Canada's anti-gun laws
jim_...@my-deja.com
your house, rapes your daughter, kills your dog, shoots your wife with
a fire-arm in her leg, and steals your money. The next thing you do,
before the dawn sets out, you table a bill to allow sale of fire-arms
for self-protection.
The reason the anti-gun lobby is so strong in Canada is that no Lib MP
has EVER been attacked, mugged, drive-by-shooting'ed, or pick-pocketed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
zub...@my-deja.com
jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> You're a Liberal anti-gun MP from Toronto. Then a burglair breaks into
> your house, rapes your daughter, kills your dog, shoots your wife with
> a fire-arm in her leg, and steals your money. The next thing you do,
> before the dawn sets out, you table a bill to allow sale of fire-arms
> for self-protection.
> The reason the anti-gun lobby is so strong in Canada is that no Lib MP
> has EVER been attacked, mugged, drive-by-shooting'ed, or pick-
pocketed.
Waytago, Sherlock Fucking Holmes!
I just love these goombah "what if"ers who wax on and on how MORE
violence is good for decreasing gun control legislation and attempt to
make everyone see reason in their idiotic excuses for being armed. What
a sad and pointless use of logic!
If every liberal was attacked, we would be living in a dictatorship and
wouldn't be having this f**king conversation - and NO ONE would be
armed except the police/army. Pick up a history book and examine what
happens when liberals, en masse, get attacked...what a pillock!
More evidence that keyboard/computer skills and intelligence DO NOT
necessarily go hand in hand.
Achim Nolcken Lohse
>In article <8nhmo6$sr4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> You're a Liberal anti-gun MP from Toronto. Then a burglair breaks into
>> your house, rapes your daughter, kills your dog, shoots your wife with
>> a fire-arm in her leg, and steals your money. The next thing you do,
>> before the dawn sets out, you table a bill to allow sale of fire-arms
>> for self-protection.
>> The reason the anti-gun lobby is so strong in Canada is that no Lib MP
>> has EVER been attacked, mugged, drive-by-shooting'ed, or pick-
>pocketed.
>
>Waytago, Sherlock Fucking Holmes!
>
>I just love these goombah "what if"ers who wax on and on how MORE
>violence is good for decreasing gun control legislation and attempt to
>make everyone see reason in their idiotic excuses for being armed. What
>a sad and pointless use of logic!
>
>If every liberal was attacked, we would be living in a dictatorship and
>wouldn't be having this f**king conversation - and NO ONE would be
>armed except the police/army. Pick up a history book and examine what
>happens when liberals, en masse, get attacked...what a pillock!
>
A liberal MP? Don't think I''ve ever heard of any sightings in
Canada. Sure you don't mean "Liberal"?
Achim
axethetax
WoRP
And what if you come home and your wife is cheating on you? You should have
a gun for that to blow them both away!!!
And what if your dog bites you! You should have a gun handy to put that
varmit out of his misery!
And what if your boss fires you? You should definately have that gun
nearby, ready for action...
Do us all a favour, take your attitude south...
<jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nhmo6$sr4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You're a Liberal anti-gun MP from Toronto. Then a burglair breaks into
> your house, rapes your daughter, kills your dog, shoots your wife with
> a fire-arm in her leg, and steals your money. The next thing you do,
> before the dawn sets out, you table a bill to allow sale of fire-arms
> for self-protection.
> The reason the anti-gun lobby is so strong in Canada is that no Lib MP
> has EVER been attacked, mugged, drive-by-shooting'ed, or pick-pocketed.
>
>
Erik_of_BC
jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>You're a Liberal anti-gun MP from Toronto. Then a burglair breaks into
>your house, rapes your daughter, kills your dog, shoots your wife with
>a fire-arm in her leg, and steals your money. The next thing you do,
>before the dawn sets out, you table a bill to allow sale of fire-arms
>for self-protection.
>The reason the anti-gun lobby is so strong in Canada is that no Lib MP
>has EVER been attacked, mugged, drive-by-shooting'ed, or pick-pocketed.
I tend to disbelieve that. The 'anti-firearms lobby' is a few chicks in
Toronto. Maybe one or two in other urban centres as well - I dunno. I'm
sure that the vast majority of legal Canadian long-gun owners don't own
those weapons out of fear for their personal safety.
The Feds know that roughly 70% of Canadians support reinstatement of the
death penalty for certain crimes, and there is massive lobbying for this as
well; but they ain't done nothing.
Rates of violent crime (along with most others) continue to decline in
Canada (and in the US). The 'new' firearms legislation is simply a result
of the growing gulf between Canadians and their legislators. Governments
would be safer if no-one had guns. Then they could _really_ ignore the
voters. The Liberals are afraid of us.
jim_...@my-deja.com
"Erik_of_BC" <Er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote:
>
> The Feds know that roughly 70% of Canadians support reinstatement of
the
> death penalty for certain crimes, and there is massive lobbying for
this as
> well; but they ain't done nothing.
>
> Rates of violent crime (along with most others) continue to decline in
> Canada (and in the US). The 'new' firearms legislation is simply a
result
> of the growing gulf between Canadians and their legislators.
Governments
> would be safer if no-one had guns. Then they could _really_ ignore
the
> voters. The Liberals are afraid of us.
>
> E.
> haff...@usa.net
Erik,
I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
death penalty, especially now, that this trend is gradually decreasing
down south of the 49th parallel. But if we really are up to changing
legislation in Canada, we have to get united behind the cause and elect
the Canadian Alliance for PM of this country. A compationate
conservatism, responsible fiscal policy, repealing gun control
legislation and Triple E Senate is what's desperately needed in Canada.
The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
politicians disenfranchise these provinces. Among their evils:
1. Gun control legislation
2. Free trade with the Yanks
3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
Trudeau. You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
European measurements.
Stockwell Day is the right man, at the right place, in the right time
to redeem this nation. West uprising is up-and-coming. We need people
with true leadership, vision and law-and-order attitudes like Day,
Harris or Klein.
Wes Moxam
>
> In article <96658253...@neptune.uniserve.ca>,
> "Erik_of_BC" <Er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > The Feds know that roughly 70% of Canadians support reinstatement of
> the
> > death penalty for certain crimes, and there is massive lobbying for
> this as
> > well; but they ain't done nothing.
> >
> > Rates of violent crime (along with most others) continue to decline in
> > Canada (and in the US). The 'new' firearms legislation is simply a
> result
> > of the growing gulf between Canadians and their legislators.
> Governments
> > would be safer if no-one had guns. Then they could _really_ ignore
> the
> > voters. The Liberals are afraid of us.
> >
> > E.
> > haff...@usa.net
>
> Erik,
> I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
> death penalty, especially now, that this trend is gradually decreasing
> down south of the 49th parallel.
I don't know where the 70% came from, but it definitely sounds bogus to me.
> But if we really are up to changing
> legislation in Canada, we have to get united behind the cause and elect
> the Canadian Alliance for PM of this country.
I thought you were a yankee. Didn't you post shit about how the US should annex
Canada?
> A compationate conservatism,
What does this mean any ways?
> responsible fiscal policy,
The liberals are already running surpluses ....
> repealing gun control legislation
Gun registration is a bad idea (and will fail) but banning fully automatic
weapons and banana clips were a good idea.
> and Triple E Senate is what's desperately needed in Canada.
Why should PEI have the same number of votes as Ontario?? I have never
understood this.
Electing senators is good idea however..
> The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
> the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
> politicians disenfranchise these provinces. Among their evils:
> 1. Gun control legislation
Brian Mulroney also had a hand in this. As I said before, nothing wrong with it
other than the registration part.
> 2. Free trade with the Yanks
Ever heard of Brian Mulroney??
Besides, it was a good idea.
> 3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
> Trudeau. You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
> time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
> European measurements.
The only people that I know of who are pissed about this are old people who are
resentful about having to learn a new system.
> Stockwell Day is the right man, at the right place, in the right time
> to redeem this nation.
> West uprising is up-and-coming. We need people
> with true leadership, vision and law-and-order attitudes like Day,
> Harris or Klein.
Keep dreaming. It won't happen this time around.
--------------------------------
| Wes Moxam |
| wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
| http://www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
|______________________________|
Don Clarke
> A liberal MP? Don't think I''ve ever heard of any
> sightings in Canada. Sure you don't mean "Liberal"?
Achim, you spelled it wrong. It's "Li(e)beral".
<grin>
--
"I do not own a gun because I fear my government,
but apparently my government fears me simply because I own a gun."
D. Clarke, musing on the keyboard while watching the sun rise.
1...@canoemail.com
>Yeah! Amen! I hear you!
>
>And what if you come home and your wife is cheating on you? You should have
>a gun for that to blow them both away!!!
>
>And what if your dog bites you! You should have a gun handy to put that
>varmit out of his misery!
>
>And what if your boss fires you? You should definately have that gun
>nearby, ready for action...
>
>Do us all a favour, take your attitude south...
There are between 4.5 to 7 million gun owners in Canada. You
discredit them by your comments as incidents you discribe are rare.
If you believe firearms owners as a group are violent and guns cause
violence, you need councilling...
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Erik,
> I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
> death penalty, especially now, that this trend is gradually decreasing
> down south of the 49th parallel.
In fact, the most recent polling shows that a majority are against the
death penalty.
> But if we really are up to changing
> legislation in Canada, we have to get united behind the cause and elect
> the Canadian Alliance for PM of this country. A compationate
> conservatism,
fundamentalist social conservatism, you mean.
> responsible fiscal policy,
irresponsible right wing fiscal policy, actually.
> repealing gun control legislation
everyone has a god given right to shoot their neighbour you now. And
we really need something to justify capital punishment. So lets do things
to increase the crime rate.
> and Triple E Senate is what's desperately needed in Canada.
Perhaps if the provincial premiers would come onside, which they
won't.
> The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
> the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
> politicians disenfranchise these provinces.
Nonsense. But there are a few bigots in the west who we are not very
proud of.
> Among their evils:
> 1. Gun control legislation
Most Canadians (and indeed westerners) think this is a very good thing.
> 2. Free trade with the Yanks
One of those conservative policies which was touted by Albertans, including
our various premiers. Its actually an old Liberal policy from the turn
of the century and not a bad one.
The only real problem remaining is that the American's don't want to
negotiate an agreement on subsidies, but this is being largely superceded
through the world trade organization.
> 3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
> Trudeau.
I think Mr. Trudeau can hardly take credit for the invention of the
metric system. Its used world wide, even by many Americans.
> You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
> time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
> European measurements.
Even the British moved away from "imperial" measurements. And the
Americans use "US" measurements, which are different again.
> Stockwell Day is the right man, at the right place, in the right time
> to redeem this nation. West uprising is up-and-coming. We need people
> with true leadership, vision and law-and-order attitudes like Day,
> Harris or Klein.
I don't know much about Harris but the vision of the others is
zenophobic, and their law-and-order attitudes seem in general to
exclude the basic idea of the rule of law.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Pete
<SNIP>
> Erik,
> I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
> <SNIP!>
>
> The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
> the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
> politicians disenfranchise these provinces. Among their evils:
>
> 1. Gun control legislation
> 2. Free trade with the Yanks
> 3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
> Trudeau. You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
> time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
> European measurements.
YES the liberals have got to go!
YES the gun control legislation has to go with them!
YES Mulroney screwed us in free trade negotiations!
...
..Uh, you have something against Metric mesuments??
What? Can't count by 10's and 100's??
Yeah, I *really* miss the days when water froze at 32 degrees and boiled at
who knows what temperature!!
How many feet are in a mile anyway!?
Sheesh
Read My Lips
--
Go Ahead Make Me Play !
"Pete" <Jeepst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:399D5556...@yahoo.com...
> 5280ft
> Sheesh
>
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>> Erik,
>> I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
>> <SNIP!>
>>
>> The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
>> the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
>> politicians disenfranchise these provinces. Among their evils:
>>
>> 1. Gun control legislation
>> 2. Free trade with the Yanks
>> 3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
>> Trudeau. You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
>> time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
>> European measurements.
>
>YES the liberals have got to go!
>YES the gun control legislation has to go with them!
>YES Mulroney screwed us in free trade negotiations!
>...
>..Uh, you have something against Metric mesuments??
>
>What? Can't count by 10's and 100's??
>
>Yeah, I *really* miss the days when water froze at 32 degrees and boiled at
>who knows what temperature!!
>
>How many feet are in a mile anyway!?
>
>Sheesh
Well, regardless of the benefits of metric, remember why PET did it:
he said it would improve trade with the then ECM. We now do less
trade as a % of trade with the EU than we did back in the 70's.
>
WoRP
<1...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:399d3a5c...@news.telusplanet.net...
> There are between 4.5 to 7 million gun owners in Canada. You
I had no idea that there were 4.5 to 7 million personal gun owners in
Canada. If this is correct, then I wilfully withdraw my comment.
So just to make sure I completely understand. 4.5 to 7 million people in
Canada own guns for the sole purpose of protecting themselves and their
households? I had no idea.
> discredit them by your comments as incidents you discribe are rare.
> If you believe firearms owners as a group are violent and guns cause
> violence, you need councilling...
I think you are mistaking my intention. I was moking that attitude, "I need
a gun to stop the drive by shootings"... not about licensed firearm
owners... isn't that what the discussion was originally about?
There are certain stupid simplistic ways of thinking... I tend to mock
them... you have managed to take that and twist it into a reason to sing
some sort of anthem pity and insecurity for gun owners, which was not the
intent. You're not making me any more confident on the issue.
I won't say anything more, because I just realized... you have a gun...
WoRP
especially with that recent incident with that Toronto woman being executed
in Vietnam.
<jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nj6sr$h7s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <96658253...@neptune.uniserve.ca>,
> "Erik_of_BC" <Er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > The Feds know that roughly 70% of Canadians support reinstatement of
> the
> > death penalty for certain crimes, and there is massive lobbying for
> this as
> > well; but they ain't done nothing.
> >
> > Rates of violent crime (along with most others) continue to decline in
> > Canada (and in the US). The 'new' firearms legislation is simply a
> result
> > of the growing gulf between Canadians and their legislators.
> Governments
> > would be safer if no-one had guns. Then they could _really_ ignore
> the
> > voters. The Liberals are afraid of us.
> >
> > E.
> > haff...@usa.net
>
> Erik,
> I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
> death penalty, especially now, that this trend is gradually decreasing
> down south of the 49th parallel. But if we really are up to changing
> legislation in Canada, we have to get united behind the cause and elect
> the Canadian Alliance for PM of this country. A compationate
> conservatism, responsible fiscal policy, repealing gun control
> legislation and Triple E Senate is what's desperately needed in Canada.
>
> The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
> the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
> politicians disenfranchise these provinces. Among their evils:
>
> 1. Gun control legislation
> 2. Free trade with the Yanks
> 3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
> Trudeau. You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
> time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
> European measurements.
>
> Stockwell Day is the right man, at the right place, in the right time
> to redeem this nation. West uprising is up-and-coming. We need people
> with true leadership, vision and law-and-order attitudes like Day,
> Harris or Klein.
>
>
John Amero
well said
Cheers,
John
--
JOHN AMERO, Parksville, B. C. Canada
E-Mail to:- johnaNO§P...@island.net
**NOTE: REMOVE the_ NO§PAM _in the
email address for reply.**
Check out my Web Site at-
http://www.island.net/~johna/ ICQ UIN
2166985
... or Business- email to- Director of
Business Development,
John...@singaporerental.com
Also see index at above web site or
http://singaporerental.com/
John Amero
And where the hell did you get the I
idea that guns like rifles, collectors'
guns and target shooters all have these
guns for self protection. You obviously
know nothing about guns as most of these
firearms DO NOT lend themselves very
well for home defense.
Imagine using a flint lock for defense
or a 10 Lb. bench rest rifle with a 26
inch barrel with a 40 power scope for
home defense at night or a long barreled
pistol or revolver with a scope for home
defense at night?????
It is assumptions like this that have
qun owners paranoid of the never ending
dictating liberals that have gun owners
so against bill C-68.
Many have lost their guns and been
bankrupted because the guns were
considered as unsafe storage and
criminal charges laid. There is no
definition of "reasonable locked storage
cases" or what is a "safe trigger lock".
It is all left up to interpritation of
these individual inspectors who have no
guidance either.
All my guns are built for target only
and have day time sights.
John
WoRP wrote:
>
> <1...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
> news:399d3a5c...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
> > There are between 4.5 to 7 million gun owners in Canada. You
>
> I had no idea that there were 4.5 to 7 million personal gun owners in
> Canada. If this is correct, then I wilfully withdraw my comment.
>
> So just to make sure I completely understand. 4.5 to 7 million people in
> Canada own guns for the sole purpose of protecting themselves and their
> households? I had no idea.
>
--
Erik_of_BC
jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Erik,
>I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
>death penalty, especially now, that this trend is gradually decreasing
>down south of the 49th parallel. [snip]
The 70% figure came from pollster Angus Reid's 'Shakedown' (published in '95
or '96) which I've been reading off and on lately.
A quotation (from pg. 297 of the paperback edition): "In Canada, the level
of public insecurity has reached record proportions. Support for a return
to capital punishment stands at over 70%."
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
Erik_of_BC
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>In fact, the most recent polling shows that a majority are against the
>death penalty.
You know as well as I do that it depends on the question. I have no idea
how many are for or agin it personally; as I responded to Jim, I got the 70%
figure from Angus Reid.
There was no elaboration in Reid's book.
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
Wes Moxam
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:25:10 -0400, Pete <Jeepst...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >> I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
> >>
> >> The Liberals have abused Canada for too long. Albrerta and the west,
> >> the prairy provinces are like the American midwest. Yet, those Frog Lib
> >> politicians disenfranchise these provinces. Among their evils:
> >>
> >> 1. Gun control legislation
> >> 2. Free trade with the Yanks
> >> 3. Transition to the metric system, the investion of Pierre "Idiot"
> >> Trudeau. You see, we used to have the imperial measurements since the
> >> time of the British till this frog Quebecker forced us to move to
> >> European measurements.
> >
> >YES the gun control legislation has to go with them!
> >YES Mulroney screwed us in free trade negotiations!
> >...
> >..Uh, you have something against Metric mesuments??
> >
> >What? Can't count by 10's and 100's??
> >
> >Yeah, I *really* miss the days when water froze at 32 degrees and boiled at
> >who knows what temperature!!
> >
> >How many feet are in a mile anyway!?
> >
> >Sheesh
>
> Well, regardless of the benefits of metric, remember why PET did it:
> he said it would improve trade with the then ECM. We now do less
> trade as a % of trade with the EU than we did back in the 70's.
Could that be attributed solely to free trade? What was the trading trend
before 1988? Was our exports to Europe increasing or decreasing?
I'd like to see a free trade deal with the EU. Is there any chance that this
will happen within the next 10 - 20 years?
1...@canoemail.com
>
>
><1...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
>news:399d3a5c...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> There are between 4.5 to 7 million gun owners in Canada. You
"WoRP" <brent...@home.com> wrote:
>I had no idea that there were 4.5 to 7 million personal gun owners in
>Canada. If this is correct, then I wilfully withdraw my comment.
>
>So just to make sure I completely understand. 4.5 to 7 million people in
>Canada own guns for the sole purpose of protecting themselves and their
>households? I had no idea.
Some may, others own firearms for other reasons, all ligitimate and
legal...
>> discredit them by your comments as incidents you discribe are rare.
>> If you believe firearms owners as a group are violent and guns cause
>> violence, you need councilling...
"WoRP" <brent...@home.com> wrote:
>I think you are mistaking my intention. I was moking that attitude, "I need
>a gun to stop the drive by shootings"... not about licensed firearm
>owners... isn't that what the discussion was originally about?
Most of the individuals perpetrating drive by shootings are usually
inelgible to acquire or own firearms - by rules established in in 1978
"WoRP" <brent...@home.com> wrote:
>There are certain stupid simplistic ways of thinking... I tend to mock
>them... you have managed to take that and twist it into a reason to sing
>some sort of anthem pity and insecurity for gun owners, which was not the
>intent. You're not making me any more confident on the issue.
>
>I won't say anything more, because I just realized... you have a gun...
If you are afraid of an individual because they possess a gun, you
have a problem. If you can't trust folks with guns, you can't trust
them with propane, gasoline, matches, or garden fertilzer....
WoRP
I know some people that keep them as trophy items. I have quite a few
friends that enjoy target practice.
The original post (as I think I've mentioned TWICE now) was refering to the
right to keep a firearm in the household for self defence. I was (again,
I'm having deja vu) refering to that attitude.
Looking at what you captured from my last post, I'm just assuming you didn't
read the whole thing... but whatever... I'm quite done with this
conversation, I'm just saying the same thing over and over again.
"John Amero" <" johnaNO§PAM"@island.net> wrote in message
news:399DD179...@island.net...
> > <1...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:399d3a5c...@news.telusplanet.net...
> >
> > > There are between 4.5 to 7 million gun owners in Canada. You
> >
> > I had no idea that there were 4.5 to 7 million personal gun owners in
> > Canada. If this is correct, then I wilfully withdraw my comment.
> >
> > So just to make sure I completely understand. 4.5 to 7 million people
in
> > Canada own guns for the sole purpose of protecting themselves and their
> > households? I had no idea.
> >
>
WoRP
and... as the original message posted stated; the type of person who feels
they need it incase their home is invaded...
That, for me, is a scarey attitude, and one I believe causes more problems
than good...
<1...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:399de038...@news.telusplanet.net...
Achim Nolcken Lohse
wrote:
> The 'new' firearms legislation is simply a result
>of the growing gulf between Canadians and their legislators.
That's a rash assumption. I believe the initiative came from abroad.
The US government and the US military don't want Canaddians to be
armed. They're not worried about the Canadian military or police,
because the existing continental and global organization means these
agencies are already adequately conditioned to take their orders from
the Yanks.
I believe the US government and military is more concerned about
western Canada than the east, and for that reason, Ottawa has
gradually removed all combat troops from the west. Western Canadians
just might decide to go their own way if they see Ottawa selling out
their resources, especially water, to the US, and combat troops with
western loyalties would make putting such a secession attempt down
messy. So would an armed insurrection of the civilian population.
Hence, no more combat troops in the west, and disarmament of the
population as quickly as possible. That way, when the need arises to
send in the Royal 22nd and/or the Marines, there'll be a minimum of
bloodshed, and no chance of prologned armed resistance to embarass
Ottawa and Washington.
>Governments
>would be safer if no-one had guns. Then they could _really_ ignore the
>voters. The Liberals are afraid of us.
Oh? And what about the Conservatives/Alliance, who started the whole
gun grab in '92? Or the NDP, who've always been urging both
governing parties to go even further? Let's not forget the Bloc
Quebecois. Ever hear them say a word against gun control?
Who's left?
Achim
axethetax
E. Barry Bruyea
Not in the forseeable future. Having been involved with proposed or
existing trade deals with Europe more times than I care to remember, I
can assure you that trade barriers, regulations and rules regarding
products entering the EU would take decades to negotiate out of
existance. The only thing that could put it on the fast track is if
more EU companies bought many N.A. corporations who have products that
could be sold in the EU. There is some of that going on now, but a
long way from a scale that could exert sufficient political influence
to ease the deliberate barries created over the past few decades.
Achim Nolcken Lohse
>I have no fear of guns or gun owners; I have a fear of certain gun owners,
>and... as the original message posted stated; the type of person who feels
>they need it incase their home is invaded...
>
>That, for me, is a scarey attitude, and one I believe causes more problems
>than good...
>
And how about a country that keeps a standing army with weapons of
mass destruction in case its homeland is invaded?
How is it you don't find that scary?
I don't know where you live, but it sounds very much as though you
assume that all Canadians live within three minute reach of a police
patrol car. Let me tell you that there are plenty of us in Canada who
spend much of our time where it would take a half hour or more (and
often much more) to get a police presence, IF there's even a way to
communicate the need for one.
If you can't understand that sensible people want the means to
protect themselves in such circumstances, then you're the one with
the scary "attitude".
Achim
axethetax
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Erik,
> > I didn't know that roughly 70% of Canadians are in-favor of reinstating
> > death penalty, especially now, that this trend is gradually decreasing
> > down south of the 49th parallel.
>
> I don't know where the 70% came from, but it definitely sounds bogus to me.
Yep, especially with the raising doubt in the criminal justice system with the
Marshall, Morin etc, etc cases recently. If we'd had a death penalty these men
would have been unjustly put to death.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many Canadians who would support
the death penalty when asked to consider putting people to death in light of recent
revelations about innocent people being convicted of capitol offenses.
> > A compationate conservatism,
>
> What does this mean any ways?
An oxymoron if I ever heard one....
> > responsible fiscal policy,
>
> The liberals are already running surpluses ....
Yea, but they should be paying down the debt, increasing money for health care,
education and defence and then giving the rest back by reducing taxes.
> > repealing gun control legislation
More like bringing in *effective* measures which intrude into the lives of
honest gun owners to the absolute minimum extent possible.
> Gun registration is a bad idea (and will fail) but banning fully automatic
> weapons and banana clips were a good idea.
Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would you care if I
have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
> > and Triple E Senate is what's desperately needed in Canada.
>
> Why should PEI have the same number of votes as Ontario?? I have never
> understood this.
Think about it this way, if your neighbour pays twice as much tax as you do,
should he/she have twice as much voting power as you ? The government of PEI has
exactly the same responsibilities and obligations toward it's residents as the
government of Ontario or Alberta. At the national level, the government of PEI
*must have* exactly the same voice as the government of Ontario because they have
exactly equal powers and responsibilities/obligations under the constitution.
> Electing senators is good idea however..
I agree
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> Yeah, I *really* miss the days when water froze at 32 degrees and boiled at
> who knows what temperature!!
212 degrees F however this has nothing to do with the metric *OR* imperial
system. The Fahrenheit temperature scale is the same as the Celsius temperature
scale in that there are exactly 100 degrees between the boiling and freezing
points of the reference liquid.
The difference comes from the fact that the Fahrenheit scale is based upon
the freezing and boiling points of paraffin wax. This scale was developed
because of two problems with water. The exact boiling and freezing points of
water (Celsius scale) are very dependent upon how "pure" the water is and water
is fairly difficult to purify while paraffin will not disolve impurities and can
be "purified" very easily. Further, water has very strange, non-linear heating
properties and cannot be used very well in scientific work.
...Ken
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>In fact, the most recent polling shows that a majority are against the
>>death penalty.
> You know as well as I do that it depends on the question. I have no idea
> how many are for or agin it personally; as I responded to Jim, I got the 70%
> figure from Angus Reid.
Recent speculation suggests that the old question, do you support "capital
punishment?" tends to netgreater support than "do you support the
death penalty?"
frank...@sympatico.ca
>In can.politics Erik_of_BC <Er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>>In fact, the most recent polling shows that a majority are against the
>>>death penalty.
>
>
>> You know as well as I do that it depends on the question. I have no idea
>> how many are for or agin it personally; as I responded to Jim, I got the 70%
>> figure from Angus Reid.
>
>Recent speculation suggests that the old question, do you support "capital
>punishment?" tends to netgreater support than "do you support the
>death penalty?"
"Recent speculation"? Now there's a legal beagle's metaphor if I ever
heard one.
FP
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:10:22 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>In can.politics Erik_of_BC <Er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>>>In fact, the most recent polling shows that a majority are against the
>>>>death penalty.
>>
>>
>>> You know as well as I do that it depends on the question. I have no idea
>>> how many are for or agin it personally; as I responded to Jim, I got the 70%
>>> figure from Angus Reid.
>>
>>Recent speculation suggests that the old question, do you support "capital
>>punishment?" tends to netgreater support than "do you support the
>>death penalty?"
> "Recent speculation"? Now there's a legal beagle's metaphor if I ever
> heard one.
I suppose. But it was an explaination which was given by the polster who
noted the difference. It was either compass or polara.
Sid Cochran
news:399F3BE5...@istar.ca...
> Pete wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I *really* miss the days when water froze at 32 degrees and
boiled at
> > who knows what temperature!!
>
> 212 degrees F however this has nothing to do with the metric *OR*
imperial
> system. The Fahrenheit temperature scale is the same as the Celsius
temperature
> scale in that there are exactly 100 degrees between the boiling and
freezing
> points of the reference liquid.
No. water boitls at: Freezes at Difference:
212 F. 32 F 180 deg. F
100 C 0 C. 100 deg. C.
> The difference comes from the fact that the Fahrenheit scale is based
upon
> the freezing and boiling points of paraffin wax. This scale was developed
> because of two problems with water. The exact boiling and freezing points
of
> water (Celsius scale) are very dependent upon how "pure" the water is and
water
> is fairly difficult to purify while paraffin will not disolve impurities
and can
> be "purified" very easily. Further, water has very strange, non-linear
heating
> properties and cannot be used very well in scientific work.
>
>
> ...Ken
>
Sid Cochran
Wes Moxam
>
> Wes Moxam wrote:
>
> > Gun registration is a bad idea (and will fail) but banning fully automatic
> > weapons and banana clips were a good idea.
>
> Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would you care if I
> have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than target
shooting. In the wrong hands they can kill *a lot of people* in a short period
of time. Same goes with hand guns. However, it is a bit different with hunting
rifles which have a purpose (hunting) and are a traditional part of Canadian
life (rural Canadian life at least). And with smaller clips, it is less likely
that disasters such as Columbine and the Montreal Massacre will occur.
> > > and Triple E Senate is what's desperately needed in Canada.
> >
> > Why should PEI have the same number of votes as Ontario?? I have never
> > understood this.
>
> Think about it this way, if your neighbour pays twice as much tax as you do,
> should he/she have twice as much voting power as you ? The government of PEI has
> exactly the same responsibilities and obligations toward it's residents as the
> government of Ontario or Alberta. At the national level, the government of PEI
> *must have* exactly the same voice as the government of Ontario because they have
> exactly equal powers and responsibilities/obligations under the constitution.
I see. So this would differentiate the senate from the HOC since it would be
representative to the provinces powers, not the people's (yet is elected by the
people)?
Chris Delanoy
news:39A06B18...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx...
> > Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would you
care if I
> > have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
> Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than target
> shooting. In the wrong hands they can kill *a lot of people* in a short
period
> of time.
That's exactly what they were designed for, yes. What's your point?
Chris Delanoy
-----
"Government is the thing that breaks your legs, then hands you a crutch and
says 'See, without the government you wouldn't be able to walk.'"
- Harry Browne
Marek Staněk
příspěvku:39A06B18...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx...
> Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:
> >
> > Wes Moxam wrote:
> >
> > > Gun registration is a bad idea (and will fail) but banning fully
automatic
> > > weapons and banana clips were a good idea.
> >
care if I
> > have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
>
> Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than target
> shooting. In the wrong hands they can kill *a lot of people* in a short
period
hunting
> rifles which have a purpose (hunting) and are a traditional part of
Canadian
> life (rural Canadian life at least). And with smaller clips, it is less
likely
> that disasters such as Columbine and the Montreal Massacre will occur.
The magazine capacity has nothing to do with users mentality and character.
You are trying to heal symptoms rather than reasons of illness. That's like
issuing filterless gasmasks to the ones with tuberculose. Equally
ineffective and irrational.
Mark
Wes Moxam
True, but the government is unable to deal with the illness. So, since large
magazine capacities are not particularly useful for anything, unless you are
intent on killing as many people as possible in a short period of time, it is
best to ban them. I know that its unfair to those lawful (target shooters?
hunters with bad aim?) people who use large clips, but it seems to be the best
way to prevent massacres.
> That's like issuing filterless gasmasks to the ones with tuberculose. Equally
> ineffective and irrational.
Of course it's irrational, since the government has no problem dealing with
tuberculoses.
The government's attitude on crime has always been one of band aid solutions.
What is the solution youth crime? Throw the little bastards in jail. Easy
solution. Bad solution.
It will take a 180 degree turn in government thinking and public attitude
before our justice system will start think of real solutions to our crime
problems.
--------------------------------
| Woes Moxam |
| wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
| http://www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
|______________________________|
Earl Johnston
posted:
>True, but the government is unable to deal with the illness. So, since large
>magazine capacities are not particularly useful for anything, unless you are
>intent on killing as many people as possible in a short period of time, it is
>best to ban them. I know that its unfair to those lawful (target shooters?
>hunters with bad aim?) people who use large clips, but it seems to be the best
>way to prevent massacres.
You are attempting to fix a problem which doesn't exist
Can you point to ANY massacres ( or situations where many people were killed
in a short period of time ) in Canadian history which required a large
capacity magazine to accomplish???
There are NONE!!
At L'Ecole Polytechnique, for example, that maniac's rampage lasted over 1/2
hour. Average over 2 minutes per shoot. You don't need high capacity mags
for that.
Not too long ago, France had a mass murder ( 12 people I think ) where an old
double barreled 12 gauge was used.
Just as there are no "GOOD" or "BAD" guns, there are no bad gun parts.
High capacity mags do not encourage, promote or lead to mass murder and
banning them doesn't reduce or eliminate them.
Earl Johnston ejoh...@ns.sympatico.ca
Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
--Lucius Annaeus Seneca 'the Younger' (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
Marek Staněk
> "Marek Staněk" wrote:
> >
> > Wes Moxam <wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx> píąe v diskusním
> > příspěvku:39A06B18...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx...
> > > Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wes Moxam wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gun registration is a bad idea (and will fail) but banning fully
> > automatic
> > > > > weapons and banana clips were a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would
you
> > care if I
> > > > have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
> > >
> > > Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than
target
short
> > period
> > > of time. Same goes with hand guns. However, it is a bit different with
> > hunting
> > > rifles which have a purpose (hunting) and are a traditional part of
> > Canadian
> > > life (rural Canadian life at least). And with smaller clips, it is
less
> > likely
> > > that disasters such as Columbine and the Montreal Massacre will occur.
> >
> > The magazine capacity has nothing to do with users mentality and
character.
> > You are trying to heal symptoms rather than reasons of illness.
>
large
> magazine capacities are not particularly useful for anything, unless you
are
> intent on killing as many people as possible in a short period of time, it
is
> best to ban them. I know that its unfair to those lawful (target shooters?
> hunters with bad aim?) people who use large clips, but it seems to be the
best
> way to prevent massacres.
There are shooting disciplines that require several hi-cap mags.
Banning anything is a nonsense, like the prohibition and the early years of
drug war clearly shown. The sole repression is useless and does more bad
than good.
In this case, banning hi-cap mags has nothing to do with reasons. BTW a
rifle with a super-hi-cap mag is difficult to conceal, therefore making the
gun useless for transportation to the place of massacre. Standard-capacity
magazines do equally well and are easier to handle.
> > That's like issuing filterless gasmasks to the ones with tuberculose.
Equally
> > ineffective and irrational.
>
> Of course it's irrational, since the government has no problem dealing
with
> tuberculoses.
Wrong. There are several new types of tuberculose and about 30 old deceases,
that are resistant to most used antibiotics. It's beginning to be a problem
in south-east Asia and it's just a question of few years when it gets to
Europe and possibly America. This world is getting too small to be resistant
to infectious deceases.
> The government's attitude on crime has always been one of band aid
solutions.
> What is the solution youth crime? Throw the little bastards in jail. Easy
> solution. Bad solution.
It's not only bad, it's the worst one. But the only one most governments are
able to come with, because it's in short-term the cheapest.
Mark
drowland
analogized.
Anti-gunners are the lunatic fringe of a very large group of people who find
little time in their everday lives to develop and exercise their capacity
for critical thought. I sympathize with their base motive (we all want a
better world), but they display the very short-sighted and, ultimately,
dangerous mentality that there exists some magic pill solution for the ills
of society.
Rather than rationally think the issue through from one end to the other
(because that's a lot of work for a busy urbanite), they prefer to have
their epistemologies pre-digested for them. They turn over their
responsibilities in that department to the media and to organizations,
because it puts them in a safe little pink cloud that insulates them form
themselves and their world. (I might add that this goes on on both sides on
the gun debate and others.)
So, because they are not original thinkers, able to see that workable
solutions can exist even in a chaotic world, they frantically scrabble for
the nearest place to hold on in a storm of controversy. Afraid that, should
they loosen their hold, they may be once again swept away into the maelstrom
of uncertainty, they stubbornly hang on to their ideas, chanting,"Stop the
storm, stop the storm!"
Given their mostly honorable motives and the considerable energy they devote
to their cause of choice, it's a great shame that they couldn't direct their
efforts towards alleviating the cause of a problem, rather than screaming
for more band-aids. Then they might actually be making a useful
contribution to society.
I guess you can see that I have more affection for original thinking than
for standing by the party line of some organization. But you know, I'm also
ready to admit when I'm wrong. If you don't change your mind occasionally,
how do you know you still have one?
--DR
"Marek Staněk" <sta...@post.cz> wrote in message
news:8nr32n$1chs$1...@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
> Wes Moxam <wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx> píąe v diskusním
> příspěvku:39A06B18...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx...
> > Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote:
> > >
> > > Wes Moxam wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gun registration is a bad idea (and will fail) but banning fully
> automatic
> > > > weapons and banana clips were a good idea.
> > >
> > > Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would
you
> care if I
> > > have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
> >
> > Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than
target
> > shooting. In the wrong hands they can kill *a lot of people* in a short
> period
> > of time. Same goes with hand guns. However, it is a bit different with
> hunting
> > rifles which have a purpose (hunting) and are a traditional part of
> Canadian
> > life (rural Canadian life at least). And with smaller clips, it is less
> likely
> > that disasters such as Columbine and the Montreal Massacre will occur.
>
> The magazine capacity has nothing to do with users mentality and
character.
> You are trying to heal symptoms rather than reasons of illness. That's
like
> issuing filterless gasmasks to the ones with tuberculose. Equally
> ineffective and irrational.
> Mark
>
>
Chris Delanoy
> > That's exactly what they were designed for, yes. What's your point?
> Well, if they're designed to kill people,
I've never understood why gun control proponents consider it such a
momentous argument to simply say that "guns kills people." Of course they
kill people - that's what they were designed for. This is stating the
obvious, Wes, and nothing more.
> then the only ones who should have them are people
> who are legally employed in the business of killing
> people (the army).
Quick: If tomorrow the government were to declare you to be undesirable,
and sent these men who are "legally employed to kill" to round you up, would
you be able - with the weapons you presently have and the degree of
organization you presently keep among your neighbors - to resist this
tyrannical incursion against you? Or would you be in the position of a
medieval peasant who had no choice but to bow to one knee in submission when
m'Lord decided on a whim to send his knights through the village - or of the
Germany Jew who was helplessly rounded up for wholesale slaughter after the
Nazis had completed the biggest program of private disarmament ever seen?
We've already allowed ourselves to become overwhelmingly disarmed compared
to our government, Wes. It wouldn't take much for any thug to put our
liberty completely under his heel.
Gord
Achim Nolcken Lohse <lo...@rockies.nettax> wrote in message news:399cbd51...@news.rockies.net...On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:34:50 GMT, zub...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <8nhmo6$sr4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> You're a Liberal anti-gun MP from Toronto. Then a burglair breaks into
>> your house, rapes your daughter, kills your dog, shoots your wife with
>> a fire-arm in her leg, and steals your money. The next thing you do,
>> before the dawn sets out, you table a bill to allow sale of fire-arms
>> for self-protection.
>> The reason the anti-gun lobby is so strong in Canada is that no Lib MP
>> has EVER been attacked, mugged, drive-by-shooting'ed, or pick-
>pocketed.
>
>Waytago, Sherlock Fucking Holmes!
>
>I just love these goombah "what if"ers who wax on and on how MORE
>violence is good for decreasing gun control legislation and attempt to
>make everyone see reason in their idiotic excuses for being armed. What
>a sad and pointless use of logic!
>
>If every liberal was attacked, we would be living in a dictatorship and
>wouldn't be having this f**king conversation - and NO ONE would be
>armed except the police/army. Pick up a history book and examine what
>happens when liberals, en masse, get attacked...what a pillock!
>
A liberal MP? Don't think I''ve ever heard of any sightings in
Canada. Sure you don't mean "Liberal"?
Achim
axethetax
drowland
> >
> > > > Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would
you
> > care if I
> > > > have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
> >
> > > Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than
target
> > > shooting. In the wrong hands they can kill *a lot of people* in a
short
> > period
> > > of time.
> >
>
have
> them are people who are legally employed in the business of killing people
(the
> army).
How do you do that? I mean how do you just draw a straight line from A to
B, without using your capacity for critical thought anywhere in between?
It doesn't matter what a thing was designed for: it matters what it is used
for. Just because a gun was designed for killing one type of 180-pound,
land-dwelling mammal doesn't mean it can't be used just as well on another.
And has it occurred to you that civilians are often called upon to kill a
human in defense? (The police are not usually available to prevent a
criminal from shooting someone. I'm not sure why you think defense should
be limited to armies.) Any particular reason why that civilian should not
be able to use the correct tool for the job? You would have them get shot,
instead? It's usually the anti-gun crowd that uses the old argument that if
something saves even one life, it's worthwhile. I bet we won't hear that
from them here.
Chris Delanoy
> No, a M16 is *designed* with the intention to kill people.
Yes, I know. Why is that an argument against it?
> Our society would have to decay drastically for such a situation to occur.
You shouldn't think so, Wes. All of the laws for the government to execute
what I described are already in place. I would say that all we need now is
for some thug to come along and implement them, but the sad truth is that
this is already occurring.
The government have declared farmers who sell their own wheat to be
undesirable. These farmers are rounded up and imprisoned, their equipment
is stolen, and their wheat and livelihood are destroyed.
The government is increasingly invading the homes of parents who choose to
educate their children at home. Their children are often kidnapped by
social workers under specious and trumped up accusations of "child abuse,"
and parents then spend years trying to win their children's freedom again -
who often never recover from the psychological horror inflicted by these
"compassionate" government agents.
Our liberty is already being invaded to an unprecedented degree, Wes. The
importance of being able to defend ourselves against it is not some
fantastic speculation of another place in another time; it is increasingly
our reality - here, today.
> Besides, I am talking about the restriction of a select few weapons
> which are deemed unnecessary and harmful to society.
Leaving your property and liberty defenseless and powerless is the MOST
harmful thing you could ever do to yourself or to any society.
> Let me make it clear that I am *not* an advocate of the
> registration of hunting guns.
And I'm not making the case that we have to protect our right to bear arms
so that we can hunt. I don't hunt, Wes - I get my meat from the
supermarket. Hunting and killing gophers is NOT why the right to bear arms
is so essential; even protecting our lives and property from criminals in
not why it is so important. Defending our liberty is.
> There is no way in hell that gun advocates can protect all gun rights, so
we
> must appease and educate the public (thus government) before anyone gets
> anymore bad (and more harmful) ideas.
Your problem is that you've been taught by the government (in one of their
youth camps, called "public school") to believe that your rights and your
life are subject to "the public will." Don't stand for it, Wes. Your life
belongs to you - not to the government, not to "society," and not to any
majority of any size.
drowland
vigilant of our government's actions. Sure, Wes, maybe it won't be like the
most extremely graphic oppressions that have happened to other modern
civilizations in the past century, but it doesn't have to be to count.
It's happening now (as Chris points out so well), in bits and pieces.
That's the thin edge of the wedge. It's essentially a test of our resolve.
People love to feel superior to their past. It's always a mistake when it
blinds us to the present and future.
--DR
"Chris Delanoy" <cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote in message
news:8nstmg$g20$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca...
Wes Moxam
>
> > > Why ? As long as I use the gun in a safe, legal manner, why would you
> care if I
> > > have an M16 with a 150 round snail drum mag ?
>
> > Because M16's and large clips aren't useful for anything other than target
> > shooting. In the wrong hands they can kill *a lot of people* in a short
> period
> > of time.
>
> That's exactly what they were designed for, yes. What's your point?
Well, if they're designed to kill people, then the only ones who should have
them are people who are legally employed in the business of killing people (the
army).
--------------------------------
| Wes Moxam |
| wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
| http://www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
|______________________________|