CANADIAN freedom and right to own a Firearm

[Kobs]

^^^ Ain't it funny that you have to get into what is needed to oppose tyrannical oppression that you find out it's going on right under your nose and you barely noticed it before. Thanks to the media filling our heads with all kinds of unimportant BS .

Reminds me of this
Quote Morpheus "You've felt it you're entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that brought you here. Do you know what I'm talking about?

[CLW .45]

Rights are not conferred by government.

Their existence is either recognized or denied by government.

That recognition or denial is of importance because it may adversely affect your life.

It is also a gauge of the quality of that government.

[Foxer]

Rights are not conferred by government.

Their existence is either recognized or denied by government.

That recognition or denial is of importance because it may adversely affect your life.

One of those rare times when we tend to agree .

It is also a gauge of the quality of that government.

I'd say it's a gauge of the quality of the people. The gov't can inherently only hold what power the people are willing to abide them holding. In the end, you only really have those 'rights' that you can clearly articulate and are willing and able to defend, and that's true as individuals and as a people.

[Edenchef]

But it is easier to defend your rights against an armed government when you are armed as well. JMHO

Cheers!

[Foxer]

But it is easier to defend your rights against an armed government when you are armed as well. JMHO

Cheers!

Goes without saying. For a gov't to actually be 'of the people, for the people, by the people' it must exist only at the sufferance of the people. Which means if they can't remove it, then it's not 'for them'. Normally we can remove gov'ts without bloodshed or the like, but given enough time history shows that SOONER or LATER, a gov't will come along that doesn't want to be removed. Might only happen once every few dozen generations if you're lucky but when it does the people must have the means of resisting that gov't.

[Malus]

There is "no" reason except one for government to disarm citizens. Control. Its not for the children or "safety" or any other line of bs. Disarming a country's population only means that something crappy is coming down the line and the PTB don't want the average joe to be able to do anything about it. Under the BNC, we have the "right to arms", sure it doesn't specify what those arms might be and thats the angle this criminal legalese system works on. The definitions. Like a weapon, could be anything you choose to use, not inclusive to guns alone. Unless we stand up for our "right" as we see fit and not dictated by an agenda driven political ideology, sooner (more so than later), our guns will be gone and we'll be left with rocks and sticks (only the approved version) if something goes awry. And we've all seen how effective that strategy is. We are at the point of "NO COMPROMISE" (and we better mean it). Btw, "I" have the "right" to live and protect myself, regardless of what others dictate for me and expect me to do and that will never change........

[Emme]

Is anyone here a subscriber of Canadian Access to Firearms? I'd like to know what you think. http://canadianguns.com

[Foxer]

There is "no" reason except one for government to disarm citizens. Control. Its not for the children or "safety" or any other line of bs.

It's the same thing to them. We must be controlled for our safety.

[RangeBob]

We must be controlled for our safety.

These are the arguments I hear most often:

Everyone wants criminals not to have guns. ( or cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance)

So we have weapons prohibition orders, and laws against trafficking and smuggling, and licencing so that gun stores and millions of law abiding firearms owners can/must verify that the buyer isn't a criminal because the government doesn't trust criminals with guns. But I note that prohibition orders make no mention of edged weapons, blunt instruments, etc, so perhaps they're fine?

And we have the registry, because without the registry some gun stores and owners might be occasionally tempted to sell their guns to criminals, thus the registry is there because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns either.

And we have ATTs, because the government doesn't trust the background checked with where they might have their guns either.

And we have classification (non-restricted, restricted, prohibited, antique, replica, air rifle, toy, deactivated), because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns that send projectiles down a barrel either, but some of them are too popular and electorate supported to produce serious restrictions on without losing more than an acceptable number of votes.

[Foxer]

These are the arguments I hear most often:

Everyone wants criminals not to have guns. ( or cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance)

So we have weapons prohibition orders, and laws against trafficking and smuggling, and licencing so that gun stores and millions of law abiding firearms owners can/must verify that the buyer isn't a criminal because the government doesn't trust criminals with guns. But I note that prohibition orders make no mention of edged weapons, blunt instruments, etc, so perhaps they're fine?

And we have the registry, because without the registry some gun stores and owners might be occasionally tempted to sell their guns to criminals, thus the registry is there because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns either.

And we have ATTs, because the government doesn't trust the background checked with where they might have their guns either.

And we have classification (non-restricted, restricted, prohibited, antique, replica, air rifle, toy, deactivated), because the government doesn't trust the background checked with guns that send projectiles down a barrel either, but some of them are too popular and electorate supported to produce serious restrictions on without losing more than an acceptable number of votes.

Those aren't "arguments". Those are mental health issues.