Register or control

[ivbinconned]

I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.

~ H. L. Mencken

[15444]

One thing about the registry. I know some of you were saying that the gun registry really hasn't affected the normal responsible gun owner, and I agree. But the fear I have is that nobody asks what is stopping government from taking the next step?

Environmental activists don't want people to kill predators, no matter what they are doing to livestock, whether it be bears, cougars, wolves, coyotes, and what not. Heck, people even want to save the gophers in SK.

So once government knows where the guns are, what stops them from prohibiting certain people from having guns? What stops them from going to the point of saying, 'The cougar population is more important then a few cows or a few sheep!'...Eh? Take away the guns from farmers and tighten the hunting season and the coyote, bear, wolf, etc etc populations will bounce back!...but at what cost?

And why does it stop there?...the gun registry is the first step in controlling a person's right to defend himself and his/her property. And some people would say, 'Awww BS!!, that will never happen!' My reply, 'How do you know?'. All you need is a 'animal terrorist' to make a few threats on a few minister's lives and you would be amazed at how fast bills could be introduced to further hamper the right for people to own guns.

I thank people like ivebinconned for fighting stuff like the gun registry because I never look at a bill itself, I look at the direction the bill takes and what could happen with further legislation.

[ivbinconned]

Thank you 15444,

Lets look at some history;

*The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

If you add up the numbers, that amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who have been slaughtered by their own governments. The first step was always the same--rendering citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.

Freedom-loving people are at far more risk from their own government than from all the criminals in the world combined! An armed man/woman has a chance to defend himself/herself against any would-be gangster or criminal. An unarmed man/woman has no chance at all against anybody, especially an oppressive, tyrannical government.

An armed citizenry is the only force that insures freedom. It isn't the militias that can insure freedom. It is simply the fact that if nearly every home owner is also a gun owner there isn't an army in the world big or strong enough to take the freedom of an armed populace like that, and tyrants know it

I refuse to be the frog in a slow warming frying pan.

Tyrants know something else too, a policy of speed creates alarm, go it slow, and most will not reconize the long term goal.
I live in prime whitetail area and from the mid seventies to now we have noticed a 70% drop in hunters. Driven by much higher licence fees and the registration chill!

[cakadu]

I can understand both sides to this gun registry issue - can't say I agree with everything, but I understand.

I also understand that there has been a drop in hunting numbers over the years - for a variety of reasons. How much effect do you suppose the anti-hunting message has had and the fact that it is no longer as socially acceptable to hunt? What about the fact that there are far more activities that one can partake in to offset hunting?

It seems that avid hunters will not be deterred by any of the above and will continue to hunt as long as they are able to. (I'm speaking with the voice of experience here - not that I'm a hunter, but I happen to live with one.)

[StrawBoss]

Have no fear we don’t need guns to shoot government people if we don’t like their policies because we have elections every four years and can kick them out by not re-electing them.

We need a realistic opposition so people have a choice to elect a new government if they don’t like the present policies, but just to babble that everything is wrong and we need crazies with guns --- warlords and followers controlling the government so it doesn’t too powerful and take away our rights is ludicrous.

Listing countries that were not truly democratic and comparing their gun laws with Canadian gun registry and suggesting we will loose our freedom is mind boggling that some Canadians even think that way.

Countries with established democracy will always remain that way and people will be free to own guns and use them responsibly, and I hope that there will always be laws to prevent crazies to own guns.

I suppose if you only dwell on all the wrongs and don’t trust your neighbor you will eventually be afraid of your own shadow.

[ivbinconned]

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

Strawboss....you ain't no Ben franklin

[ivbinconned]

Nor a Jefferson...


Thomas Jefferson had strong feelings on the subject. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

[StrawBoss]

Ivbinconned; you are right, I am not Ben Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson nor would I want to be because I am a individual that enjoys life to its fullest and also trust my neighbors.
I don’t quote other people’s ambiguous phrases or riddles that can be interpreted in many ways and they don’t serve any real guidance in life.
You seem to like ambiguous statements because there is no wrong or right in their interpretation and only one’s bias opinion.

May I say it again, this is only a coffee shop and we will never solve all the world problems or make new friends by being catty.

[ivbinconned]

Strawboss; nor am I a Ben Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson but I would strive to be, because they where individuals that enjoyed life to its fullest and also trusted their neighbors. Like I do.
They where leaders of strong convictions, something we don't see much of today. They did'nt mince words.

I do quote other people’s phrases or statements that can't be interpreted in many ways, they have been quoted down through time,and they do serve real guidance in life.

Alas they get no respect from todays liberal thinkers.

You seem to like uttering ambiguous statements because there is no wrong or right in their interpretation and only one’s bias opinion.

May I say it too, this is only a coffee shop and we will never solve all the worlds problems or make new friends by being catty.