🚀 go-pugleaf

ve6yj@compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: In article <1995Nov30.141212.43771@ac.dal.ca>,
:    parkerr@is.dal.ca (Scaryn) wrote:
: >	
: >	1) I have a car. It is registered. It is still fun to drive, I 
: >can do everything with it that I could if it wasn't registered. Why would 
: >registering a gun make it less enjoyable to own, use, hunt with, etc? The 
: >argument "In my family, there has been a gun over the kitchen door for 
: >generations." So what? It still will be, especially if you are as 
: >responsible as most gun-owners say they are.

: Heh heh - WRONG!  Here is the difference.  When NEITHER is registered.  You 
: place an unregistered vehicle on your property and you can own it, kick the 
: tires, start it up, rev the motor, hell, even drive it around the back forty 
: if your lot is that big.  An unregistered gun in the framework of C-68?  
: Merely owning it as unregistered puts you in jail.  When was the last time 
: somebody got led away for having an unregistered car on their lot.  This is 
: why the car anology is bullshit.
      
  Heh heh heh- WRONG! My comparison is of registered cars, not
their unregistered counterparts. My REGISTERED car is still fun to drive.
Why isn't your REGISTERED gun fun to shoot?

: >	2) Any object can be lethal, baseball bats, knives, etc (i 
: >believe many examples have been given). However, I don't think anything 
: >kills human beings quite as quickly and efficiently as a gun, other than 
: >a massive explosion.

: Wrong again.  Electricity, lethal gas (like H2S).
    
Yes, but how often does electricity get used as a weapon of mass
destruction? When was the last time some crazed lunatic zapped all
his friends in a restaurant?

: >Registration (_NOT_ confiscation) of these guns seems reasonable to me.

: Well SORRY, the shit-twits couldn't stop at registration and the CONFISCATION 
: powers ARE there, and THAT'S one of the piss-offs, NOT TO MENTION search and 
: seizure.  That, and the ability for the government, with no further vote 
: required on the floor, answerable to nobody except themselves, can decide to 
: declare a weapon illegal on the spot with no compensation for the registered 
: owner, and crimonal charges for non-compliance.

   Right. The government of Canada, a democratic country, is
answerable to no one at all. When did I miss the sudden shift to  
dictatorship? I think that is an uninformed statement. Did you vote in
the last election? Will you vote in the next one? How many letters did
you write your MP (hopefully with less foul language) about this matter?
Or do you just whine on the Internet, where nobody even has to know your
name?


: >	3) A basic fact: if there was no gun in my house, my kid couldn't 
: >shoot his friend with it. Basic fact: if the gun was locked up with a 
: >trigger lock, he couldn't shoot his friend either. Locking a gun up, 
: >therefore, seems to be a REASONABLE comprimise between owning a gun and 
: >insuring that it is safe. This locking up of a gun is a regulation, just 
: >like registration would be. These laws are meant to protect people, not 
: >persecute gun owners. I don't understand why gun owners think these laws 
: >are so much of a problem. 

: If your kid was raised with some decent values, you could set a gun on the 
: table with a bullet in the breech and s/he would know well enough to leave it 
: the hell alone.  C-68 doesn't cure shit.  It does not legislate common sense. 
:  Not persecute gun owners?  With C-68, reasonable grounds goes out the window. 
:  Now any fucking crackpot can call up the cops and say, "I think my neighbor 
: is storing an illegal weapon" and the cops can march right in - no need for 
: the crank to prove s/he actually SAW anything, but the now suspect will have 
: to prove that there is indeed no weapon.  THAT is what C-68 does.

       Yep. Ignorance of what a gun can do is all the child needs to
make one mistake. I can raise a kid with excellent values, but they
still probably won't learn until they try that the stove is pretty damn
hot. And I don't believe that any law in Canada requires that you are guilty
until you can prove that you are innocent. That is fundamental,
and no legislation will change that in the near future. Perhaps a better
understanding and less paranoia would be helpful to your "argument".


--
**********************************************************************
*     R. Scott Parker		* "If there's nothing wrong with me, *
*  University of King's College * then there must be something wrong *
*    parkerr@is.dal.ca		* with the universe." -B. Crusher,MD *
**********************************************************************