" I call these types of guns the Rambo mentality; they are designed to make the shooter feel like they are part of war like atmosphere. Just pulling the trigger and listening to the rapid fire, somehow turns these people on. These are not hunting rifles; these are handguns and machine pistols designed for one thing, hunting people, and usually hunting people at close range."


I call this kind of statement stupid! The gun is also an excellent gun to use in three gun matches. It, like your hunting shotgun, is also an excellent weapon for killing people at short ranges. So too, handguns. Are we to ban them as well? Your M- 70 30-06 can be converted to an excellent sniper rifle. Better ban that model too. Come to think of it most bolt action rifles can be converted to sniper rifles to "kill people". They should be banned as well.

So lets review, we should ban shotguns because they are an effective short range weapon aganst humans, handguns are a no brainer and well, as to rifles, any rifle that can be converted to a "sniper" rifle is out the door.

God help this country. Maybe it is time to turn the matter over to the provinces. At least that way there will be parts of Canada where citizens are allowed to protect themselves and their families and go about their daily lives without Big Brother holding their hands.

Bob Bonenfant
Terrace, B.C.

Sir you do a huge disservice to the firearms community. While I agree with you that the registry was a failed attempt to keep firearms out of the wrong hands your desire to scapegoat the rest of the firearms community because you don't like the particular style of firearm they choose to use is absurd.

The Beretta CX4 storm would make a great gun for varmint hunting. Low recoil like that of a .22 or .177HMR combined with a heavier bullet that is less likely to be swayed by wind would make you quite the predator for that family of gophers chewing up a farmers field.

You question the validity of calling pistols "sporting arms" despite the fact that they are used in numerous competitive fashions: IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, 3-gun and even the Olympics.

In the end nothing is going to stop a crazy from picking up a bolt action rifle and hunting humans with it. They could do it from a much farther distance and likely kill far more people than were killed last week, and when that happens mark my words, your deer rifle will become an endangered species too.

There is so much to this "Opinion" that is nonsense as it is simplistic.

Is the author aware of the fact that in many parts of North America hunting with handguns is legal. Is he aware there are many handgun designs that can and do effectively take game out to 100 yards, forget the "standing on the deer’s foot" nonsense. Is he aware that bow hunting (a weapon with much less power and accuracy of a handgun designed for such activity) is legal in Canada.

To promote one firearm related activity at the expense of another will most certainly end all such activities including hunting. That is the goal of the anti-gun crowd and you serve their purpose well.

Bob Bonenfant
Terrace, B.C.

Mr Meisner seems bent on perpetuating the myth that one gun is more dangerous than the next mostly due to its color, looks and mechanism. However, the rifle he has been hunting with for the last 55 years is likely more powerful than anything Mr Gill had in his basement.

The advantage Mr Meisner has over Mr Gill is that his upbringing and sense of responsibility is likely better moulded than Mr Gill. However, in the hands of Mr Gill, Mr Meisner's hunting rifle is just as dangerous as any other gun. Had Mr Gill used Mr Meisner's favorite rifle, the media would have called it a high-powered sniper rifle.

Sir you do a huge disservice to the firearms community. While I agree with you that the registry was a failed attempt to keep firearms out of the wrong hands your desire to scapegoat the rest of the firearms community because you don't like the particular style of firearm they choose to use is absurd.

The Beretta CX4 storm would make a great gun for varmint hunting. Low recoil like that of a .22 or .177HMR combined with a heavier bullet that is less likely to be swayed by wind would make you quite the predator for that family of gophers chewing up a farmers field.

You question the validity of calling pistols "sporting arms" despite the fact that they are used in numerous competitive fashions: IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, 3-gun and even the Olympics.

In the end nothing is going to stop a crazy from picking up a bolt action rifle and hunting humans with it. They could do it from a much farther distance and likely kill far more people than were killed last week, and when that happens mark my words, your deer rifle will become an endangered species too.

I never cared about guns. I am a bow hunter and I don't undertand the pleasure of shooting an animal with a gun, but I don't think it is my call to make. Freedom includes the freedom to choose how you want to hunt.

If we had to ban anything, I'd say ban hunting rifles; they can do a lot more damage than a hand gun or a so called machine pistol can do.

If the shooter in Montreal has used a dear hunting rifle, he would have probably killed all 20 people he shot, not just the one innoncent girl. He wonded 19 other people and they can call themselves lucky that he didn't have a hunting rifle, such as a 30.06, or a 7mm, a 30.30 or a .303.

Did the author of this fluff speak up when one deranged killer of a Montreal police officer shot her through the door with a deer rifle?

I doubt it.

Certain firearms are not designated for hunting in Canada but that's only because of politics. If I ever took up hunting with a firearm, I'd ruther use a big calliber revolver, or a small semi auto carabine than a big bulky bolt action rifle.

As a matter of fact, in the US, you can use just about anything for hunting.

So, in conclussion, I find the original post to be nothing else then a self serving steaming pile of crap.

Like a small child, the author is selling everyone else out, in an effort to apease a bunch of politically motivated gun haters, who will infact not stop untill ALL the guns are gone. That includes Mr. Selfrighteous deer rifle.

Bow hunting rules!

Declan McRoy of Regina SK.

I never cared about guns. I am a bow hunter and I don't undertand the pleasure of shooting an animal with a gun, but I don't think it is my call to make. Freedom includes the freedom to choose how you want to hunt.

If we had to ban anything, I'd say ban hunting rifles; they can do a lot more damage than a hand gun or a so called machine pistol can do.

If the shooter in Montreal has used a dear hunting rifle, he would have probably killed all 20 people he shot, not just the one innoncent girl. He wonded 19 other people and they can call themselves lucky that he didn't have a hunting rifle, such as a 30.06, or a 7mm, a 30.30 or a .303.

Did the author of this fluff speak up when one deranged killer of a Montreal police officer shot her through the door with a deer rifle?

I doubt it.

Certain firearms are not designated for hunting in Canada but that's only because of politics. If I ever took up hunting with a firearm, I'd ruther use a big calliber revolver, or a small semi auto carabine than a big bulky bolt action rifle.

As a matter of fact, in the US, you can use just about anything for hunting.

So, in conclussion, I find the original post to be nothing else then a self serving steaming pile of crap.

Like a small child, the author is selling everyone else out, in an effort to apease a bunch of politically motivated gun haters, who will infact not stop untill ALL the guns are gone. That includes Mr. Selfrighteous deer rifle.

Bow hunting rules!

Declan McRoy of Regina SK.

That sounds great! I'll be sure to be speaking out against your "sniper rifle" once they've taken away my "machine pistols" ;)

I personally don't associate with people who are proponents of military style firearms or handguns, rapid fire or otherwise. The funny thing is, I don't make this as a conscious decision... these people typically have a mindset that simply turns off well-adjusted, intelligent people... go figure, eh?

As for the Gun Registry, it is only a first step in identifying undesirable weapons for future exclusion and prohibition. Of course, don’t tell the Rambo and Moses (aka Charlton Heston… cold dead hand) types… you don’t want to piss of these people… trust me on this.

QuasiMe...You do not read as a well adjusted, Intelligent person, Trust you..YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING..NO WAY WOULD I TRUST YOU.

Ever notice that most, not all, but most of the firearms used in crime are stolen or not registered to start with..
And no we really don't need 50 caliber guns to hunt with either...
Is there an easy answer, probably not.
And those who are going to do harm with firearem of any kind will get what they need somewhere...
barring that I am sure they will use some other weapon...
so where does the banning start?
I own, hunt and have registered my weapons...others, their choice have not.
Never understood quite why I had to re-register them once they were.

A better question Gofaster might be where does the banning end!

Personally, I think most of you missed the whole point of Ben's comments. He is on record as opposing the gun registry right from the beginning, so understand his points in that context instead of making nonsense assumptions.

It would appear from many of your posts that you are so uptight about any criticism of guns, that you confuse criticism of the misuse of guns with unwarranted criticism of their legitimate use. Killing innocent people is a misuse of guns, and it does deserve criticism, as does the system that facilitates buying such a gun - legally obtained and registered, I might add, thus making comments about criminals getting them illegally completely beside the point. Also besides the point is what other jurisdictions in North America do. This is Canada, and we are a sovereign nation. We can do what we want, not what some other nation wants.

I understood Ben to be criticising the purchase of guns for the style they infer, the "I'm Rambo, just look at my gun" crap. If anyone does a disservice to gun owners and users it is the self serving advertisers who promote such nonsense in order to sell a few more weapons and shove a few more dollars in the bank. All those advertisers do is play into the hands of the nutjobs who think a big gun makes a big dick, and we all know there are plenty of those.

Responsible gun owners and users buy weapons for their function, surely, and the form is secondary, surely. After all, we are constantly being told they are just a tool, are we not?

And before any of you rant about me being anti-gun, I am not. I no longer own any, having been there and done all that and got tired of it.
Personally, I thought the previous laws worked perfectly well.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. We have gun laws and have had them for some time. The gun registry was introduced to deflect the fact that the government wasn't about to put more money into enforcement of the laws already on the books - it made the special interest groups and the city dwellers feel like something was being done.

Neither shooting in Montreal would have been prevented through a registry. The only way something like this can be prevented is to have security at the doors of all public institutions to prevent those nuts from entering the building. Of course this doesn't prevent those nuts from firing guns in public.

Guns, knives, home-made explosives or bare hands - if someone wants to kill they have a lot of choices. Someone paying attention to this guy's mental health might have had an effect, but then again maybe not.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. We have gun laws and have had them for some time. The gun registry was introduced to deflect the fact that the government wasn't about to put more money into enforcement of the laws already on the books - it made the special interest groups and the city dwellers feel like something was being done.

Neither shooting in Montreal would have been prevented through a registry. The only way something like this can be prevented is to have security at the doors of all public institutions to prevent those nuts from entering the building. Of course this doesn't prevent those nuts from firing guns in public.

Guns, knives, home-made explosives or bare hands - if someone wants to kill they have a lot of choices. Someone paying attention to this guy's mental health might have had an effect, but then again maybe not.

Actually, it is the bullets which kill people. The bullets are fired from a gun, the gun activated by a person. Remove any one of the three and people would not be killed by people, guns or bullets.

Facile sayings do not contribute to a resolution of the problem, which is that innocent people are murdered.

"There is absolutely no way that this guy should have restricted weapons, much less the authority to possess them."

This is the only comment from Mr. Meisner's comment that I can agree with. The rest of the post is very wide of the mark.

If Mr. Meisner recalle the procedure for firearms aquisition prior to the Liberals Bill C-68, you had to present yourself at the RCMP office to register your restricted firearm. Does Mr, Meisner think that Kimveer Gill would have passed this stage of the process?

I watched the my gun is more morraly correct than your gun create the division amongst gunowners in the UK which allowed for the gun confiscations there which have resulted in Scotlan, the land of my birth, being labled as one of the most violent nations in Western Europe. In Metropolitan London, handgun crime rose 50% from the precious year. All this 10 years aftera complete handgun ban was introduced. Why did this happen? Well it apprears that criminals, sociopaths and psychopaths ahve a few problems with following laws, an outcome not really considered here or in the UK.

As a last comment on this years Montreal tradgedy, it may be worth recalling that the worst mass murder in Canadian history took place there in the Bluebell Cafe, not by firearms but by arson. One gallon of gas has more destructive capability that the firearms Gill carried. Any calls to ban gas? Oh but you need gas, I hear you say. Well if you get to decide if I need guns than I shout get to decide if you need filthy, polluting, killing cars.

Oh and to ammonra, I agree that facile sayings do not help in the deaths of innocent people. Currently the most dangerous objects, ie responsible for the deaths of innocent people are knives, blunt objects then fists. Firearms fall well behind all of them. If you can think of a workable prohibition on the first three I will surrender my guns.

Last point: focusing on fostering a culture where taking responsibility for ones actions would prevent more tradgedies than knee-jerk prohibitions

This article should be titled:

Ignorace and Arrogance Part of the Problem: One Man's Opinion

Shame on you Meisner, you as a hunter should know better! Hunters are one of the most misunderstood and villanized groups of sportsmen in western society. They've suffered ridicule from ignorant and hypocritical people who have no knowledge of the sport and why hunters take up the challenge. I can imagine during your 55 years you've had to defend yourself and your hunting past time over and over again. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing to the sporting firearms community! Have you ever watched an IPSC competition? Have you ever interviewed a cowboy action shooter? Have you ever tried competing in a DCRA service rifle match? I'm guessing not, how then can you be arrogant enough to form such a strong, borderline bigoted, opinion on it?

If you had bothered to spend a Saturday talking to people who enjoy this kind of sport you might find out that it is exactly like any other sport. In fact it is very close to many martial arts like fencing or tai chi for example. A target shooter must adopt an almost zen like tranquility, mastering his own breathing and heart rate, removing all muscle shake from his body, all while crunching wind speed and ballistics calculations before slowly squeezing the trigger. A very good marksman can hit a target many hundreds of meters away and it takes the immense concentration and self control of a monk to do so. An IPSC competitor can spend countless hours just practicing drawing his handgun from his holster. The sequence of drawing your handgun, adopting a proper shooting stance, firing the appropriate number of rounds, then dropping a magazine and reloading, is very similar to a martial arts pattern. Muscle memory is very important and can mean winning or loosing a match by a mere fraction of a second. A very good IPSC competitor is so fast you can barely see his movements as he moves around an IPSC course and would impress high level martial artisits. These men and women are atheletes plain and simple.

Of course it's not all like this, just like hockey there's varying shades of fun leagues all the way up to serious world competition and even the olympics.

Overall your article is extremely poorly written, wanders all over the place, and is downright insulting. Obviously you were pretty tired when you posted it at a quarter to four in the morning, because it really shows. I'd reccomend researching your topic a bit before slandering thousands of Canadians and labelling innocent people as "Rambo Wannbee's". Maybe you wouldn't look like such an ass then?

Off hand I can't think of how to stop murders from knives, baseball bats, fists or other objects but, there again, I did not actually suggest that you be deprived of your guns. I suggested that posters not reject reasonable comment about a problem of murder just because they want to keep their firearms.

I am suggesting to you that a person's right not to be murdered outweighs your privelege to own a gun. I also suggest that shooting someone is more likely to kill them than punching them is. Incidentally, how would you propose that nutjobs be stopped from having access to firearms?

I would note also that just because you may want to link one weapon with another, and ban one before banning the other, does not mean that the rest of society must do so. If the country wants to ban guns completely then the country has the complete right to do so. It is called democracy.

There are numerous examples of arbitrary laws, and they are all legally enforceable. Now I think that banning guns would be unreasonable, but I do respect the law. In Canada there is no right to own and use guns, it is a privelege. I will note, however, that the only people actually talking about banning guns are the gun lobby, raising it as a red herring distractor. It is not about owning guns, it is about people not being murdered by gun-toting idiots. All I hear the politicians doing is arguing that they should be harder to get so that nutjobs can be screened out.

In Metropolitan London (my home city) despite your figure of a 50% increase in hand gun deaths, there are still fewer deaths from guns than in the US with its open gun culture. I don't know the figures, but to make the point, a 50% increase from 2 is a total of three. It is necessary to provide a reference for ratios if they are to make sense. Gun deaths as a percentage of the population might be way to express it if comparisons are to be made. However, as I said, Canada is a sovereign nation and what Britain or any other country does is not the point and not particularly relevant.

Meisner is simply propegating the anti-gun propaganda of "bad guns" - there are no such things as "bad guns", just "bad gun uses". Guns are inanimate objects, with no volition or intent of their own. It is only the volition and intent of the human user that determines whether a gun use is either "good" or "bad". Period.

People who fear guns - based on style, or colour, or action, or power, or for whatever reaon - are simply projecting their own fears onto them.

This kind of "balkanization" mentality must be erased from the consciousness of all gun owners. If we do not hang together, we will certainly hang separately.

ammonra shows considerable ignorance of both political philosophy and the rights of the individual, not to mention our own "constitutional" history.

The fact that Canada is a "democracy" does not in any way grant the authority to infringe upon the rights of the individual. "Majority rule" is simply another way of saying "tyranny of the majority", and is just as onerous and repulsive as any other form of tyranny - maybe even worse, since it comes in a pleasant seeming guise.

In fact, gun ownership *is* a right in Canada. We derive this right from the same sources as do our American cousins: the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of emminent English philosophers and jurists as John Locke and Sir William Blackstone, to the settlement of English Canada, right through to the British North America Act and our current "Constitution", enshrined in Section 26. This right has never been explicitly extinguished by any Act of Parliament. That the government decides to heavilly infringe upon this right says more about the nature of government than it does about our right to keep and bear arms.

In practical terms, there is no right "not to be murdered" - anyone can come up to you and kill you dead without a moment's notice, and all the "rights" in the world would mean nothing to you. There is only the ability to defend yourself against those who would try to unlawfully take your life. For this right to be meaningful, again in a practical way, one must be allowed to own and use the most effective method commonly available to secure that right.

Gun confiscation by the State is no "red herring" - it is an established fact, both here in Canada and around the world. Several types of guns have been "proclaimed" by our benevolent government to be prohibited, and were confiscated from their legal and rightful owners. Even the Firearms Act establishes the eventual confiscation of all short barrelled and small calibre (12(6.1)) handguns. Even though the State has "graciously" allowed us to continue to own these, these guns will eventually all be turned over upon the death of the last person legally licensed to own them. Confiscation by attrition is still confiscation. Without any compensation, I might add.

People really need to arm themselves with the facts before they start spouting off. ammonra is so full of anti-gun propaganda, refuting it all would take half a dozen posts of similar size.

Akimoya said, "People who fear guns - based on style, or colour, or action, or power, or for whatever reaon - are simply projecting their own fears onto them."

Similarly, People who love guns - based on style, or colour, or action, or power, or for whatever reaon - are simply projecting their own mind onto them. That was, in fact, Ben's point but better put by Akimoya. Ben, of course, was referring to the Rambo wannabees who think that touting a particular colour or style of gun in photos makes them a "warrior". It does not. Children play make-believe, not men.

Gun ownership is not a right. The English common law referred to devolved all rights, every single one, to the Crown. The ownership of anything was at the pleasure of the Crown. The Crown's place has been taken by Parliament in the modern context. I would also remind you that Britain banned most weapons from common ownership for a very long time, something they could not have done if it was a right. If you think I am wrong, then try walking the streets of London carrying a shotgun.

However, as I previously said, what foreign countries do is not particularly relevant as Canada is a sovereign nation. In Canada we have a Constitution and the Constitution does not mention the ownership of guns. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is completely silent on the matter, and our rights as Canadians are as enshrined in the Charter, not as in a gun owner's imagination. Read it here to see: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html.

Incidentally, not that it matters much in Canadian law, but Charleton Heston and the gun lobby in the USA are wrong. The US Constitution gives the federal Supreme Court the final say in what their Constitution means, and they say the right of the people to bear arms (arms in general, note, not guns) refers to a collective right of The People (in the democratic electoral sense) to defend themselves, and that each State's Militia fulfills that right. Three times the Supreme Court has said that over several decades. As with London, if you don't believe me then carry a machine gun through the streets of Harlem in New York and see what happens. If it is your "Right" to carry arms you can't be arrested, but you will be.

There is no gun confication in Canada. That is a bugaboo scare tactic. Hunters can hunt in Canada, and sport target shooters can shoot targets. Guns designed solely to kill people rather than animals are restricted, as they should be.

ammonra tries to subvert my meaning by reverting back to Meisner's original flawed thesis: that all "gun lovers" - regardless of the type of gun - are "Rambo wannabees" and as such are somehow mentally deficient, possibly homicidal. This is patently false. Lots of people are "gun lovers", for many different reasons, much as people are "car lovers" or "music lovers" or "computer lovers" - it is a passtime, if not a passion.

The difference between "gun lovers" and "gun haters" is that gun lovers don't care if you own guns or not; they aren't likely to try and force you to buy one if you don't want to. Gun haters, however, are so motivated by their irrational fear that they would force *everyone* who owned guns to turn them in, under penalty of law. This is much more true than the converse.

Gun ownership *IS* a right, and no amount of floundering about can make that fact disappear. Not only is this guaranteed by English Common Law, it was guaranteed under Magna Carta, which restricted the Crown's right to "disseize" people of their property, at will, without due process of the law. The very right of Englishmen to "keep armes for their defense" was specifically guaranteed as one of the "true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties" of the people of this England in the English Bill of Rights. Divine Right of Kings died out a long, long time ago, and was never really part of the English tradition.

The "Constitution of Canada" is a pile of crap - it is so full of loopholes, escape clauses, and weasle words that it barely safeguards the "enumerated rights" it *does* purport to "protect". But be that as it may, I guess ammonra didn't bother to read as far as Section 26, which I specifically referenced:

"26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."

This means that there are *other* rights, which are not expressly mentioned in the Charter, that are recognized and protected as well. This inlcudes the aforementioned "right to keep armes" since the English Bill of Rights was still extant and in effect at the time of "reception" into Ontario Law on September 17, 1792. This was further guaranteed in the British North America Act under section 129, which prohibited the Parliament of Canada from enacting legislation that contravened an Act of the British Parliament. Such was the case up until the Statute of Westminster of 1931.

Since that time, the Parliament of Canada has not "expressly extinguished" our right to "keep armes for our defense" by any Act of Parliament that I know of. They may have heavily regulated that right, but not even Parliament can "regulate" out of existence (see R. v. Sparrow)

This is not just my imagination.

I guess ammonra has a comprehension problem, since I spciefically pointed out that 12(6.1) handguns *will* be confiscated; that this will be later rather than sooner matters not. In fact, ALL Firearms Act section 12(X) guns will eventually be confiscated by the Government of Canada. This, too, is a fact, despite what ammonra wants to believe.

It is obvious that ammonra is an anti-gun "true believer" and, like all extremists, cannot be swayed by the facts, or the truth.

I almost forgot - what was it that (former) Prime Minister Paul Martin promised to do when re-elected? Oh, yeah - BAN HANDGUNS!

And gun confiscation is all a figment of my imagination...riiiight.

Ammonra. I think if you looked at the British system of Gun Ownership you would see that the rich and pampered can and do own guns, and can and do hunt. Much like they control and enjoy most of the fishing. And of course they have their fox hunts and the running of the hounds. Dont try to lump all of Britian under one blanket. There are them that do, and them that dont.

Canadian have a right to own guns through property rights, and through precedence. . When you are allowed to own something for hundreds of years it becomes a right. This right cannot be taken away on the whim of a bunch of politicians who are trying to get re-elected, and who dont know anything more about gun ownership than they do about skydiving or deepsea fishing.

If it was not for Alan Rock and others of his ilk overreacting to the murders in Montreal, and trying to give the impression that they were doing something about it, we wouldnt be having this discussion. The previous laws were more than sufficient to cover all aspects of gun ownership. The problem is not gun ownership, it is halfbaked politicians and under informed citizens.

Insofar a property rights go, you can thank Pierre Trudeau for ensuring that they were not enshrined in our Constitution. His supposition was that everyone knows we have property rights so why do we need to show it in the Constitution. As a result we now have no rights. However that is not to say that we cant get them back if we do not bow down and kiss the feet of the politicians who would have us all be clones, so that their job would be easier.

It is obvious, Mr.Meisner, that the gun registry "...does nothing to stop the use of guns from getting in the hands of criminals."

So what's the solution? A complete gun ban? That's not going to stop nut jobs. They'll turn to homemade bombs, knives, etc.

But for now, let us drop the gun issue. Let us look at the broader issue: WHERE HAVE THE DAYS OF NON-JUDGEMENT GONE TO?

We are taught to not base judgement on colour, race, gender, age, political association, or sexual orientation. So why should this be any different?

I am a tax paying, law abiding citizen. I have taken the appropriate safety course and have been approved to own firearms. So why should I be disriminated against because I own a firearm? WHY?

You know what I think the solution is? Mandatory firearm training. That way, no one is forced to live with a label or a stigma that guns are bad. Just like alcohol and electricity, guns are not harmful if you respect them. The minute you treat it disrespectfully, it will hurt you and others.

It is interesting that Akimoya accuses me of subverting his meaning, because he does precisely that himself (?) with Ben's and my comments. Nobody, not Ben, not me and nobody else said, as he claims, "gun lovers - regardless of the type of gun - are Rambo wannabees". Of course not all gun lovers are nutcases, nobody said they were, but some are just as some car lovers are nutjobs racing down our streets and killing people in the process. Those idiots should not be licensed to drive in Canada and equivalent people from the gun loving world should not be allowed to get their hands on guns. What, precisely, is wrong with that viewpoint?

His categorisation of "The Constitution of Canada is a pile of crap" really shows just where his committment lies. It puts the lie to so many gun lovers' insistance that they are the one and only true protectors of our liberty, doesn't it? The charter section he refers to does not mention guns, and if he thinks it includes them, then he should by all means proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada and have them say so, because until they do gun ownership is not a "right". Rather double-tongued though, isn't it, to rely on a "pile of crap" to prove your "rights"? However, regardless of what arcane English law, common or legislated, says the Constitution of Canada takes precedence in Canada since its enactment. Once again, we are a sovereign nation.

If it is your right to own handguns, as you appear to be saying, then challenge any laws restricting them in a court. The supreme court has made it clear that true "rights" under the charter will be protected, if gay marriage is any indication, regardless of the government's preferences on the matter. When you put your money where your mouth is and have it argued before those who have the authority to finally and permanently decide the matter, then I will reconsider my opinions.

Finally, I repeatedly have stated that I am not opposed to gun ownership. Your statement that I am makes you a blatent liar.

To Palopu, yes I am aware that it is possible to hunt with guns in Britain, and not just by the aristocracy. I knew one such commoner when I was a teenager. However, the culture in Britain does not really support general gun ownership, or it did not when I was younger. Incidentally, fox hunting is now illegal. I would note that tradition does not make rights, although it makes it more difficult to restrict common practice, but the two are not the same. Once again, for general gun ownership I do not support restrictions particularly. Nutjobs are another case.

You also said, "The previous laws were more than sufficient to cover all aspects of gun ownership." I have commented in the past that I thought so too, but to your comment that, "The problem is not gun ownership, it is halfbaked politicians and under informed citizens", I would add those who manipulate the system to get guns for illicit purposes and use them to murder innocent young girls.

To Simonove, I agree with you.

To ammonra,

"To Simonove, I agree with you." Agree with me on what? Being specific helps.

"Of course not all gun lovers are nutcases, nobody said they were, but some are just as some car lovers are nutjobs racing down our streets and killing people in the process. Those idiots should not be licensed to drive in Canada and equivalent people from the gun loving world should not be allowed to get their hands on guns. What, precisely, is wrong with that viewpoint?"

Nothing is wrong with that viewpoint. However, I bet that quite a few of the uneducated people out there think we're all a bunch of gun-toting nuts. Again, why are we being discriminated against?

I think what some of us are trying to get across is HOW??? How do you prevent these people from not getting their hands on guns/cars/whatever? If they don't do it through legal means as a drivers license, they'll just steal a car and run someone down. So tell me just how you expect to keep the "bad people" from getting licenses to drive or own guns?

You don't unless you suggest we all go through psychiatric screening. Come on. We accept and learn and try to move on.

A number of years ago the Government put out a statistic that approx 80,000 people in the Province of British Columbia were driving while their license was under suspension, driving without a valid drivers license, or driving without valid insurance. It seems their solution to the problem was to bring in 3rd party liability which I have to pay for so that if I am in an accident with a person who has no license, or insurance, then I am covered.

This solution does not solve the problem, but it allows me to take responsibility for the lawbreakers. The same thing applies to the Gun Registry. Someone in Montreal breaks the law and murders people, and all law abiding gun owners in Canada must register thier guns. This will not stop the killing but it gives the impression the Government is doing something, when if fact it is doing nothing but costing us Billions of dollars.

There are other instances of law abiding citizens paying the price for the criminal element because of the inability of the Government to take the necessary action to solve the problem, but you get the picture.

LOL... this forum has to be the most entertaining yet.

- say what you may about someone's religion.
- say what you may about someone's spouse or child being ugly.
- say what you may about someone's political beliefs.

God forbid you get between a gun "enthusiast" and their "rights".

I know I should be scared but I guess a just feel a false sense of security by not associating with yahoos.

Funny, ammonra, what you said is right there in black and white:

------------------------------------------------
Similarly, People who love guns - based on style, or colour, or action, or power, or for whatever reaon - are simply projecting their own mind onto them. That was, in fact, Ben's point but better put by Akimoya. Ben, of course, was referring to the Rambo wannabees who think that touting a particular colour or style of gun in photos makes them a "warrior".
-------------------------------------------------

You claim that "gun lovers" are "projecting their own mind" onto their guns - "for whatever reason" they happen to "love guns", and you make a direct connection between your statement and Meisner's "Rambo Wannabees". "Rambo Wannabees" are, of course, projecting their mental image of themselves as "warriors" onto the type of gun they own.

So, who's zooming who?

ammonra continues with his(?) selective interpretation of the Charter of Rights - not to mention my statements about it. I posted the text of Section 26 for all to read, and it's quite plain:

"26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms ***shall not be construed as denying the existence*** of ***any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada.****"

I have shown that the right to "keep armes for our defense" was an extant right of Canadians, right up to and including the "patriation" of the Charter. But then again, there are none so blind as they who will not see...

ammonra's hand waving dismissal of all Englishmen's "true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties" as being "arcane" simply shows his position as a typical neo-liberal relativist: anything old must, by definition be "bad", since it cannot possibly be "progressive". That argument just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

ammonra tries to salvage his pathetic position by trying to claim that he's "in favour of gun ownership" - but only such guns, and by such people, as he deems to be "acceptable"

That isn't "freedom" in my book.

QuasiMe's sophomoric ad hominem attacks leave me completely underwhelmed...

Akimoya... doesn't it just go to show that your ilk would never socialize with mine?

"LOL... this forum has to be the most entertaining yet.

- say what you may about someone's religion.
- say what you may about someone's spouse or child being ugly.
- say what you may about someone's political beliefs.

God forbid you get between a gun "enthusiast" and their "rights".

I know I should be scared but I guess a just feel a false sense of security by not associating with yahoos."

This just proves my point.