Canada politicians: "No reason to have a gun at home."

progunner1957

Moderator
Canada's politicians are getting to be as stupid as England's politicians. With as many asinine gun-hater politicians as we have here in America, at least we can still have guns at home.

If I lived in Canada, I would move - south.

Store guns in central depot
Mayor: No reason to have a firearm at home, Miller says
James Cowan
National Post


Tuesday, August 16, 2005


Gun owners in Toronto may soon be prohibited from keeping their firearms at home even if they are properly licensed and registered, Mayor David Miller said yesterday.

"There's no reason to own a gun in Toronto -- collector or not. If you are a collector and you have a permit, the guns need to be stored in a way that they can't be stolen. And perhaps a centralized facility of some kind could accomplish that goal," Mr. Miller told the National Post. "The law requires gun owners to have proper storage, but obviously not everyone adheres to that."

Following a spate of shootings in Toronto, the Mayor has asked city lawyers and the police to determine whether the municipality has the "legal ability" to require individuals to store their weapons at a secure facility such as a gun club.

"It's a very serious issue and I don't have all the answers to it, but I've spoken to the [Police] Chief as well as our own legal department to see what we can do," Mr. Miller said.

The Mayor has repeatedly blamed lax gun laws in the United States for some of Toronto's violence, saying half of the firearms in the city originated in the United States.

While pressing the federal government to stem the smuggling of guns across the border, Mr. Miller said steps must also be taken steps to address domestic gun problems.

"I understand there was one theft from a collector two years ago, where some of the guns were recovered after being used in murders in Toronto," he said.

Police have also speculated a theft in June of 46 handguns, along with three rifles and ammunition, from a collector in Port Hope, 100 kilometres east of the city, has contributed to the recent increase in shootings.

Mr. Miller noted several U.S. cities such as Chicago have passed ordinances restricting handgun ownership. But legal gun owners argue the new rules would only make life simpler for criminals.

"It would just put all the firearms in one place so they could all be stolen at one time," said Eric Greer of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. "That would be a wonderful thing."

Mr. Greer added the Mayor's proposal would not prevent criminals from acquiring weapons, noting Canada enacted its first handgun registry in 1934.

"It hasn't made one iota of difference. And the reason is the people that registered their handguns don't commit the crimes. The people who commit crimes don't register their guns. It's as simple as that," he said.

Other gun owners said they are tired of being conflated with murderers and thieves.

"There are legal gun owners all over Ontario who don't go around brandishing their guns, who go through the whole rigamarole to get licensed properly," said Bill, a member of the Maple Leaf Revolver Club, who asked his last name not be used citing safety concerns. "The Mayor's not thinking properly."

He added most gun owners would support tough sentences for individuals caught using firearms to commit a crime.

"At most of the clubs, you will hear people say, 'Arrest the guy, look at the law and if the law says to throw him away for five years or 10 years, do it,' " the gun owner said.

Mr. Miller agreed the courts must be more stringent, noting individuals caught with weapons currently are routinely released on bail.

"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."

© National Post 2005
 
You know, all this talk of our neighbor to the north disarming makes me almost tempted to become a lowlife criminal. I bet Canada will be pretty easy pickins in a few years.

(I'm not serious, government stooges who monitor this site.)
 
"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody,"

The ultra-leftist logic hard at work. :barf:
 
I've got two words for these politician control freaks.... No, no, no - you misjudge me... The two words are just: "shut up." :p :p
 
dolanp wrote:
"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody,"


The ultra-leftist logic hard at work.


Yep. Anyone who has a kitchen knife should be treated like they've stabbed their wife in a domestic dispute.

So we see just how far leftist logic can be carried before it collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.

What about cops? Should cops be treated like they've engaged in police brutality because they carry extendable batons?


The big problem is, we never get to expose this lunacy in public forums, like on the news, etc. The media don't carry our voices far enough, loud enough, for the promulgators of such idiocy to be suitably laughed out of office.

-blackmind
 
A bunch of non-sense.

Germany is very strict with guns but people can have them. You have to get a reason to own in germany, like example:collector or personal defense or sport. they dont let random people have. I was in military so i was very easy to have.

But even in germany we dont have that bad as canada seems. in germany we have a law that states man should be bale to have a firearm for sporting or defense you know. but we have to have seprate for sport and carry license, and most people cant get a carry license.

and the crazy part, you have to have a carry license to use in your own home for defense hahaha, oh well could be worse.
 
The mayor of Toronto should try telling that to the people that do not live in Mega-cities further North, a firearm is still a very handy TOOL to have at hand up North in Canada.



Mr. Miller :barf:

Put him in the woods North of 60 and he'll change his mind PDQ...

MD
 
Blackmind you are aware that the Brits are considering banning large kitchen knives right? No kidding they are debating it now. No damn it I am not kidding and it is only a matter of time before those wacky Canadians take up that cause as well. This is the same country that refuses to arm the border police because they don't "want to encourge a gun culture" like they have in the US. :barf: My relatives in the great white north can't understand why I refuse to visit. Most of the time I get tired of watching them jump when the soc government tells them to so just stay home.
 
"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody,"

Using that logic, every woman who has the equipment to be a prostitue should be treated as though she has actually engaged in prostitution and has just returned from an alley and collected 10 bucks. :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
People like the Mayor don't seem to understand that by definition a criminal is a person who has broken the law- and thus is probably not to perturbed about breaking other laws related to firearms.
 
Mr. Miller agreed the courts must be more stringent, noting individuals caught with weapons currently are routinely released on bail.

"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."

Uhm, I think several of you are rushing to a conclusion by taking things out of context.

Well, that and a set of misplaced commas. He's telling you that people who have illegal guns, regardless of having used them, shouldn't get out on bail.

Work on your reading comprehension, folks.
 
I did not see one mention of the mayor making an effort for stiffer penalties when caught after an illegal act. At least he did say we (U.S.) were only half at fault.
 
Well, that and a set of misplaced commas. He's telling you that people who have illegal guns, regardless of having used them, shouldn't get out on bail.


"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."


My reading comprehension skills tell me that this Mayor is stating that the allegation of one crime - illegal possession of a firearm - should automatically be escalated to the allegation of another far more serious crime i.e., attempted murder, without any evidence or probable cause to make that second allegation.

Further that based upon that second unsubstantiated allegation that the alleged criminal should be not allowed bail until after he has been tried. In other words (for those who actualy have reading comprehension problems) - the Mayor wants to change the law from illegal possession of a firearm, to attempted murder.

To add insult to that insanity, this attempted murder charge would also automatically and without prejudice block bail for that person.

For example: A tourist who is caught with a gun would be charged with attempted murder and held without bail while waiting trial.
 
f somebody has a gun that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant.

See, remove a comma and he's telling you that if the firearm is illegal, then if they've used it or not is unimportant.

I agree, illegal firearm possession SHOULD severely prosecuted..

They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody,

Yep.

"So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."

Oh, look, until they are properly tried.

Works for me.
 
They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody

Yep.

They haven't shot or tried to kill somebody, but they should be treated as though they have, locked up and denied bail.

Thank you Lord that you are not in law enforcement or the judicial system.
 
Up here in canada if you don't have the right lisence to own a particular firearm or it is not registared as being owned by you or if it belongs to a friend of yours you don't have the regestration certicicate or it is a prohibited firearm that is illegal firearm possesion in a nut shell ain't the govt grand
 
How much better said than this?

Patrick Henry (J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836):
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Revised 5th Amendment: "...nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless the FBI, the DEA, the IRS, the National Park Service, the EEOC, the FDA, any other regulatory agency, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Executive says otherwise." -- Jim Hranicky
 
Back
Top