QV said:
I never said I knew everything nor have I ever alleged expertise in anything. Quit jumping to conclusions. And I am not going to respond to personal attacks or snide remarks that many of you seem to be able to get away with around here, and your post has a few.
No one is sending personal attacks to you.
Using the argument that gasoline is not regulated is as foolhardy and moot as arguing that your car can't be seized if left unattended and not locked (which it can BTW in case you missed that). Or saying that all knives should now be regulated. Hell lets just throw out any law as soon as one interest group complains about it. What do you think would happen then?
Well why single out firearms then? If knives can be more easily concealed make no noise and are highly lethal? You believe in gun control but not knife control?
What do I think would happen? I think that if everything were registered and regulated and controlled, we'd be more safe. That's what you think, right? :
No they havn't. They prove that you are jumping to conclusions.
What conclusions am I jumping to?
The police need reasonable grounds AND exingent circumstances for such a raid you are talking about. An anonymous tip that Jack Remington keeps his older then dust 12 Ga unlocked hardley meets the reasonable grounds and exingent circumstances criteria. So again you are jumping to conclusions. Quit stating that the police, for no other reason then to bring down a "law abiding gun owner" will break into your home in the dead of night and steal all your prized firearms and cart you off to jail. That is pure unfounded speculation on your part not backed up with PROVEN sources.
So, if I'm sitting at home, and Joe Rumpface next door is mad with me over some stupid neighbour crap. He knows I go to the range quite a bit by seeing me load and unload gun cases aboard my car, etc. He calls the police one day as an anonymous tip, says I'm improperly storing my firearms (for example) by letting my kids go aorund the house with my Tokarev or my Ruger and play cowboys. Cops come, I explain the situation, they want to see my firearms, I refuse. Think they'll be on their merry way? At the very least they'll take their time, go get their warrant and then strip my home, seize more than just firearms (scopes, books, bayonets, etc... which have been taken in other firearms seizures across the country) and then I have a situation sort of like Wesley Down Under's.
Actually I would hazard a guess that the majority of Canadians support gun control.
Yeah, I'd agree there too. But what is gun control exactly? Is it controlling the firearms that need controlling such as those in the hands of criminals? Or, is it "controlling" all firearms, making responsible owners jump through bogus government hoops of crap to hold onto them?
Add the stereotype placed on guns, skew some facts like "ohh the registry gets thousands of hits a year, it must be working" bit, ban evil looking guns and bam. Lieberals back in power.
When thinking of gun control you should be thinking more about the criminal, QV, and less about the citizens that pay your salary.
For all of you gun enthusiests arguing that you need guns for protection and how society is so dangerous and an "armed people" is the only thing stopping the government from becoming some dictatorship, and that you need CCW because the police only shoot 50 rnds a year and are too far away ---- that is definately the wrong road to take. Most people in this country do not think the same way as you, and when they hear arguments like that the average citizen (gun owner or not) would probably think that is coming from:
a. a crazy gun nut
b. an anti government militia; or
c. someone with deep seated fears of society that probably needs treatment.
Everybody doesn't NEED CCW. Not everyone wants it. Some do, some don't. Because some don't, doesn't mean that those who do and are eligable (meet a long string of requirements and testing) should be punished. We've the right to self defense... but with what?
If someone (and I know people who would do this) decided to attack me or my family/neighbours with a firearm or other device that could be used as a weapon... we'll have to wait 45 minutes for someone to respond. I'm certainly not going to rely on you or any LEO to arrive in 45 minutes and sing campsongs and make it all better. Remember QV,
in most violent situations, police arrive AFTER the fact.
Why? If not, can't I debate about laws in the country that I live?
If you're not a firearms owner, then you're not acquainted with the BS that firearms owners go through. Yet you come on here, pretending it's all good and that we're crazy or we don't know what we're talking about, that the registry is great and our arguements are moot.
We are not arguing that firearms need to be controlled. It's what firearms are controlled and how they're controlled that concerns us.
Points for YOU to remember QV.
1. My firearms registered regulates them not. Not in any way, shape or form. I can file the serials and sell on the street if I want. I can toss em around for children to play with, I can blow them up, I can bury them... unsafely store them, etc.
2. The registry IS (and we both agree) a total waste of tax dollars.
3. CCW is not for you to decide. You don't like it? Fine. I'm not one to settle for the boys in blue AFTER something's happened. You have a sidearm, no? Why? For protection of course. Granted, you'll encounter many more dangerous situations requiring it's use than I will, but that's not to say I'll never encounter at least one of those situations either. With proper training one can be just as efficient with it's use as law enforcement or otherwise. Don't forget that.
4. Taking without permission is stealing. Stealing is against the law, no? Does/did the government wrongfully seize(steal) firearms from many citizens who take the same precautions as the rest, only because they looked evil or had certain attributes? They all fire projectiles by definition. There are many more "dangerous" firearms such as high powered rifles like the .338 lapua or .300win mag which are allowed, but a shotgun with selective fire from semi to pump isn't? Where's the logic in that? Having said that, the same people that help make our laws, break them. I've no reason to question why people sometimes think ill of the boneheads who illogically "prohibit" firearms.
QV do you think we should have a constitutional right to bear arms?