January 29th, 2010 06:01 PM
I forgot to put that there is 33 million Canadians and 7.5 million firearms so 22% of the people own guns
Since there are 300 million people in the US that same percentage would be 66 million registered guns. That is alot of guns for a country that allegedly has no guns even if they are registered.
January 29th, 2010 06:10 PM
Actually, there are no national registration requirements here. Some states have them but most do not.
The number of guns here has been suggested at anywhere from 180 million to over 200 million. How they came up with that number I have no idea.
I can name at least a dozen of my close friends that have anywhere from 50 to over 100.
That is correct. That fact is the ONLY reason that we still have them and it greatly perplexes those that would have us get rid of our guns.
I believe the difference between our country and most is that we have the right to bear arms in our constitution. I doubt that Canada, England or Australia say anything about that in whatever they have
As for Canada, how difficult is to carry a handgun there? Can you use one for hunting or self defense? Does it have to be registered? Why? What is the penalty if you dont? Why is there a penalty?
See where I am going with this?
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
January 29th, 2010 06:37 PM
Die before you go into battle.....then you need not fear death............
Better than death by a thousand cuts..........
January 29th, 2010 06:41 PM
Im not riding that wave...
I whole heartedly believe that the Govt. can and will eventually make an attempt, an all out attempt to take our 2a.
You can disbelieve all you want but I will continue my end of the world stockpile!
"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan
January 29th, 2010 07:02 PM
It can happen by process of erosion. Some people are so stupid as to sign a petition repealing the First Amendment (yes, they really are). They have no concept of history except to rattle off the games that were available for PlayStation 1.0 and the make of their first cell phone.
One need only look at the patchwork of existing and wholly unnecessary firearms laws to realize that the possiblity exists. Will stormtroopers go door-to-door turning homes inside out? No. Will there be taxes upon taxes covering firearms and ammo? Yes. Fines and fees in the guise of "health care" for the added risk of owning a firearm? You bet. Regulations galore covering ever-tightening restrictions on carry and storage? Yep. Excessive taxes levied against firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers? Oh yes.
Universal Health Care is a bureaucratic wet dream waiting to happen. The potential for far-reaching power in the name of "health" and the ability to squeeze revenue from the people and private businesses to support it is all right there.
It's harder and harder to legally own a gun in this country, while fewer and fewer people appreciate their value.
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
January 29th, 2010 07:15 PM
Funny, I was thinking the same, hey you do speak for me..., you mind calling my wife about that thing I did yesterday
Originally Posted by QKShooter
Timid people sleep peacefully at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
January 29th, 2010 08:01 PM
You put it better than I could have. I believe it will take decades, but they'll continue to slowly erode gun rights as they can and brainwash the public into voting the 2nd amendment out of existence if they can.
Originally Posted by jumpwing
If they make an immediate type confiscation push, well, there's supposedly 80 million firearms owners in this country, and if only 10% of them fight back.... Well, just saying...
"Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" - John Parker April 19th, 1775 Lexington, MA
January 29th, 2010 08:17 PM
I think it would go over like prohibition and the banning of various narcotics. There would be those that comply, those that pretend to comply, and those that profit tremendously by providing the people what they want.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
January 29th, 2010 08:58 PM
Maybe not an outright ban, but little by little, in obscure pieces of buried legislation, it might become extemely difficult to purchase guns, or to get ammo, or to get permits... the list goes on.
We just need to stay vigilant as to the laws that are being passed, and to protest by writing letters to lawmakers, when necessary.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin
January 29th, 2010 09:00 PM
QUOTE=Horsetrader;1450433]Maybe I don't get the big deal. My grandpappy used to say "Politicians can pass any stupid law they want. FREE men decide whether that law gets complied to or whether that law goes on the trash heap of politicians' great ideas. It is citizens accepting and being compliant that makes a law stick." Good example: buy booze lately. Prohibition didn't work. So they outlaw private ownership of guns....the amount of NON-Compliance by FREE AMERICANS will decide if it works out the way the politicians desire. But maybe their true desire is to crush the "will of the people". Using the Constitution argument has worked for us in the past...but this new crowd of PROGRESSIVES do not view the Constitution as we do. THEY see the Constitution as a living document that shifts with the winds of time. In the Progressive mind the 2A is outdated in this modern world and time. Watch these guys, they are slippery using language that sounds good and is dangerous to LIBERTY.
Originally Posted by mcp1810
Just my opinion and no, I'm not suggesting rioting in the streets or lawless behavior or encouraging anyone to act against any law or authority.[/QUOTE]
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
January 29th, 2010 09:07 PM
January 29th, 2010 10:25 PM
I don't think there is a danger of sudden confiscation. It is quite simply not feasible as you pointed out (due to the massive number of arms and reluctance of people to give them up).
The bigger danger is a gradual erosion over many decades. First machine gun registration, then Brady background checks, requiring dealers to sell firearms interstate, then stopping issuing tax stamps for the machine gun registration, prohibiting possession in certain places (schools, fed buildings), then an assault weapons ban...then a handgun ban, then a semi-automatic ban, then a sniper rifle ban, and so on.
The constitution states that we are to have an armed populace. As long as the constitution stands, we will.
"a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.
January 30th, 2010 01:00 AM
Actually, in Canada they have.
Originally Posted by HotGuns
CBC News - Toronto - Toronto police seize 400 guns in safety push
Toronto police seize 400 guns in safety push
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 | 5:48 PM ET Comments59Recommend21CBC News
Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms from registered owners in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns on the city's streets.
There's a previous thread about this here: The only reason for Registration
January 30th, 2010 09:51 AM
The US Supreme Court is 5 - 4 on this issue right now. The one appointment Obama made tells us his standard for supreme court justice does not include a person that believes in the right to self protection. We are one appointment away from not having the Heller decision or a chance to prevail in Chicago or myriad other potential cases. As others have said, it will be loss by 1000 cuts with each cut upheld by an anti self protection Supreme Court. As many have said, elections have consequences.
The tragedy in my mind is the people most in need of self protection are minority and poor. The very group that supports politicians that are anti self protection.
January 30th, 2010 10:26 AM
Many in our wonderful body of elected "leadership" are already using the Constitution as toilet paper. It very well could happen. Many will comply. Others, as quoted above, won't - until it becomes a self-defense situation. Then, as in England, the victim is hung out to dry with ZERO legal defense. An example is made and more people willingly turn in their guns under an amnesty program. It's very possible here....
So they outlaw private ownership of guns....the amount of NON-Compliance by FREE AMERICANS will decide if it works out the way the politicians desire. But maybe their true desire is to crush the "will of the people". Using the Constitution argument has worked for us in the past...but this new crowd of PROGRESSIVES do not view the Constitution as we do. THEY see the Constitution as a living document that shifts with the winds of time. In the Progressive mind the 2A is outdated in this modern world and time. Watch these guys, they are slippery using language that sounds good and is dangerous to LIBERTY.
Perhaps people will wake up and realize that we the people have to hold our elected "wise ones" accountable. Elections have far-reaching consequences.
Last edited by sniper58; January 30th, 2010 at 10:28 AM.
BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
NRA Life Member
By V10 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 23rd, 2009, 08:54 PM
By sniper58 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: September 28th, 2009, 04:10 PM
By AZUSMC22 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 10th, 2008, 02:16 AM
By atctimmy in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
Last Post: July 2nd, 2008, 04:41 AM
By slimjim in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 26th, 2006, 06:20 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors