Gun Rights in Canada
Being of the generation that did go to school 50 years ago, I never saw a gun in my life that one of my peers brought to school, it wasn't heard of. I am not even sure that cops had guns back then, I think guns were a last resort back then, long time ago.
I think that there is a lot of black and white thinking on the gun regulations. Some gun owners may think that a regulation/law is set to deprive people of their rights where as instead, I do believe that they are meant to regulate how guns are used and educate and ensure the safety of our citizens to the best of our ability.
The regulation part is meant to be a part of the assurance that the person that has the gun is educated in a way that the gun is not used for the killing of humans or animals for game.
Several months back I came across a man that was flaunting his guns and at the same time he was also showing hostility toward posters in a group. I do believe that is a sound reason to be afraid of and that he could possibly be harmful to others, especially when he suggest that taking a gun and shooting non game animals simply for the pleasure doing it.
I do not understand why it would be necessary to have Weapons of War for sale here in Canada, we are not in a war and there is no imminent threat of ground war here. Why would someone need a gun (forgive my ignorance of knowledge here), but a gun that shoots automatic rounds of bullets, what is their use except for killing?
I have no objection to hunting with guns.
Our laws keep us safer than in the U.S. where the NRA has totally blown the regulation factor out of proportion as does 80% of their citizens believe.
I would hate to see the corruption that has happened with the NRA here in Canada, there is, in my opinion no reason for NFA to be related to politics in any financial way. (perhaps I am naive, I must say though I'd rather a guy flies to a privately owned island and admits it than someone like the conservatives have in charge who is obviously already bought off get in charge without disclosure of who is backing them)
Right now our gun laws/regulations/safety courses make us safer and at the same time do not restrict the rights of either those that do not wish to own a gun and those that do.
Our Bill of Rights are easily covered by the first right on the list:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Cops don't make the law, they uphold it. I am confused as to why you say that they are not licensed.
Every person, regardless of whether they are members of the RCMP or Police must have a Possession and Acquisition Licence. I am curious as to why you would say they don't have licenses?
Three teachers lost their lives on Feb. 14 trying to save themselves and their students from an unstable person who was an owner of a Weapon of War, that was a violation of the rights of every person in that school and really, isn't freedom the reason we live here in North America? I don't feel I should have to go out and get a gun to defend myself from someone who is unstable and does not know the difference between life and death and in that sense right and wrong. Nor do I think it should be a pre-requisite for a teacher to teach to have to have a gun to defend themselves and their students.
The cost of bearing arms should remain with those who wish to do so, just as we license people to drive, that money is spent in ways to facilitate the roads and the enforcement of the law with regards to driving, so to, should those that want to own guns have to contribute not only to the cost of upholding amendment (a) in our Canadian Bill of Rights, but also bear the cost of the education and requirement for mental stability including a check on whether a person is stable in every way to be the bearer of arms that are not detrimental to our society.
For that matter, I also believe just as a Doctor can deny patients of the right to drive, so too, should they be charged with the responsibility to report and restrict someone to the Gun Licencing unit in the matter of mental instability.
As I see it, I think that covers both as best it can:
"security of the person and enjoyment of property"
I think that there is a lot of black and white thinking on the gun regulations. Some gun owners may think that a regulation/law is set to deprive people of their rights where as instead, I do believe that they are meant to regulate how guns are used and educate and ensure the safety of our citizens to the best of our ability.
The regulation part is meant to be a part of the assurance that the person that has the gun is educated in a way that the gun is not used for the killing of humans or animals for game.
Several months back I came across a man that was flaunting his guns and at the same time he was also showing hostility toward posters in a group. I do believe that is a sound reason to be afraid of and that he could possibly be harmful to others, especially when he suggest that taking a gun and shooting non game animals simply for the pleasure doing it.
I do not understand why it would be necessary to have Weapons of War for sale here in Canada, we are not in a war and there is no imminent threat of ground war here. Why would someone need a gun (forgive my ignorance of knowledge here), but a gun that shoots automatic rounds of bullets, what is their use except for killing?
I have no objection to hunting with guns.
Our laws keep us safer than in the U.S. where the NRA has totally blown the regulation factor out of proportion as does 80% of their citizens believe.
I would hate to see the corruption that has happened with the NRA here in Canada, there is, in my opinion no reason for NFA to be related to politics in any financial way. (perhaps I am naive, I must say though I'd rather a guy flies to a privately owned island and admits it than someone like the conservatives have in charge who is obviously already bought off get in charge without disclosure of who is backing them)
Right now our gun laws/regulations/safety courses make us safer and at the same time do not restrict the rights of either those that do not wish to own a gun and those that do.
Our Bill of Rights are easily covered by the first right on the list:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Cops don't make the law, they uphold it. I am confused as to why you say that they are not licensed.
Every person, regardless of whether they are members of the RCMP or Police must have a Possession and Acquisition Licence. I am curious as to why you would say they don't have licenses?
Three teachers lost their lives on Feb. 14 trying to save themselves and their students from an unstable person who was an owner of a Weapon of War, that was a violation of the rights of every person in that school and really, isn't freedom the reason we live here in North America? I don't feel I should have to go out and get a gun to defend myself from someone who is unstable and does not know the difference between life and death and in that sense right and wrong. Nor do I think it should be a pre-requisite for a teacher to teach to have to have a gun to defend themselves and their students.
The cost of bearing arms should remain with those who wish to do so, just as we license people to drive, that money is spent in ways to facilitate the roads and the enforcement of the law with regards to driving, so to, should those that want to own guns have to contribute not only to the cost of upholding amendment (a) in our Canadian Bill of Rights, but also bear the cost of the education and requirement for mental stability including a check on whether a person is stable in every way to be the bearer of arms that are not detrimental to our society.
For that matter, I also believe just as a Doctor can deny patients of the right to drive, so too, should they be charged with the responsibility to report and restrict someone to the Gun Licencing unit in the matter of mental instability.
As I see it, I think that covers both as best it can:
"security of the person and enjoyment of property"
Comments
Post a Comment