🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3E1F28BD.16A5DABC@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> 
> 
> no org wrote:
> 
> > In article <3E1E070B.B2DE4B5C@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> > >
> > >
> > > no org wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3E1DDB3B.C1078B3D@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > no org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <3E1DD75E.86DAA265@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Darin wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sadly, I don't think the present laws could have prevented this
> > > > > > > > > recent tragedy:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Boy, 6, dies after being shot by sister, 7
> > > > > > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/04/boy_shot030104
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is definitely a tragedy of the worst kind and unfortunately it could
> > > > > > > > have been very easily prevented by locking the guns and ammo up and store
> > > > > > > > them properly "unloaded". Registration would have made no difference in the
> > > > > > > > out come of this, common sense would have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Part of the whole law includes the requirement for safe storage, if the gun had
> > > > > > > been legally registered the police could have ascertained (beforehand) if the
> > > > > > > owner met those requirements for safe storage of a handgun.  A big part of the
> > > > > > > law is to license owners and in doing so make them aware of proper safety
> > > > > > > procedures for storage and handling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't need a billion dollar gun registry to make it a legal
> > > > > > requirement to store your firearms safely and to make gun owners aware
> > > > > > of those requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't dispute that it should not have cost $1billion.  The registry allows
> > > > > police to know what kind of weapons you have and then to check to see if you do
> > > > > store them appropriately.
> > > >
> > > > A wholly unjustified invasion of privacy. And it isn't the actual cost
> > > > it is that a registry is unecessary in order to require proper storage.
> > > > Once it is proven that you have improperly stored your firearm then you
> > > > can be charged; however that is not a justification for pre-emptive
> > > > inspections by the police... at least as long as a philosophy of
> > > > innocent until prioven guilty prevails. By the same logic being applied
> > > > here the local firedept should have the right to enter your home and
> > > > make sure you are not storing solvents unsafely, that your chimney is
> > > > clean, that etc. etc.; then the municipality should have the right to
> > > > come inspect to make sure your wiring is safe etc. etc.
> > >
> > > The government does have the right to inspect houses and businesses to ensure they are
> > > safe, and for that matter vehicles, why not the safe storage of deadly weapons?
> >
> > Governments have the right to inspect your building when it is being
> > built or modified. THey don't have the right to simply walk up and
> > demand entrance any time of the day or night for no good reason.
> 
> I would argue the presence of deadly weapons is in fact a good reason. If you don't want that
> hassle don't own a gun, goes with if you don't want the hassle of taking a driving test, or
> getting insurance, don't drive.  The police can demand you prove that your car is insured and
> registered and safe anytime you are on the road, because a gun can easily act from one
> property to another, they are simply extending this necessary power.

Hey so could a car *if* I decide to make it yet they don't seem to 
require the right to come onto my property any time they feel like it to 
check that my car is properly licenesed and stored. And if the presence 
of deadly weapons is good enough reason then so is the presence of 
explosive substances, e.g. gasoline. 

> >
> >
> > >  But the
> > > law does allow for those inspections.  It has little to do with innocent until proven
> > > guilty but to do with regulation.  People need regulation, particularly when dealing
> > > with lethal things that can hurt others.  People have to get over the silly American
> > > notion that gun ownership is a right, it is a privilege and to enjoy that privilege you
> > > must obey certain restrictions.  The gvt has the right to demand a medical test to prove
> > > you are fit to drive, fly or do other things why not prove you are storing guns
> >
> > Not when I am on my own private property. If I want to I can drive my
> > truck around the farm all day long without a license for me or the
> > truck.
> 
> Yes but if the municipality you live in says so you cannot have a dog without a license on
> your private property and they can come on to your property to accretion the existence of

You mean acertain? 

> that dog.  The point is that the government does have the right to regulate you regardless of
> where you are, they simply choose not to regulate driving on your property, it isn't that
> they could not do so. A gun used even on your own property has the potential to hurt those
> not on your property and thus needs regulation.

Well if it comes to that the gov't can do anything it wants given its 
ability to use deadly force and imprisonment. But that is hardly a 
justification now is it? Lots of things on my property can hurt others 
not on my property. So what? When does it all stop?

 
> >
> >
> > > responsibly.  The point is to reverse the onus of proof initially.  I would say it is
> > > reasonable to demand you show how you will store before you get an initial registration
> > > (but only for the first one).
> >
> > That's the problem - you have a less free society everytime some new
> > rule comes in that will "reverse the onus of proof" - first the
> > government should have to show that there will in fact be a general
> > benefit (something it has so far failed to do with long gun
> > registration) and second it should have to show that that benefit far
> > outweighs the loss of civil liberty implied.
> 
> Once again what liberty?  You do not have an inalienable right to a gun!  You can only have a

No, just a right to privacy.

> loss of liberty if there is in fact such a liberty to lose.  You have no right to possess
> weapons that threaten public safety.

If it comes to that none of us have any right to own anything. You want 
to live in a society like that? I don't.