Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > General Forum Related Topics > "By the Fireside"
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-09-2007, 05:55 PM   #81
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adirondack_hunter View Post
Some areas of the world don't have this problem. Their societies have pushed animals out of land that is suitable so that only the strongest live naturally and the yare very few at that and they live at the upper reaches of what naturally can. Some of those countries don't have guns and don't need them to control any population at all. Guns are needed for the military only.
I'm glad you pointed this out. One of my pet peeves has been that it seems most of us (me included, on occasion) are always too fixated on the negatives in this country and our environment. In many other countries around the world (and especially, but not only, former communist countries) the environment and wildlife has been devastated. In contrast, the US has led the way in many respects, creating National Parks and setting aside national forest and state lands by the hundreds of millions of acres. Wildlife is generally thriving, and even predator populations (cougars, wolves ,coyotes, bears) have come back strongly in numbers, or are on their way back.

I think we have alot to be thankful for (and I especially recognize it when I'm enjoying the isolation in some remote stretch of wild country in the ADKs, Pa., out West, etc.)

Now I'm not a hunter, and I enjoy the wildlife for what it is, not what it can do for me. I couldn't care less about "taking" trophy bucks or trapping/shooting the largest coyote. But with the great booming populations of many of these species, I have no problem with sportsmen/women enjoying their sport in a controlled hunting/harvesting manner.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 08:22 PM   #82
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
There are enough gun regulations out there. Only need 1. "If you break a law and use a gun its illegal." If i stab someone with a butter knife or shot someone with a gun its murder. So lets leave the guns alone.
That really can't be said much better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
I am an NRA member and I do not support the use of Assault weapons for hunting. Only need 1 shot. Then again what is an assault weapon? That is such a broad term. I woud love to own a fully automatic weapon, for target shooting, but I have no need for one for hunting.
Again...agreed. From where I stand the term "assualt rifle" is genereally misused and tends to cloud the fact that no matter the type, they are still just guns. It's the people that misuse them that should be labeled negativley. A gun is an just a gun is just a gun. Mr. Zumbo caused the recent firestorm by slagging the many legal, responsible "assualt rifle" owners with his insensitive comments. (I think hobbitling was referring to this incident in one of his previous posts...). Personally I don't forsee myself carrying an AR afield for hunting, but some do...

One thing to consider here is many of todays deer rifles could easily be classified as "sniper rifles" tomorrow by the anti gun contingent. This is why the NRA and many gun owners seem to be overly "dug in" when it comes to gun issues. There's too much to loose and too little to gain by not doing so...even as rediculous as it seems when looking in from the outside.

Truthfully I'm glad there are "assualt rifles"...they act as a buffer for my choice of hunting firearms...IF the anti gunners were successful in banning the "assualt rifles", they surely would be after my bolt guns next as they could easily be veiwed as "long range sniper rifles shooting high velocity ammunition".



Just some food for thought.

As an aside....

Anyone catch this?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4617245.html

This could be a huge step in preserving our right to keep and bear arms.
ken999 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 09:28 PM   #83
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken999 View Post
Anyone catch this?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4617245.html

This could be a huge step in preserving our right to keep and bear arms.
I saw that on the news.

Personally I think both sides sometimes go to far. It's obvious that with the availability of guns that get into the wrong hands, something needs to be done. But with the two extremes on neither side of the issue, there is a stalemate, which in the long run is going to hurt the average hunter or collector. With more and more violence taking place, sooner or later the public is going to want a real solution, and politicians will over-react and over dramatize and enact strict legislation which will hurt the pro gun cause.

Ken, where you talked about the "antis' getting the assault rifles banned and then going after the bolt action as sniper rifles, I think that's the paranoia that causes some of the biggest problem.

I don't think most bolt actions would be considered "sniper rifles' by any but the most extreme or most naive people. granted, there might be a fervent few that might try that tack, but I don't think most people would buy it. I know I wouldn't. But I think it's that paranoid fear that any kind of regulation, no matter how much sense it may make, or even if it might put the NRA and the gun advocates in a better light is viewed as something that will lead to all the guns being taken away.

I feel, as far as regulation and registration goes, that the responsible people that you talk so much about should not be opposed since they are not going to misuse them. I think that opposition to that is one of the factors that has turned a lot of people who would be neutral, against gun owners. I also think that much good could be accomplished and it would be in the best interest of gun advocates to not be so quick to put the "anti" label on people who disagree on some points, but instead to seek a dialog and try to reach a middle ground, at least in understanding if not in philosophy.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 09:47 PM   #84
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
It's obvious that with the availability of guns that get into the wrong hands, something needs to be done. .
This is proof that gun registration has it's limitations...it's not the registered user that usually commits crimes w/ guns. Registration does little to deter gun related crimes IMHO.



Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
I don't think most bolt actions would be considered "sniper rifles' by any but the most extreme or most naive people. granted, there might be a fervent few that might try that tack, but I don't think most people would buy it. I know I wouldn't. But I think it's that paranoid fear that any kind of regulation, no matter how much sense it may make, or even if it might put the NRA and the gun advocates in a better light is viewed as something that will lead to all the guns being taken away.
Unfortunately this is not the case.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022

Some text from the above...

"`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm,..."

Simple little things like that automatically put MANY hunting guns at risk.
ken999 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 09:52 PM   #85
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Also HR 1022 seeks to ban all "tubular fed magazine rifles" except those of .22 caliber...

That means Gramps' Savage lever action, your uncles old Marlin lever action, etc. etc. etc.

AND...

if one stops to think about it...muzzloaders were the original "assualt rifle" in the US...
ken999 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 09:58 PM   #86
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
What happens when things go too far...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...samurai105.xml
ken999 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:46 PM   #87
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken999 View Post
This is proof that gun registration has it's limitations...it's not the registered user that usually commits crimes w/ guns. Registration does little to deter gun related crimes IMHO.

Unfortunately this is not the case.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022

Some text from the above...

"`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm,..."

Simple little things like that automatically put MANY hunting guns at risk.
Ken very interesting link. I like, sorry i mean fear, the part of the that you stoped at:
"`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."

Wow thats like giving a 5 year old a gun, alcohol and the keys to a car.

One person's interpretation. Thats borders on dictatorship.
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:48 PM   #88
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Exactly...
ken999 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 11:27 PM   #89
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
I saw that on the news.

Personally I think both sides sometimes go to far. It's obvious that with the availability of guns that get into the wrong hands, something needs to be done. But with the two extremes on neither side of the issue, there is a stalemate, which in the long run is going to hurt the average hunter or collector. With more and more violence taking place, sooner or later the public is going to want a real solution, and politicians will over-react and over dramatize and enact strict legislation which will hurt the pro gun cause.

Ken, where you talked about the "antis' getting the assault rifles banned and then going after the bolt action as sniper rifles, I think that's the paranoia that causes some of the biggest problem.

I don't think most bolt actions would be considered "sniper rifles' by any but the most extreme or most naive people. granted, there might be a fervent few that might try that tack, but I don't think most people would buy it. I know I wouldn't. But I think it's that paranoid fear that any kind of regulation, no matter how much sense it may make, or even if it might put the NRA and the gun advocates in a better light is viewed as something that will lead to all the guns being taken away.

I feel, as far as regulation and registration goes, that the responsible people that you talk so much about should not be opposed since they are not going to misuse them. I think that opposition to that is one of the factors that has turned a lot of people who would be neutral, against gun owners. I also think that much good could be accomplished and it would be in the best interest of gun advocates to not be so quick to put the "anti" label on people who disagree on some points, but instead to seek a dialog and try to reach a middle ground, at least in understanding if not in philosophy.
Ok Hawk answer me this, why should people have to jump thru all the hoops for guns? What ever the type of gun or the person's reason for buying it what does it make a difference as long as its a legal use?
------Please refer to my "1 gun law" idea in yesterday's posts.------

I am all for most felons and alot of people with misdemenors(Basically violent criminals) being banned for life, from ever owning a gun.

But I am a law abiding citizen and its harder for me to get a gun then it is for a criminal.

Also criminals when they are arrested get finger printed 3 times, I asked, I have not experienced that.
But a pistol permit application in most places in NYS takes 5 sets.
And even after all that its still hard to just go buy a gun.

Last gun I bought, I bought it on a whim. "That looks like a deal."
But i had to wait thru the background check call and the system was busy.

I hear the liberal anti i work with complaining about George Bush and the phonetapping back a few months ago and how the government is eroding your rights. Well each time as much as 1 gun gets banned it erodes rights. So once you get rid of the "assault rifles," and people say "Well that all right there only "assault rifles." Same thing can happen to the semi-autos and then on down to the bolt and lever actions.

The fact is the antis have an agenda, and that is to get rid of guns.

I beleive if you check the UN charter there was an amendment back in the days of JFK(Which the United States never agreed to or rattified, even though JFK was a big backer, is my understanding), that states that one of the UN's goals is to get rid of all guns worldwide, EXCEPT THE ONES THEY HAVE TO ARM THEIR PEOPLE.
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 11:32 PM   #90
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
And if you look thru out history people have used the process of chipping away at things to get their long term goal.
Take a little, and a little more and a little more, etc.

Hitler did it, He took a little part of europe and the world said, "Thats fine but stop right there." so he took more, and the world said "But no more." ETC ETC.

So Assault rifle to semi-auto to bolt action to all guns being banned is possible.
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 11:51 PM   #91
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
Then why have any laws at all, if you believe practically any regulation of weapons is a "slippery slope". Why not use hand grenades and landmines and truck mounted gatling guns. They sure would be effective. And I bet you could catch a lot of fish with dynamite.
Why have seat belts, soon they'll have us all in straight jackets riding in cars made of nerf!
Oh the humanity!!!
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:16 AM   #92
Adirondack_hunter
Southern Adirondack Hunter
 
Adirondack_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Falls
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbitling View Post
Then why have any laws at all, if you believe practically any regulation of weapons is a "slippery slope". Why not use hand grenades and landmines and truck mounted gatling guns. They sure would be effective. And I bet you could catch a lot of fish with dynamite.
Why have seat belts, soon they'll have us all in straight jackets riding in cars made of nerf!
Oh the humanity!!!
Gatling guns???? They were used when???? I haven't heard that name since history way back in high school. Or was that just another method used to get ignorant people "emotional" just like the term automatic when actually semi-auto should be used? My last sentence helps a bit more here I think.
Possession and usage of firearms are not the same.
It's not illegal to be a drug addict yet it is illegal to possess them. Go figure. Not the same.

Ever hear of a law that requires you to register a baseball bat? Some neighboring governor of NY wanted to do this in his state. Friggin liberal!
Ban what next, a fork?
So then the state bans unregistered people from owning guns and make it only legal for those to possess ammunition as well. Why not just ban ammunition in the first place! DUH!!

The OP had to do with gun ownership rights and protecting them. Anything other than that sounds like a hyjack of the thread. Start a new one, and bash away there.
__________________
"Every piece of venison I eat reminds me of my forefathers and the joy the whitetail brought to them"
-- Adkhunter
Adkhunter Reflective Arrow Wraps
Rockclimbing.com NY Route Editor

Last edited by Adirondack_hunter; 03-10-2007 at 12:29 AM..
Adirondack_hunter is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:23 AM   #93
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbitling View Post
Then why have any laws at all, if you believe practically any regulation of weapons is a "slippery slope". Why not use hand grenades and landmines and truck mounted gatling guns. They sure would be effective. And I bet you could catch a lot of fish with dynamite.
Why have seat belts, soon they'll have us all in straight jackets riding in cars made of nerf!
Oh the humanity!!!
I beleive the uniformed illogical banning of weapons because of what pretty much comes down to what it looks like is not right. I own a gun that functions much the same as a few of the guns listed in the assault rifle gun ban list that Ken links to a few posts back. But it would not be illegal under that ban.

Similarities: Semi-auto and the same caliber.
Differences: Its made to look like a hunting rifle, wood stock. Instead of a military rifle LOOK.

You can hunt with alot of the "Assault rifles" which are not fully auto, they are semi-auto, so why single them out. THE LOOK OF THEM???????

SO when people start pulling garbage like that preying on the misinformed public and demonizing a gun for its looks, yes it is a "Slippery SLope."

Hand Grenades, landmines and dynamite are to indiscriminate, they can not be finely controlled like a bullet, and would do damage to the meat.

As for a truck mounted gatling guns, sure i would like one. I would not hunt with it, but it would be fun to have. Be a pain to clean and expensive for ammo i bet but fun none the less.

I don't think seat belts should be mandatory to wear for anyone over 21 years of age. Under 21 it should be because kids need a little direction to keep them safe. BUT if someone over 21 is dumb enough to not wear a seat belt by all means don't. But when you kill your self in an accident that a seat belt could have saved your life, oh well.

A car made of nerf would be good for some people whose driving ability is not so good. Do less damage.


We have laws to keep people from violating the rights of other people.
And me owning a full-auto or an "Assault Rifle," or even a truck mounted gatling gun, does not infringe on the rights garanteed to you under the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America. BUT gun laws to infringe on my rights under the constitution. It does not say I can't have a full auto or an "Assault Rifle."
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:30 AM   #94
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adirondack_hunter View Post
Possession and usage of firearms are not the same.

Ever hear of a law that requires you to register a baseball bat? Some neighboring governor of NY wanted to d othis in his state. Friggin liberal!
Ban what next a fork?
In that fork ban lets include some other commom objects that have been used as weapons, to kill people.
1. Butter knives
2. Steak Knives
3. All other knives.
4. Grandma's knitting needles.
5. Cars - Ted Kennedy's should be easy to find its just over a bridge
6. Rope
7. wood 2x4's
And don't forget my favorite
8. Pens and pencils. Everyone better own a computer no one writing letters.
- Yup you can actually stab and kill someone with one of them too.
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:06 AM   #95
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
Ok Hawk answer me this, why should people have to jump thru all the hoops for guns? What ever the type of gun or the person's reason for buying it what does it make a difference as long as its a legal use?
What do you mean, jump through hoops? Are you talking about background checks? Registration?

Here's my reasoning. Background checks are necessary, otherwise how do you know if the person buying it is not a career criminal, underage with a false ID, A mentally unstable person, etc? And to do a thorough search would take a little time, not something you can just punch into a computer, especially in this day and age with identity theft being what it is. So, it's the only way to ensure that the gun is going into the hands of a responsible stable individual without a criminal record. This also protects the responsible gun owners by assuring they are the ones who are purchasing them.

Registration? Why not? I don't buy into the fear that if there is a list and we get invaded, the invaders will have the lists to go by. First of all, they would have to gain control of those lists by force of arms. In a scenerio where that was even possible, then the list should be erased from the computer by whoever is the keeper of the records. Registration would be automatic with purchase, the serial number of the gun matched with the buyer.

No more jumping through hoops then purchasing a car or getting a passport. You have to show identification, and in the case of a passport you're record is checked.

I understand that this will not necesarilly prevent guns from getting into the hands of felons, however if the pedigree of a gun is recorded from time of manufacture and records are kept down the line, then any domestic gun involved in a crime can be traced back to the manufacturer and then the chain of possesion can be followed to find where the link is broken. Still doesn't stop the cheap imports, but it does at least put a dent in the problem.

None of those steps in any way impede a responsible law abiding citizen to assert their second amendment rights nor does it require the jumping through hoops. I also do not believe there is anything in the second amendment that says that it a violation to require background checks or registration.

Finally, I would entertain the notion that there is actually more "hoop jumping" required to open a checking account or even to buy a house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
------Please refer to my "1 gun law" idea in yesterday's posts.------

I am all for most felons and alot of people with misdemenors(Basically violent criminals) being banned for life, from ever owning a gun.

But I am a law abiding citizen and its harder for me to get a gun then it is for a criminal.

Also criminals when they are arrested get finger printed 3 times, I asked, I have not experienced that.
But a pistol permit application in most places in NYS takes 5 sets.

And even after all that its still hard to just go buy a gun.
But that is not the fault of the system. By that argument then you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance because many people illegally drive without it. You should not need a drivers license because many people drive without one or under suspension.

if you don't have the laws, then everyone can get a gun, including not just criminals but someone mentally unstable, someone who in a rage goes and buys one and uses it, who wouldn't have it it wasn't available.

So you have to get two more sets of prints then a criminal.

Curious, ever gotten a security clearance? Any idea how many sets of prints you have to give, as well as lie detector tests? And it's already a given that you're not a criminal. Go to get a job some places and you have to take a drug test. If you want the job you take the test, If you want the gun, you submit to the check. You do have a choice.

As far as it being that hard to buy a gun, I find that a little hard to believe since there are so many hunters with so many guns. Not being sarcastic, just stating that it can't be all THAT Hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
Last gun I bought, I bought it on a whim. "That looks like a deal."
But i had to wait thru the background check call and the system was busy.
I had that same problem with my debit card last week, and it was two days before it worked, and i had funds in my account.

But let me ask, if as a gun owner, you agree that they should only be in the hands of responsible people, isn't the inconvenience worth the precaution?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
I hear the liberal anti i work with complaining about George Bush and the phonetapping back a few months ago and how the government is eroding your rights. Well each time as much as 1 gun gets banned it erodes rights. So once you get rid of the "assault rifles," and people say "Well that all right there only "assault rifles." Same thing can happen to the semi-autos and then on down to the bolt and lever actions.
First of all, Liberal was never a bad word until Ronald Reagan made it so. And if conservatives are so great, then why did G.W. Bush have to say he was a "compassionate conservative"? One would have to assume that conservatives not compassionate by nature? let's leave labels out of this, and if you must know I'm a moderate. I even voted for Goldwater and Wallace.

As far as certain guns being banned eroding rights, the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms but it doesn't say that you have to have ALL guns. I don't think automatic weapons should be available to the masses, nor a lot of the semi-automatics. I think that if you have the right to have guns that are adequate to kill game as well as defend yourself, then I think that your second amendment rights are being upheld. I also think that a lot of people who are so concerned about the Second Amendment should also be concerned about First Amendment rights and not try to vilify everyone that speaks out on the other side of the debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
The fact is the antis have an agenda, and that is to get rid of guns.
So anyone who is anti- anything about guns is out to get rid of all guns? I disagree with that. I will concede that there are some people who would like to see all guns banned, and I think that you have to concede that there are some extreme right wing gun nuts out there as well. there will be fringe people on both sides of the argument.

But in most cases, the majority of us fall in the middle and are the deciding factor.

I have been referred to as an "anti", and anyone who calls me that is ignorant, plain and simple. I support the second amendment, but I don't think it was ever meant to be Carte Blanche for every kind of gun there is. And as many conservatives like to say in their quest to limit some of the civil rights guaranteed by the same constitution that has the second amendment, The founding fathers never envisioned some of the changes that have taken place in the last two hundred years. If they had I am sure they would have no complaint with background checks or registration. hell, who knows, when the Constitution was written they were concerned about being Invaded by England, France or Spain. They had no idea that the USA would become a Superpower that was more apt to invade then be invaded. Who knows if they had that foresight of the problems today, there might not have been any right to bear arms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
I beleive if you check the UN charter there was an amendment back in the days of JFK(Which the United States never agreed to or rattified, even though JFK was a big backer, is my understanding), that states that one of the UN's goals is to get rid of all guns worldwide, EXCEPT THE ONES THEY HAVE TO ARM THEIR PEOPLE.
Kind of like the US not wanting anyone to have Nukes except us or our allies. Right?

I just think overall that many are just too paranoid. I don't doubt that there are people who would not want all the guns to go away, but the fact of the matter is that it will never happen, not in the next several hundred years anyway.

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 08:36 AM   #96
Cold River Bob
Bob in the Sewards
 
Cold River Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 473
A while back I had a talk with a officer about this same thing, I was getting a pistol registerd, I asked him how many of these people you take off the streets have pistol permits and register the guns ? I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just trying to make a point. He would not ans, me.
Now down here in chemung County they have up the price to get a permit to 175 dollars. My daughter just got hers. It took six months to get.
Cold River Bob is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 10:00 AM   #97
brians
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19
Registration in Canada

The gun registry in Canada has been a colossal failure, in both crime prevention and cost.

I violates up to seven charter rights and is now being challenged in the Supreme Court on those violations.

There is evidence now that the database has been compromised. You do not need invaders to steal the information, just hackers. Have you known a gov dept that could control personal data without a security incident? These violations end up life threatening to an owner.

And don't be fooled, the federal and Ontario provincial liberal governments were planning a handgun ban and confiscation using the data before the federal election placed the conservatives into a minority government. There plan was made public during a joint announcement by the prime minister and the provincial premier even though Ontario crime stats show that less than 15% of guns confiscated during crime were registered guns.

Gun control only controls the law abiding and emboldens the criminals by disarming the law abiding. Check out Great Britain - complete ban and the most violent society in the western world.
brians is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 10:21 AM   #98
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by brians View Post
And don't be fooled, the federal and Ontario provincial liberal governments were planning a handgun ban and confiscation using the data before the federal election placed the conservatives into a minority government. There plan was made public during a joint announcement by the prime minister and the provincial premier even though Ontario crime stats show that less than 15% of guns confiscated during crime were registered guns.
I'm always leery about statements made about what someone was going to do, when it is not accompanied by any kind of proof other then statements from special interest groups.

So, my question is, what documented evidence is there of that? if it is true, I am sure there must be some kind of paper or electronic trail proving that such actions were planned. When the Prime Minister and the Provincial Premier made the statement what proof other then their statements was given to ensure that there was such a plan in place and that it was not politics?

Can you refer us to any reliable sources? Is that a reasonable expectation on the part of the people whom you wish to convince of this? Especially when politics come into play?

One has only to look at politics here in the states to see how many accusations are made by political opposites against each other, and later it comes out that it was fabricated or innuendo.

Make no mistake. I am not disputing what was said. I am only asking what proof you have that it is true since we have no proof at present other then you saying that "they said". To validate it requires more then that. So if, as you begin your paragraph with "don't be fooled", I am only following your advice and asking for evidence so that we won't be.

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 10:23 AM   #99
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold River Bob View Post
A while back I had a talk with a officer about this same thing, I was getting a pistol registerd, I asked him how many of these people you take off the streets have pistol permits and register the guns ? I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just trying to make a point. He would not ans, me.
Now down here in chemung County they have up the price to get a permit to 175 dollars. My daughter just got hers. It took six months to get.
The thought of an armed Saratoga Philly scares the hell out of me!!
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 10:42 AM   #100
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
1: Still doesn't stop the cheap imports, but it does at least put a dent in the problem.

2: But that is not the fault of the system. By that argument then you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance because many people illegally drive without it. You should not need a drivers license because many people drive without one or under suspension.

3: if you don't have the laws, then everyone can get a gun, including not just criminals but someone mentally unstable, someone who in a rage goes and buys one and uses it, who wouldn't have it it wasn't available.

4: But let me ask, if as a gun owner, you agree that they should only be in the hands of responsible people, isn't the inconvenience worth the precaution?


5: I just think overall that many are just too paranoid. I don't doubt that there are people who would not want all the guns to go away, but the fact of the matter is that it will never happen, not in the next several hundred years anyway.


1: The current system does little to keep guns out of the wrong hands. It's merely a bump in the road for legal gun owners. IF the gov't ever came searching for guns, the list created would likely be the first priority...how could it not? Would you expect the gov't to start looking for the guns that they do not know exist?


2:Where's the fault then? Also your analogy is a bit off since automobiles/insurance were not mentioned in the Constitution. Could you make an anology w/ regards to the Constitution?


3: Not many will argue that everyone should have a gun. I think many pro gun people argue that the current systems are not very functional and most proposals do not tend to fix current problems, just make things worse.


4: Again, I'm not in favor of some people owning guns...trouble is...how do we as a society go about stopping them?? Making things harder for legal gun owners is simply not the answer.


5a: I find it interesting that you usually associate paranoia with the pro gun people, yet find it disturbing when some are labeled "anti" or "liberal".


5b: I would hope that the US government would never try to disarm it's people.
ken999 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.