Canadian Gun Laws.

Redfrog

Redfrog

Moderator
We don't have a second amendment right for someone to mess with. We just have some politicians with no clue about firearms making laws for those that own and do know something about them

We fought to keep the long gun registry from becoming a reality. Unfortunately it was put in place. It took us 20 years to get it scrapped, but we did get it scrapped.

We are not sitting on our successes, we are trying to get more laws changed, tossed or re written.

We could use some support. I know most of you are not Canadians, but we are all hunters and what affects one affects us all.

Check out this site and join us in our struggles for gun rights.

http://www.wildernessprotection.ca/

You can also friend them on FB.
 
Last edited:
Beyond the Second Ammendment, one of the most powerful protection mechanisims has been from the state level here in the US. Over the last 30 years, many states have passed state constitution ammendments that protect gun rights, the right to hunt, and so on.

We, as you in Canada, found out the hard way: Nothing to do with gun rights can be trusted to the Federal government. Which in both our countries is increasingly over-run with urbaite liberals who are born into the Ruling Class and tend to understand only the intrest of the urban central belt.

Taking the power away from the Federal Government is a key weapon in the fight against gun grabbers.

Grouse
 
In most cases new gun laws in this country have ntohing to do with guns or safety, and everything to do with property rights and political control.

Voter turnout is shameful at best. In our system a politician does not need more than 50% of the population to vote for him. He doesn't even need 50% of the voters to vote for him. He simply needs the mot votes from those who show up to exercise the right to vote that thousands have died to protect.

So voter turnout can be 40% of eligible voters. A candidate can get 40% of that vote and become elected.

Do the math. that means that a person could get elected with only 16% of the population voting for him. The other 84% don't want him or can't be bothered to vote.

Take it further. Out of the 16% who voted for him, how many are in favor of firearms rights?

How do guys like Obama, Pelosi, Holder etc. get elected. In Canada how do the Libs, or NDP get elected?

People sit on their hands until after the election and then they complain.

We need to support each other and get out and vote, or the inmates will be running the asylum.
 
Originally Posted By: RedfrogIn most cases new gun laws in this country have ntohing to do with guns or safety, and everything to do with property rights and political control.

Voter turnout is shameful at best. In our system a politician does not need more than 50% of the population to vote for him. He doesn't even need 50% of the voters to vote for him. He simply needs the mot votes from those who show up to exercise the right to vote that thousands have died to protect.

So voter turnout can be 40% of eligible voters. A candidate can get 40% of that vote and become elected.

Do the math. that means that a person could get elected with only 16% of the population voting for him. The other 84% don't want him or can't be bothered to vote.

Take it further. Out of the 16% who voted for him, how many are in favor of firearms rights?

How do guys like Obama, Pelosi, Holder etc. get elected. In Canada how do the Libs, or NDP get elected?

People sit on their hands until after the election and then they complain.

We need to support each other and get out and vote, or the inmates will be running the asylum.

The problem is the same in both countries. When you watch a segment of "Water's World" the problem becomes obvious.

My son has a theory he calls the overlap theory in which he states that 70% of the people are idiots and 80% are apathetic.

God help us.

Regards,
hm
 
There are days I believe your son nailed it..
thumbup.gif
 
Slightly off topic, Red, but in speaking to some western province Canadians who live next to my parents in the winter (Arizona, of course) and in finding out my occupation, they asked: Do you think we have any chance at joining the USA?

I thought they were joking. Obviously, I'd never heard this from anyone east of Manitoba and, in fact, just the opposite. If ever I wanted to know everything that was wrong with America, the quickest way to do so would be ask someone from Ontario.

At the time, I was unaware that there was actually a real political line of thought within the western provinces that was considering this idea. One of the gentlemen from SK clued me in to the fact that there is real angst within the western provinces over the idea that the west supplies the money and does the work and the east supplies all the rules and spends all the money.

So the conversation came back to what were their chances and I had to say, not good. The USA is not currently shopping for extra states and I'm afraid Ottawa would not take kindly to the whole "take the oil and make a run for it" concept. Interesting thinking, though.

Grouse
 
I'd bet it would not happen.

No doubt there is some anti American sentiment in Canada as well as anti Canadian sentiment in the U.S.
The people I hang with are not of that mindset. It usually rests with people who simply have no idea which way is up down or sideways.

Quebec has cried, stamped it's feet and general been a pita regarding their province and it's standing in Canada. They have voted to separate a few times. Always fails by a few votes. There are plenty of Canadians that would help them pack, but like so many things today, it is a political game.

The system is broken and can't be fixed with bandaids.

the east howls about the 'tar sands' when there are no 'tar sands. They howl about dirty oil but the environmental standards for the energy industry are often beyond reasonable or believable. They won't develop their own energy reserves, but, they are ok with taking transfer payments from oil rich provinces.

Some things about the U.S. are appealing, but somethings are not.

When we see 'undocumented shoppers" in Ferguson, it is difficult to say " we need some of that".
 
those undocumented shoppers? you can have all of them. we'll throw in a prez and vice prez also.

this prez and his administration give a whole new level to the term 'vice'
 
I'll pass on that deal. It boggles my mind to listen to the news each day to find Obama has done something more outrageous than the day before and everyone seems to be afraid of him.
 
Originally Posted By: RedfrogI'll pass on that deal. It boggles my mind to listen to the news each day to find Obama has done something more outrageous than the day before and everyone seems to be afraid of him.

Well, that's fair enough because you guys up in Canadaland ended up with all those Hollywierd celebos who pledged to move to up there and renounce their US citizenship if George W. Bush got re-elected. Oh, wait.... None of them actually did.

As long as we're on the subject of Canadaland, Red, what the heck is the deal with beer and booze prices up there? C'mon, you actually MAKE the stuff, but it's priced like the cans are made with unobtanium or something.

[beeep], I went into the bottle shop in Saskatoon and [beeep] near died of sticker shock right there on the spot. I mean, it's not like 10% more or 20% more, it's like 50-70% more. Are the taxes really that high on booze up there?

Grouse
 
It's not the taxes at all. It's just that pour beer and booze is of such a higher quality, it costs more to build it.
tt2.gif


A bottle of Cuervo here is around $40-$44. When I go to the Pm hunt I've seen it in Walgreens for $13.
Beer is crazy here. I drink a cheaper beer and it is $25 for 15 cans.
 
Back
Top