong...

 

But anyways I'm going out to look for some bow's. Look for the burgundy intrepid if you're out that way. No political talk if you come out!

 

I wish! I might go test my new spinning rod build out in the tailrace if I'm lucky.

[Spiel]

All I can tell you is that Mr. Ground Hog didn't get a chance to ask this morning... HEY.. is that thing registered...

 

 

Marching to the right.....

Turns left and marches back....

 

Repeat as needed.

[Jer]

Where would the right wing be without it's fear campaigns.

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2011 by Jer

[chilli]

You bet leaving more disposable billions for G8 bathroom breaks in Huntsville

 

That Dollar argument sailed with last years g8-g20

 

mmmm lets see----I can spend a billion on a weekend photo shoot

 

Or I can spend a billion to try and make the cops jobs easier

 

Lets see---ya your right

 

The money spent on the G*-G20 summit was equally stupid. If you could scrap spending that kind of money on the next summit you'd be all over it.

Enough has been said on the long gun registery from both sides.

 

This is a perfect issue for politicians as its devisive and really not major in the grand scheme of things.

 

I say lets get back to major issues and the house can debate the registry at some point again in the future.

Ya I see a thread about washing machines that better fits a fishing websites description. Lets not talk about politicians who are going to ban the weapons we already use to hunt with. It's a good topic that needs to never die. There are many other examples of government waste and stupid laws that need to be kept alive. If we can't discuss them like gentlemen perhaps we should get kicked off the forums altogether and stay out of public. Come on we're not a bunch of Archie Bunkers here. We should be embarrassed as adults if this thread gets closed.

[archie_james_c]

Hey we have been civil!! I dont see any cursing or carrying on around here.

 

Oh Luke, you shoulda came out tonight, 2 bucks landed, 3 lost.

[Cookslav]

I for one would LOVE to see the regristry banned.

Simply put its a waste of money.

 

I could care less about who(or which party) is going to scrap it....but I have serious concerns about whom ever( or which party) supports it.

My vote is not solidified but the issue is one that is very important to me.

[Fishnwire]

I have to admit I haven't read all the comments. Anyway...

---

Have you ever noticed that every time there's a report in the news of an incident involving a handgun or automatic weapon, some opponent of the LGR points out how its existence did nothing to prevent the crime? I always laugh because the LGR was never intended to do anything about such problems...nor was it ever sold as something that would. It would be like me suggesting we should scrap speed limits on our roads because they've done nothing to limit drunk driving.

-

The LGR was intended to cut down on the amount of neglected, half-forgotten, and improperly secured long guns residing under camp beds, in unlocked sheds and in the backs of closets. Firearms that may have been passed down to those uninterested in safely maintaining them, or those whose very ownership is unclear. It encourages everyone who owns a registered long gun (which may have been unregistered prior to the LGR) to ensure they are vigilant in knowing its whereabouts and that it is safely secured at all times. If the owner fails to do so and that failure contributes to an undesirable outcome, he or she knows that the recovered weapon can be traced right back to them, at which point they'll have some questions to answer about how that happened. When the LGR was implemented thousands of weapons (tens of thousands?)were turned in by people who weren't prepared to take that responsibility. That equals thousands of guns that your and my kids can't get a hold of because they're no longer wrapped up in a blanket in your neighbour's garage...or wherever.

-

Valid arguments can be made that the LGR is "not necessary". I could make the argument that unloading your weapon, AND putting a trigger lock on it, AND storing the ammo in a separate location is not necessary...but all of you (most of you?)do it. You employ redundant and arguably unnecessary safety measures regarding the storage, transport and use of your guns because you're responsible and want to prevent the possibility of any accident, no matter how unlikely. I can't figure out why the LGR isn't viewed as a similar aspect of the hobby that takes time, money, and effort, but is simply part of the deal.

[chilli]

I have to admit I haven't read all the comments. Anyway...

---

Have you ever noticed that every time there's a report in the news of an incident involving a handgun or automatic weapon, some opponent of the LGR points out how its existence did nothing to prevent the crime? I always laugh because the LGR was never intended to do anything about such problems...nor was it ever sold as something that would. It would be like me suggesting we should scrap speed limits on our roads because they've done nothing to limit drunk driving.

-

The LGR was intended to cut down on the amount of neglected, half-forgotten, and improperly secured long guns residing under camp beds, in unlocked sheds and in the backs of closets. Firearms that may have been passed down to those uninterested in safely maintaining them, or those whose very ownership is unclear. It encourages everyone who owns a registered long gun (which may have been unregistered prior to the LGR) to ensure they are vigilant in knowing its whereabouts and that it is safely secured at all times. If the owner fails to do so and that failure contributes to an undesirable outcome, he or she knows that the recovered weapon can be traced right back to them, at which point they'll have some questions to answer about how that happened. When the LGR was implemented thousands of weapons (tens of thousands?)were turned in by people who weren't prepared to take that responsibility. That equals thousands of guns that your and my kids can't get a hold of because they're no longer wrapped up in a blanket in your neighbour's garage...or wherever.

-

Valid arguments can be made that the LGR is "not necessary". I could make the argument that unloading your weapon, AND putting a trigger lock on it, AND storing the ammo in a separate location is not necessary...but all of you (most of you?)do it. You employ redundant and arguably unnecessary safety measures regarding the storage, transport and use of your guns because you're responsible and want to prevent the possibility of any accident, no matter how unlikely. I can't figure out why the LGR isn't viewed as a similar aspect of the hobby that takes time, money, and effort, but is simply part of the deal.

Now that was a reasonable argument. Thank you

With that said if they could implement it without it costing millions of dollars a year it might be acceptable. That but of coarse they have to be able to keep the information out of the wrong hands.

[blarg]

I have to admit I haven't read all the comments. Anyway...

---

Have you ever noticed that every time there's a report in the news of an incident involving a handgun or automatic weapon, some opponent of the LGR points out how its existence did nothing to prevent the crime? I always laugh because the LGR was never intended to do anything about such problems...nor was it ever sold as something that would. It would be like me suggesting we should scrap speed limits on our roads because they've done nothing to limit drunk driving.

-

The LGR was intended to cut down on the amount of neglected, half-forgotten, and improperly secured long guns residing under camp beds, in unlocked sheds and in the backs of closets. Firearms that may have been passed down to those uninterested in safely maintaining them, or those whose very ownership is unclear. It encourages everyone who owns a registered long gun (which may have been unregistered prior to the LGR) to ensure they are vigilant in knowing its whereabouts and that it is safely secured at all times. If the owner fails to do so and that failure contributes to an undesirable outcome, he or she knows that the recovered weapon can be traced right back to them, at which point they'll have some questions to answer about how that happened. When the LGR was implemented thousands of weapons (tens of thousands?)were turned in by people who weren't prepared to take that responsibility. That equals thousands of guns that your and my kids can't get a hold of because they're no longer wrapped up in a blanket in your neighbour's garage...or wherever.

-

Valid arguments can be made that the LGR is "not necessary". I could make the argument that unloading your weapon, AND putting a trigger lock on it, AND storing the ammo in a separate location is not necessary...but all of you (most of you?)do it. You employ redundant and arguably unnecessary safety measures regarding the storage, transport and use of your guns because you're responsible and want to prevent the possibility of any accident, no matter how unlikely. I can't figure out why the LGR isn't viewed as a similar aspect of the hobby that takes time, money, and effort, but is simply part of the deal.

 

 

And that folks is precisely why we have a registry, the country is full of people with an opinion and no knowledge.

 

The registry was touted as a crime prevention tool after the poly technique shooting, of course it didn't prevent the Dawson college shooting that was committed with a registered rifle, but hey, who's counting.

 

All of the other comments about storage and safety are taken care by a completely separate law, i say again, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. A law which no one, or very few, have a problem with, because that law actually does some good. Also, the safe storage law would cover the rifle in a blanket issue, and also could have lead to people turning in firearms they didn't want to store safely.

 

Instead of depending upon the state to protect your children from their ignorance you could just teach them.

 

We have had a handgun registry since the 30's, hand guns are still used much more often than long guns in crimes, Despite hand guns being much much less common than long guns, yep, that's what the country needs, more useless liberal laws that pander to people who are more than happy to have an opinion without an education.

[archie_james_c]

 

 

Instead of depending upon the state to protect your children from their ignorance you could just teach them.

 

We have had a handgun registry since the 30's, hand guns are still used much more often than long guns in crimes, Despite hand guns being much much less common than long guns, yep, that's what the country needs, more useless liberal laws that pander to people who are more than happy to have an opinion without an education.

 

[Old Man]

And that folks is precisely why we have a registry, the country is full of people with an opinion and no knowledge.

 

The registry was touted as a crime prevention tool after the poly technique shooting, of course it didn't prevent the Dawson college shooting that was committed with a registered rifle, but hey, who's counting.

 

All of the other comments about storage and safety are taken care by a completely separate law, i say again, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. A law which no one, or very few, have a problem with, because that law actually does some good. Also, the safe storage law would cover the rifle in a blanket issue, and also could have lead to people turning in firearms they didn't want to store safely.

 

Instead of depending upon the state to protect your children from their ignorance you could just teach them.

 

We have had a handgun registry since the 30's, hand guns are still used much more often than long guns in crimes, Despite hand guns being much much less common than long guns, yep, that's what the country needs, more useless liberal laws that pander to people who are more than happy to have an opinion without an education.

 

 

Well said. :good:

[Warthaug]

And that folks is precisely why we have a registry, the country is full of people with an opinion and no knowledge.

But fishNwire's point was valid - we register all sorts of things in this country: motor vehicles, aircraft, some types of industrial equipment, etc. These registries serve a variety of purposes, ranging from monitoring/controlling trade of the registered objects, to a mechanism of monitoring compliance with the law, to taxation, to tracking stolen equipement. The hand gun registry serves the first two aims admirably, and at a relatively small cost.

 

I'd have no problem with the LGR if it had been implemented for those kinds of purposes, and implemented in a way that it could be effectively used for those purposes. Unfortunately, it was sold as a crime-prevention tool, a purpose for which its utility is dubious at best. Meaning we have a costly, poorly designed registry which serves no practical purpose and has few if any measurable benefits.

 

I also never understood why the existing (and functional) hand gun registry wasn't simply expanded to cover long guns; why re-invent the wheel and double up on bureaucracy and equipment?

 

Bryan

[Cookslav]

The LGR was intended to cut down on the amount of neglected, half-forgotten, and improperly secured long guns residing under camp beds, in unlocked sheds and in the backs of closets.

 

Ya...thats worth the price tag. Especially since its such a measurable initiative with steller results.

I'd love to hear how many negelcted, half forgotten firearms have been secured....I bet that number is in the millions....well worth the millions spent....yup

[Dara]

The Liberals don't even know the laws concerning guns.

 

 

I was at a Construction association Barbque at our local gun club a few years ago. They had a little skeet shooting tournament and our liberal MPP was there along with one of his cohorts from Hamilton or something. He was labour minister at the time. I know that the local guy did not have a PAL and the way the guy from the south handled a gun I'm fairly certain he had never held one before. They both participated in the shoot...you know, just for fun. But both of them were totally breaking the law by even picking up a gun....and they didn't even know it.

 

As far as the registry...its junk to me. My daughter in another town has a PAL and can borrow my registered guns any time she wants and keep them at her place forever as long as they are registered to me. How does that help any cop that gets called to her place...Nope...no guns registered there...lets go in guys.

 

 

And then Tony Martin our MP says. I know my constituents don't want the gun registry but the Chiefs of Police ASSOCIATION..you know, their club, likes it so I will vote for it...I know better than the children that voted for me