Dunno if I want to call it Jesusland, it's a bit blasphemous and the USA works just fine, but other than that...throw in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and we've got a deal. That way Alaska will be contiguous.
Posted on 12/29/2005 3:03:48 PM PST by neverdem
One of the tactics Paul Martin is employing in attempting to be re-elected as prime minister of this beautiful country is a blatant attempt to buy votes in the largest city in Canada. I am referring to his statement that if he is re-elected, he will ban all handguns. Of course, this is optional for those provinces that don't want to institute the new ban. Albertan and Saskatchewan have already said they will not uphold this law if passed.
How ridiculous can that be? Handgun registry and control laws for legal handguns have been in effect in this country since 1934.
Martin obviously has not done his homework when it comes to gun owners in this country. He and his cohorts have squandered nearly $2 billion on a useless gun registry that was supposed to cost $1.5 million and has not done one thing to reduce gun crime in this country. During the institution of these gun control laws, people responsible for registering guns lost hundreds of thousands of these registrations, never to be recovered.
In spite of this registry, the use of guns to kill people goes unchecked.
The registrations were for guns in the possession of the law-abiding people of this country. I would suggest to Martin that very few, if any, registered guns have been used to kill people. His statement that the guns being used to kill people are being stolen from collectors is, to say the least, ridiculous.
If Martin and his government had chosen to spend the $2 billion to beef up control of the borders to choke off the illegal importation of guns to this country, we would have been a lot further ahead.
Martin said on television recently that guns kill people. Guns don't kill people, people do. That's like saying that eating utensils make people obese--ridiculous drivel.
As many people may know, nearly two years ago, Australia banned guns entirely within its borders. Here are a few first year statistics from Australia as published by Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
* 640,381 guns were surrendered by the people of Australia, which were destroyed, costing taxpayers more than $500 million.
* Homicides are up 3.2 per cent.
* Assaults are up 8.6 per cent.
* Armed robberies are up 44 per cent.
* In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are up 300 per cent.
While figures in the last 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms, this has changed dramatically upward in the ensuing 12 months. These stupid laws have guaranteed the criminals unarmed prey.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense has been expended in "successfully" ridding Australian society of guns. This is sure to be repeated here in Canada if we don't stop these idiots from passing ridiculous laws that don't benefit anyone but the illegal element in our society.
Terry McGarvey would like people to consider Prime Minister Paul Martin's recent comments regarding Canada's gun laws when voting in the upcoming federal election.
Good for them.
Hey, Canada, why not trade Alberta and Saskatchewan for Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts?
liberalism, Communism, Mohamedism, all bad.
Oh, and being French too. All bad.
As many people may know, nearly two years ago, Australia banned guns entirely within its borders. Here are a few first year statistics from Australia as published by Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
* 640,381 guns were surrendered by the people of Australia, which were destroyed, costing taxpayers more than $500 million.
* Homicides are up 3.2 per cent.
* Assaults are up 8.6 per cent.
* Armed robberies are up 44 per cent.
* In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are up 300 per cent.
Utterly false. I'm an Australian citizen and own guns. There are millions of legally held firearms in private hands in Australia, and virtually any adult citizen without a criminal record can get a licence and own basic firearms. You can also get more advanced licences to own more powerful firearms, but that takes a bit more work.
Second of all, the article falsely gives the impression that the changes being described are very recent - in actual fact, the 640,000 figure (and most of those firearms were legal firearms sold in exchange for cash - people could have kept them) comes from a buyback in the late 1990s - not in the last two years.
The crime figures are also considerably out of date, but it would take me a little while to get the current ones.
Fortunately the Battle for Gun-Control is already over in US for most part - We Won!!!!
There is good reason Dem Candidates go out and shoot ducks during campaign season - THEY LOST.
Vermont has the best concealed carry law in the country. You just carry a concealed weapon...there is no permit or registration required.
Toss in Connecticut and Rhode Island while you're at it.
Wow, I was under the impression that all guns were turned in there and destroyed.
"Hey, Canada, why not trade Alberta and Saskatchewan for Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts?"
Great idea, don't forget to throw in Oregon.....
For some reason, some people have chosen to misrepresent this overseas. But firearms remain legal in Australia. The gun laws aren't that good, but they are nowhere near as bad at they are often presented. The main problem, in my view, is the bureaucracy tied up with firearm ownership, and the rules on storage of firearms.
Actually, let Canada have the coastal strip of Washington and Oregon, and we'll keep the rest.
While we're at it, we'll take British Columbia except for Vancouver, and we'll throw in Upper Michigan in exchange for the Yukon..
Dunno if I want to call it Jesusland, it's a bit blasphemous and the USA works just fine, but other than that...throw in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and we've got a deal. That way Alaska will be contiguous.
Well, Im glad to hear that you all are still armed down there
IIRC, most of the "hype" concerning the Aussie gun bans actually took place in one or two ( provinces ? ) and not Nation - wide..
What has happened was bad enough, and violence was not abated.. In fact, has actually increased in some areas..
That's not to say Australia is that different than any other country..
Comparable crime statistics can be found throughout europe, the mediterranian, asia, etc..
Generally speaking, there has been an increase in criminal and violent behaviour world wide..
Attempts at gun control as a behaviour modifier have failed to produce the desired results..
Thats good to hear, I wouldnt want to encounter crocs or mambas or a crazed wallaby (l0l) unarmed.
I wouldn't give the liberals the good real estate. There are too many good people in the rural West Coast to abandon. With New England out of the picture, we would have the power to make life very unpleasant for the wack jobs from the Bay Area, Portland, Seattle, and LA. Then the West Coast would be ours along with its trade access to Asia.
I'm sure Canada would be happy to take the refugees. :-)
What happened with Australia's gun laws are complicated, but basically the Commonwealth government intervened to try and ensure the laws were reasonably consistent between states - with some success. What this meant was that some states tightened their laws and some actually loosened theirs a bit. At the same time, the Commonwealth government funded a gun buyback intended to remove unwanted, surplus weapons from the community, but which would also compensate any person who had to surrender a weapon for whatever reason.
"Vermont has the best concealed carry law in the country. You just carry a concealed weapon...there is no permit or registration required"
Mogollon is 100% correct about Vermont. No laws concerning the carrying of firearms either concealed or unconcelaed exists. The rights concerning personal firearms flow directly from the Vermont Constitution to the individual without being filtered through a maze of gun control law.
Federal LAw requires that check be performed on a firearms purchase from a retailer, takes about 5 minutes on the phone.Convicted felons cannot purchase firearms in the USA.
Vermont also has hunting laws which regulate the carrying and use of arms while hunting.
Like many people here in Vermont, I carry a small piece concealed in my truck, just one of the tools along with the tire iron and jack.
Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs
As to "imported" US Gun violence in Canada. It is a myth.
Here are the stats:
All info. based on Private Firearm Ownership in the U.S. as of 1997,
All Firearms # of Guns 200-240 Million
All Firearms Owners : 60-65 Million
Handguns # of Guns 75-80 Million
Handgun Owners: 30-35 Million
1997 All Crimes in US in which Guns were used: 701,369
Murder......10,369
Other violent Crimes in which firearms were used......691,000
Measure Gun Violence :701,369/60,000,000 ( presuming erroneously that some of the 60 million gun owners turned criminal)=1.1689483333333333333333333333333 % of guns are used for criminal violence.
99% of gun owners in the USA are law abiding citizens. We are responsible gun owners and self help defenders. The 2nd amendment is no myth, as the liberal gun control wing nut press would have you believe.
There is very little gun violence in the USA.
Stats Source: www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
And if you say that 701,369 is a lot of gun violence, it is if it were manifest within the context of a population that was smaller than 260 million people,or not spread across a continent .But that is not the context of which we speak, thanks to the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution.
The fact is that more people die from car accidents annually in the United States than from gun violence.
Maybe we should outlaw cars and go to bicycles.
In 2002 it was 43,005 deaths in car accidents[www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm].
Good points.
Would Hillary go duck Hunting?
* Assaults are up 8.6 per cent.
* Armed robberies are up 44 per cent.
* In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are up 300 per cent.
Yah, Australia has always been a leader in Liberal thought and misguided
social engineering.
I don't understand why anyone here would want to follow those
clowns over the cliff...
Bet the Yoopers would have a lot to say about that :)
Why on earth would a person need a licence to defend themselves against those that will do them harm?
Do the serfs need a pass to slice bacon too?
Hillary would do anything to get the dem nomination for the presidency.
She might even "Kill Bill", in imitation of Uma Thurman.
We don't.
We have a common law right to self defence.
That is considered to be separate from the issue of gun licences.
Personally I have no problem with gun licences, any more than I have a problem with driving licences. I oppose registration (which Australia also has) but I've nothing against licencing.
And I'm also aware that there are places in the US where you have to have a licence or a permit to purchase firearms. It's not a unique requirement.
The problem with arguing that gun registration or gun prohibition doesn't reduce crime is that it allows the anti-gun people to frame the argument. The outcome of gun registration or prohibition is irrelevant. In the US it's a constitutional right and we don't need to argue the positive or negative elements of gun ownership.
If you don't mind, please provide a couple examples of such storage rules. Are they such as to render your gun kept at home for protection useless in the event of someone breaking in?
All bets are off when a candidate for president in this country openly advocates a gun ban before an election. This Martin clown must really think his electorate is completely ignorant. Time will tell.
What I don't understand is why Dithers is trying all he can to buy votes in Toronto...he's got that city all locked up! All this is doing is swinging key rural and small-urban ridings to the Conservatives...
Bump for later.
Not useless, but it does require planning and it does make it awkward.
Any firearm not in use must be stored in a heavy safe (over 300 pounds), or a safe fixed to the floor, or a strong room. Ammunition must be stored separately.
I have things set up so if necessary, I can be armed within about forty seconds if I need to be.
In actual fact, though, the police tend to apply commonsense to such matters. If you shot someone in genuine self defence in your home, it's unlikely there'd be that much consideration of how the firearms were stored. But if a kid managed to get a loaded gun and shot themselves or someone and you hadn't secured it exactly according to the rules, they'd crucify you.
The whole liberal-generated idea of banning guns to reduce crime rests on the premise that criminals will obey the law. No other silly dictum illustrates the logic and reality-challenged state of liberal "thought" as well as that one does. I rest my case.
LOL!!!
Thanks for your post 33 in response to my request. Sorry to be so tardy in getting back to you (out of the house for awhile).
Your being able to arm yourself within 40 seconds under the restraints you listed (safe or strong room--I presume that you have the latter, I cannot imagine anyone being able to get to and unlock a SAFE and then load a gun with the ammo in a separate location that quickly...might be wrong, though) is truly a marvelous feat.
You noted that the Australian laws take more than a dim view of leaving your gun so that a kid could get it. There are punitive laws in some states (don't have a list, just know that they exist) in the USA concerning this sort of thing.
The 40 second time is, admittedly, under ideal conditions - I need to be near the strong room - but it is accessible from my bedroom and study. My wife has often suggested that the safest thing to actually do in such a case is to lock ourselves in the strong room and she's probably right to be honest - I'd still arm myself in case there was a need to leave the room or the strong room came under threat, of course, but I have no desire to use a firearm if I have another decent choice.
My wife has also just pointed out that I would need to be awake for this plan to be useful. She claims (with some justification) that if she woke me in the middle of the night and told me she thought there was a burglar in the house, that I'd probably say that he could take anything he liked - provided he did it quietly. I really don't like waking up much.
Years ago, I was sleeping one afternoon (I'd been working all night) when I was shaken awake by my, then, twelve year old daughter. She said (in a very apologetic voice) "Dad, you know how you said I should only wake you up if the house was on fire...."
Well, that got me up pretty quickly - maybe that's what they should tell me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.