• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Baloo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
[quote author=ballz]Troll much?
[/quote]

Really? So, simply by sharing my real-world experience of the judicial system in Ontario, I am trolling? Never actually stating that I advocated for gun control, or that it was all reasonable; but simply for showing people that may have no insight, that the hyperbole of "JAIL" for all firearms offences or "FINE" for all driving offences doesn't hold water?

Okay.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
265
Points
910
Baloo said:
Really? So, simply by sharing my real-world experience of the judicial system in Ontario, I am trolling? Never actually stating that I advocated for gun control, or that it was all reasonable; but simply for showing people that may have no insight, that the hyperbole of "JAIL" for all firearms offences or "FINE" for all driving offences doesn't hold water?

Okay.

No, suggesting that I am saying that all driving offences are trivial is trolling. I spoke to license and registration requirements / offenses because they are relevant to the conversation and what we were talking about.

Suggesting that I am saying all firearms-related offences lead to incarceration is trolling. I didn't (although I can't think of any examples of a firearms-related offence that doesn't get you thrown in jail, now that you mention it).

EDIT: Perhaps your intent was not to troll, but it sure appeared that way.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Baloo said:
the hyperbole of "JAIL" for all firearms offences ... doesn't hold water?

Which firearms offences do not incur jail time upon conviction?
 

Baloo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Let me be perfectly clear. I am in no way, equating provincial legislation to criminal legislation; before this turns into a word-parsing bun-fight, my intent was to just clarify, what I believed to be, a commonly held feeling about punishment regarding firearms legislation and because people here, on both sides of the fence, seem to keep wanting to keep comparing owning a car to ownership of a firearm. Both can lead to extremely warped sentencing.

No more, no less.

Again, in my purely anecdotal and personal experience, firearms offences generally garner no greater rate of incarceration than any other criminal offence; there are a host of remedies that the courts generally use before it comes to that point.

And ballz, I totally agree, mandatory minimums are not effective, nor do they take into account totality of circumstances.
 

Baloo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Loachman said:
Which firearms offences do not incur jail time upon conviction?

With the Supreme Court overturning the mandatory minimum sentencing, for a select portion of prohibited weapons offences, that would be most of them.

There are many offences that can be remedied by summary conviction, which doesn't necessitate incarceration. Just because you are 'liable' to serving time, doesn't mean that you will. You could say the same for virtually every Criminal Code offence.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Then what punishments are being imposed in lieu of jail, and are some people exempt criminal records upon conviction?

What does it cost the accused to defend his or her self against criminal charges? The process, as many have said, is often the punishment.

Regulation of firearms, like regulation of anything else, does not belong in the Criminal Code, and the penalties for things that are not, in fact, crimes are still excessive and offensive.
 

Baloo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Loachman said:
Then what punishments are being imposed in lieu of jail, and are some people exempt criminal records upon conviction?

From what I've seen personally, or if you want to get into the 'heard of', more or less anything else available to courts for anything else.

Suspended sentences (probation), with fines (depending on the offence); now, that being said, we're not even talking the prohibitions afterwards, which can be a whole other ball of wax. And not always; I do understand that it is possible to get a conditional discharge upon conviction, which does not result in a criminal record, per se.

[quote author=Loachman]What does it cost the accused to defend his or her self against criminal charges? The process, as many have said, is often the punishment.[/quote]

Oh, it's a couple dollars. Now, is it necessarily say, as bad as the anticipated costs of impaired driving? I guess like everything else, it varies, but it's certainly not cheap.

[quote author=Loachman]Regulation of firearms, like regulation of anything else, does not belong in the Criminal Code, and the penalties for things that are not, in fact, crimes are still excessive and offensive.
[/quote]

I get what you are saying; that's something that will not be going away, regardless of who is in the hall of power, unfortunately.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
265
Points
910
Baloo said:
Oh, it's a couple dollars. Now, is it necessarily say, as bad as the anticipated costs of impaired driving? I guess like everything else, it varies, but it's certainly not cheap.

You'd have to ask Ian Thomson, a clear case of why firearm owners have every right to be tinfoil hat style paranoid in this country.

Or the 68 year old man going through the gauntlet right now in NB after his house was invaded by actual criminals.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,283
Points
1,060
Baloo said:
Oh, it's a couple dollars.
Ian Thompson paid close to $65'000 in legal fees and close to $10'000 in other fees.
Just a couple dollars for defending his home and family from people throwing firebombs?



. Now, is it necessarily say, as bad as the anticipated costs of impaired driving? I guess  like everything else, it varies, but it's certainly not cheap.

Speaking about firearm related offences and DUIs varying,  another major point of contention in the firearm community is that there seems to be a significant double standard.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1277799-off-duty-rcmp-officer%E2%80%99s-gun-stolen-from-vehicle-in-halifax

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/19/hundreds-of-officers-in-the-greater-toronto-area-disciplined-for-serious-misconduct-in-past-five-years.html

Pretty sure if I leave a loaded pistol in a car over night and it's stolen I'm facing thousands in lawyer fees and some jail time.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Once more unto the breach..  :akimbo:

c_canuk said:
not necessarily if the page was created by gun grabbers.
Now, come on, that's just a little paranoid. Just to be safe, I fact checked it myself (with a sample of a few states), and they check out (mind you specifically I was only looking at "Permit to purchase required").

c_canuk said:
Let me break this down barney style for you:

1) In the US no private gun sales are tracked
2) that a private sale takes place at a gun show is irrelevant because it still wouldn't be tracked outside the gunshow
3) Therefore the Gun Show Loophole isn't a loop hole.

We're really picking at straws here. This entire debate about the "gun-show loophole" arose from my statement about "American-Style Gun Control". I was just trying to highlight that in the States it is much easier to buy a gun. Thank you for enlightening me (not sarcasm), because I didn't know this was something that occured outside of gun shows. Gun shows are just a convenient place to connect sellers with buyers, which I assume is why this whole idea came about.

c_canuk said:
and here we see you resort to veiled insults...
.
.
You argued with vague statements, diversions, and ad homonym attacks.

I appologize if you thought I was trying to insult your character. I wasn't; these were genuinely not veiled insults. I just feel like it doesn't matter what my argument is. The second I say anything that could even be remotely construed as pro-gun control, I feel like it's taken to mean that I support a 100% ban on guns, which is not true. I also feel like it's taken to mean that I support all of the gun laws that are flawed (and their are many), which I do not.

Just one example:
c_canuk said:
if my registration on my car expires I don't commit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. I don't have to register my scotch collection.

By saying this, it implies that I am ok with and support the law that makes it a felony for letting your gun registration expire. Not only did I never say that, but I also feel that this is unfair. I'm against a ban on guns, I'm against any laws that make no sense (drinking age should be lowered IMO), but I'm for having a rules and regulations regarding things that are potentially dangerous.

Another example:

Loachman said:
Here's a question for you: What two categories of Canadian citizens must report a change of address to the police or face jail terms?

I'm assuming sex offenders and gun owners? Again, asking this question implies that I think that part of the law is fair. Just because I support rules and regulations regarding gun use and ownership doesn't mean I am a staunch supporter of draconian rules.

My whole argument at the beginning had actually nothing to do with my opinion on gun control.  All I was saying was that a specific news article did not say that the Liberal platform would take guns out of the hands of lawful gun-owners. I got dragged down a rabbit whole when everyone started arguing with me about each item from the articles. I wasn't trying to "divert attention from my original position." I still stand by my original position. But I went along with all of the shouting, and I've learned a lot, but I think I just got more frustrated than anything. I've enjoyed debating with some of you (Jarnhamar), others not so much... I tried not to vilify any of you for your opinions (unless you think I'm lying about the veiled insults), but I feel like I'm not getting fair treatment; I've been called a bigot and a "grabber" (whatever that means).


Jarnhamar said:
Freedom Haters, people who don't vote,  people who fail the force test?

Definitely the last one!

Jarnhamar said:
Were you able to articulate what exactly an assault weapon is that the liberals are talking about getting off the street? 
..
While you're explaining assault weapons would you mind explaining how additional red tape will save lives or keep guns off the street?

You'd be surprised how often and widely the term assault rifle or assault weapon is used. There is a report by the RCMP from 2007 that you can check on-line regarding gun-related violence, and even they use the term! The term assault weapon is just a political term used by people who either hate guns or don't understand guns.

Of course those of us who have experience with weapons know the term "Assault Rifle/Weapon" to be total BS. We all know that a know that an AR-15 and a Mini-14 have essentially the same capability, but the AR-15 looks more bad-***; it's more scary and "assault" looking.

However, I stand by my earlier statement  that the definition of "assault weapon" is moot to our discussion. I was saying that the point of gun-control laws was to try and keep weapons off the street. It doesn't matter if we call the weapons on the streets semi-automatic rifles, assault rifles, or super-death-ray-matter-displacers, the point is the same: the are trying to get the things that go bang and kill people off the streets. And, no, the second sentence in this paragraph is not an opportunity to continue debating the efficacy of said gun-control laws, ballz and c_canuck.

Loachman said:
The only reason that any member of a free society should have to give when asked why he/she wants to own something is "because I want to". And, again, a firearm's "express purpose" is not to kill people.

First, I respectfully disagree. Explosives have legal, practical purposes (mining, road building), but if my neighbour who's on disability and doesn't work and drinks beer all day wanted to buy some dynamite, I'd want to know why. Right now I think the law is flaud, in that the only two answers you're allowed to say is "sport shooting" or "hunting". If you say "self-defence" or "job proficiency" (say you're a police officer or military and want to improve your marksmanship, then there's a potential for them to deny your application for a PAL. To me that criteria/list is just wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to ask the question. We need to improve the law/requirement, not get rid of it all together.

Last one...

ballz said:
Well I'll either call BS on you, or ask you to admit you are discriminating against firearm owners on a false premise.

The BS line is defining firearms as "a tool who's express purpose is to kill people." That is BS, full stop, and you argument is dependant upon that BS line being true. So you can either admit that line is incorrect and your argument falters, or you can prove yourself a bigot.

"Bigot is as bigot does." I will not admit to being incorrect and I will not admit to being a bigot. I'm tolerate other people's opinions, and I've change my views frequently (including vis a vis firearms) when good arguments are made. Firearms were not inventd for sport or for hunting. Just do a quick search on the history of firearms, and you will see that they were first developed as instruments of war. Their use in sport, hunting and self protection came after we started using them to launch spears at each other.

ballz said:
Despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to own a car or a firearm that do not involve hurting anybody, and they can be used for the same illegitimate purpose, you are arguing that is more reasonable to put the onus on would-be firearm-purchasers than it is for would-be car-purchasers.

Everything that is deadly is regulated in this country. Precription medication, alcohol, guns, explosives, cars, knives, etc. The thing is, you can't lump them all into one group; you can't generalize them and I think we're using the analogy with cars way to often.

This will have to be something that we all agree to disagree on. In my opinion, the nature of an object will affect how we regulate that object. Two things can be equally deadly, but if one is designed to be deadly (a gun), and the other just happens to be deadly (alcohol, car), then I believe it is fair to treat them differently.

Ok, this is longest post I've ever written, and the longest I've ever even seen on this site. There was more arguments you guys made that I want to counter but, it's Friday, and my fingers hurt. Also, you all shout at me at the same time. It's hard to keep up.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
265
Points
910
Lumber said:
"Bigot is as bigot does." I will not admit to being incorrect and I will not admit to being a bigot. I'm tolerate other people's opinions, and I've change my views frequently (including vis a vis firearms) when good arguments are made. Firearms were not inventd for sport or for hunting. Just do a quick search on the history of firearms, and you will see that they were first developed as instruments of war. Their use in sport, hunting and self protection came after we started using them to launch spears at each other.

The internet was first developed as an instrument of war, and now has a gazabillion uses that have all come after we used it as a tool of war. What something was originally designed for in the 13th fackin century is very irrelevant from whether it has any other uses now, and assuming that everyone who has one now wants to use it for the same reasons it was invented 800 years ago is pretty ridiculous.

You can try and justify it all you want, your position relies on assuming firearm owners are guilty of something unless they prove otherwise to you. That's pretty weak, and its very much incompatible with a free and democratic society.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
ballz said:
The internet was first developed as an instrument of war, and now has a gazabillion uses that have all come after we used it as a tool of war. What something was originally designed for in the 13th fackin century is very irrelevant from whether it has any other uses now, and assuming that everyone who has one now wants to use it for the same reasons it was invented 800 years ago is pretty ridiculous.

You can try and justify it all you want, your position relies on assuming firearm owners are guilty of something unless they prove otherwise to you. That's pretty weak, and its very much incompatible with a free and democratic society.

Just what does it being developed as an instrument of war have to do with it? IMPs developed to feed soldiers (instrument of war), ruck sacks were developed for soldiers to carry a lot of gear (instrument of war). What these things weren't developed for was to kill or seriously maim people.

I don't know which of my posts you were reading, but my position is that you have to treat firearms differently that other harmful objects. A little girl isn't going to reach into her mothers purse at Walmart and accidentally shoot herself with a bottle of gin. Everything needs to be evaluated and regulated based on its own merits and vices. I don't think firearm owners are guilty of anything, just as I don't think someone who buys and drinks booze, takes prescription drugs, or owns a crossbow is guilty; but they still have regulations to follow.

 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,283
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
You'd be surprised how often and widely the term assault rifle or assault weapon is used.
I'm not surprised at all.  The police are sadly guilty of using fear tactics and social engineering. When an AR15 is used (or lost) by an officer it's a "patrol carbine". When the same gun is in the hands of a civilian it's an assault rifle. Practically all AR15s in Canada lack the option of automatic fire which would make it an assault rifle per the term.
There's even a clip on TV when an office had their rifle stolen a few months ago. The police chief calls it an assault rifle and corrects himself mid-sentence to patrol carbine.


However, I stand by my earlier statement  that the definition of "assault weapon" is moot to our discussion. I was saying that the point of gun-control laws was to try and keep weapons off the street. It doesn't matter if we call the weapons on the streets semi-automatic rifles, assault rifles, or super-death-ray-matter-displacers, the point is the same: the are trying to get the things that go bang and kill people off the streets.
Fair enough. Personally I find something inherently wrong with trusting someone to make rules and laws up about something when they have no idea what the hell they are even talking about and no inclination to learn.  Laws should be based on a number of things, ignorance of the subject not being one of them.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,283
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
I don't think someone who buys and drinks booze, takes prescription drugs, or owns a crossbow is guilty; but they still have regulations to follow.

Of which owning the crossbow is the least dangerous of those examples and responsible for the least deaths in Canada. 
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Lumber said:
Just what does it being developed as an instrument of war have to do with it? IMPs developed to feed soldiers (instrument of war), ruck sacks were developed for soldiers to carry a lot of gear (instrument of war). What these things weren't developed for was to kill or seriously maim people.

I don't know which of my posts you were reading, but my position is that you have to treat firearms differently that other harmful objects. A little girl isn't going to reach into her mothers purse at Walmart and accidentally shoot herself with a bottle of gin. Everything needs to be evaluated and regulated based on its own merits and vices. I don't think firearm owners are guilty of anything, just as I don't think someone who buys and drinks booze, takes prescription drugs, or owns a crossbow is guilty; but they still have regulations to follow.
Pretty flawed logic there, Lumber. Everything needs regulations to follow if it could be dangerous? Extremely nanny state thinking of you.  So we regulate where people use and how they use pens because a baby may swallow the cap or stab their eye out or something?

Just admit it, you have your Bias and you are not inclined to let go of it.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530

I admit: I have a bias toward having gun laws (note I did not say toward getting rid of guns).

And the logic isn't flawed at all. It's actually more of an opinion, but a reasonable one. Yes, if things are sufficiently dangerous, they need to and will be regulated. Your example is actually perfect one. There are a lot of toys and other small objects that are under regulations to be manufactured in a certain way so as not be a choking hazard for children. Dangerous-->Regulated, that's why have a so many different licenses... :threat:
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Lumber said:
I didn't know this was something that occured outside of gun shows. Gun shows are just a convenient place to connect sellers with buyers, which I assume is why this whole idea came about.

Eliminating the "Gun Show Loophole" would place the same restrictions on private transactions, including mothers buying their daughters their first .22 rifles - no legal sale or gift could be conducted without doing it through a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License. It would not affect criminal acquisition of firearms one little bit.

Lumber said:
I'm against any laws that make no sense (drinking age should be lowered IMO), but I'm for having a rules and regulations regarding things that are potentially dangerous.

Then you are in line with us. The drinking age was, in fact, lowered to eighteen from twenty-one nationwide many years ago (1970s?), It was bumped up to nineteen in all provinces save Quebec a few years later, following a spike in teenage drinking/driving deaths and injuries. Whether or not an extra year-long wait makes a difference or not, I do not know. Being enough over eighteen, this is irrelevant to me and everyone else in that situation, so under-nineteens will continue to suffer that wait.

Lumber said:
I'm assuming sex offenders and gun owners?

Bingo. Select your prize from the top shelf.

That is indicative of the mentality that drives "gun control" laws. Essentially, to those of that bent, ordinary citizens cannot be trusted. There is a branch of the same segment of society that feels that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with their own children, either. We are the enemy of the left.

Lumber said:
All I was saying was that a specific news article did not say that the Liberal platform would take guns out of the hands of lawful gun-owners.

They will never say that. They will just do it, regardless. They have done so in the past, in this Country and elsewhere. It is being done even now. The mechanism to do so is built into the Firearms Act. Those who own "grandfathered" firearms that were arbitrarily prohibited cannot pass them on to their heirs, nor can they sell them to any other person who is not also "grandfathered". "Grandfathering" is simply delayed confiscation without compensation, which is Parliament-approved theft.

Lumber said:
I was saying that the point of gun-control laws was to try and keep weapons off the street.

That's what they would have you believe, but that tired phrase is another attempt at appearing to be benign and sensible.

Guns do not need to be "kept off of the street". Criminals do. Guns are inanimate objects that cannot cause harm. Harm may be caused with guns, but that is purely up to the person in control. Control those persons who have proven themselves to be threats - criminals, not honest citizens - and their guns cease to be relevant.

And while criminals do not need guns to commit crimes (very few violent crimes are committed with firearms), guns do need criminals to commit crimes.

Liberals, however, for some reason, seem to like to treat criminals better than folks who hold real jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to society. Professional courtesy?

"Gun control" does not hinder criminal activity. It actively helps it. Smuggling firearms generates income, and removal of firearms from the general populace (which is what "gun control" does) makes life safer for criminals.

"Keeping guns off of the streets" is gun-grabber code for "keeping guns out of the homes/hands of the law-abiding".

"Gun control" is driven by prejudice and bigotry, and irrational mistrust (hoplophobia - fear of weapons).

Lumber said:
the are trying to get the things that go bang and kill people off the streets.

Were that truly the case, then the laws would be directed at criminals rather than non-criminals, which is the opposite case today.

Lumber said:
First, I respectfully disagree. Explosives have legal, practical purposes (mining, road building), but if my neighbour who's on disability and doesn't work and drinks beer all day wanted to buy some dynamite, I'd want to know why.

If you had grounds to believe that he might cause harm, then, yes, perhaps somebody should ask questions. Somebody should perhaps also see if there is a correlation between his beer-drinking habits and his driving habits (presuming that he has a car), no? Why would you be worried about one and not the other? The odds of harm are higher with a drunk behind the wheel of a car.

Lumber said:
the only two answers you're allowed to say is "sport shooting" or "hunting".

"Collecting".

But then one has to be prepared to allow "inspectors" into one's home to "inspect" their firearms collection, pertinent documents, and "any other thing" and "take samples". One is required to "assist" these "inspectors".

This, in real terms, is an "unreasonable search or seizure". The "inspectors" will, of course, be police, and no warrant is required for this search and seizure. The requirement to "assist" is removal of one's right to silence.

There is ample case law to demonstrate that any such activity conducted during a criminal investigation will see any evidence gathered thereby tossed out by the judge presiding over a trial, for good reason.

The Chretien Liberals, however, thought it just fine to strip rights from decent people.

Lumber said:
To me that criteria/list is just wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to ask the question.

While I agree with your first clause, I see no reason to ask "why". What business is it of anybody, and what does it achieve?

Is anybody going to respond with "I want to shoot my wife", or "I want to rob the TD Bank on Main Street next Tuesday"? Really?

Ascertain, instead, that the prospective purchaser has no record of criminal activity or mental instability and is, therefore, as far as anybody can tell, unlikely to cause harm. What more is required?

Lumber said:
We need to improve the law/requirement, not get rid of it all together.

We need to repeal the whole thing, and start again from the very beginning. The current law is no more than a monument to legislative stupidity. Put it in a park, with a nice little fence and some flowers around it, bolt a plaque on, and have some speeches made and some photographs taken.

It's replacement needs to be based upon truth and logic and evidence and respect and with the consent of the governed, rather than the governed being its prime target and treated as nutbars and potential murderers and baby-candy-stealers.

That is not hard to do, and it would be more effective than the current one.

Lumber said:
Firearms were not inventd for sport or for hunting. Just do a quick search on the history of firearms, and you will see that they were first developed as instruments of war.

So was a lot of other technology - so what? Many things not "designed to kill" can be readily used to do just that.

Since you did so (unexpectedly) well with my last question, what was used to commit the worst mass killing that took place in Canada?

I have no problem with requirements to demonstrate ability to handle firearms safely and knowledge of applicable laws, or a vetting process for criminal records or mental instability. Nobody - especially firearms owners - wants twits, crooks, or loons to own firearms, especially as they could be on the range/in the woods with us. The old FAC system did that, and very, very few people ever objected. It was cheap, and was only required for purchasing firearms (legally, of course, criminals were never so encumbered) - one would not be hounded by the police if it ever expired. The current licence achieves nothing more useful than that, and is generally despised due to the attached criminal liability.

I also have no problems slamming people who use firearms negligently or criminally. I do not believe, however, that there is any need to create greater penalties for "gun crimes" as they tend to be useless, but, if it makes some people feel better, then will not object. At least such things are directed at criminals rather than me.

Again, though - punish the crime and not the tool. That is just as effective and keeps the law simpler. The only people that would suffer from that would be lawyers as fewer would be required.

Finally, an unintended and sad consequence of this Liberal mentality:

Shooters and police used to be great friends. We'd go out to the local gravel pit, and coppers would be there as well. We'd compare firearms and chat freely. I used to go into the local police range with a police buddy and shoot there at the end of his shift.

Since then, I've done security ops (Pope John Paul II's visit to Ottawa in 1984 and Winter Olympics in 2010), counter-drug stuff, and training with RCMP and I've been a Pilot for two Police helicopter trials. There is much in common between military and police personnel, and was also between firarms owners.

The Firearms Act drove a great wedge between firearms owners and the Police. Friendship and co-operation was replaced with deep distrust. I minimize social contact with Police now despite the brotherhood, and have for the twenty years that the Firearms Act has blighted this Nation, as I cannot and do not trust them.

I do not like that.

It should not be that way.

But it is.

And I beat you for length, I think...
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Jarnhamar said:
Personally I find something inherently wrong with trusting someone to make rules and laws up about something when they have no idea what the hell they are even talking about and no inclination to learn.  Laws should be based on a number of things, ignorance of the subject not being one of them.

Imagine Highway Traffic Acts and driver training/testing materials written and enforced by ultra-green, environmentally-obsessed, vegan skateboarders and bicycle riders.

That is the corollary to the Liberal Firearms Act.
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
The Firearms Act drove a great wedge between firearms owners and the Police. Friendship and co-operation was replaced with deep distrust. I minimize social contact with Police now despite the brotherhood, and have for the twenty years that the Firearms Act has blighted this Nation, as I cannot and do not trust them.

I do not like that.

It should not be that way.

But it is.


Very pertinent observation, Loachman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top