It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Liberals Propose Canadian Handgun Ban

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
TORONTO -- The Liberals would ban handguns in Canada if they are re-elected, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday. This is in response to a wave of gun crime this year that has left over forty dead and dozens more injured.
 



www.macleans.ca
Handguns are already severely restricted in Canada and a handgun registry has been in force for more than 60 years.

But a rash of recent gun deaths in Toronto has prompted Martin to promise to crack down even more. Gunfire was responsible for 50 of the 74 murders so far this year in the city.

The rash of shootings prompted city police to launch a gun amnesty program in November, during which they collected 261 weapons and more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition.

A ban on handguns is likely to be popular in other large urban centres as well, like Montreal and Vancouver, where residents have been disturbed by recent firearms violence.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well, my vote just swayed AWAY from the Liberals. As it is, the current legislation is extremely restrictive when it comes to handguns. Barrels must be over four inches in length, calibres .25ACP and .32ACP are prohibited, and no magazine may be more than ten rounds. For legitimate firearms owners, these restrictions were merely irksome before. Now, some people face losing tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns, with minimal compensation offered.

Countries like Australia and Britain have attempted similar legislation with mixed results. I know that, for instance, 90% of the guns retrieved on the streets of Vancouver are from the US, rendering restrictions on Canadian handguns rather moot. Not to blame America, of course, but having a large and easily accessible source of firearms next to a highly restrictive country like ours is bound to cause problems. I believe that punishing law-abiding owners will do little to stem the violence that is slowly spiralling out of control. Slowly taking away legitimate sources of self-defence will do little to deter criminals.

DE

Related News Links:
www.canada.com
www.winnipegsun.com
www.pulse24.com
www.pulse24.com

[edit on 8-12-2005 by DeusEx]




posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I don't know about the hand gun stats in Canada but in the GTA it's out of control. This is about votes. Martin's not going to get many seats in the areas where people care about this issue so he's trying to secure his political base, Ontario. I find this move interesting. They must really think they're on the ropes to do something like this.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I concur. Already, it's damn hard to get a pistol liscence. Martin is simply using the deaths in Toronto as a political springboard to garner votes from the urban dwellers downtown.

DE

[edit on 8-12-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
boooooo



I agree, Intrepid. This is purely political, and I'm not optimistic about Torontonians seeing it for what it is. This isn't going to help a damn thing in Toronto.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
You Canadians better stand up and get ready to fight right now. If you let your firearms rights erode anymore, you be in the same boat as England, Australia and New York City. There is no greater right in all the universe than the right to self protection against criminals and a tyrannical government.

On the other hand, having a nation so close to our own go down the tubes in less than a generation will likely have a more profound impact on Americans' attitudes than the explosions of violent crime in both the UK and Australia put together.

[edit on 2005/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I agree with pretty much everything said here. Sounds like a desperate attempt to grab some attention etc. and would be useless since you can basically sneak a herd of elephants across the US/Canada border without anyone noticing, so this would be meaningless.

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
The liberals sure will be surprised when North York and Scarberia end up as free-fire zones in the next five years.

"We banned the guns, ignored the border across which the guns and drugs fueling the problems are flowing. What else can we do?"

*shakes head*


DE



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
While we share many similarities Grady, our countries also have many differences. I think we actually have more guns up here, per capita, than the States and WAY less gun violence. I am not sure on that though.

Our government is no where near tyranical, greedy, inept, disfunctional more fits the bill. Also our political makeup is WAY different. We don't elect our leader(Prime Minister) seperate from the federal gov't. Whoever is the leader of the winning party(there are 4 major parties, not 2) becomes the PM. Also any sitting gov't can be tossed out on a "Non-confidence" vote. This is how this election came about because the Liberals had a "minority" gov't, needed help from other party(s) to maintain power and pass legislation.

BTW, our guns are going nowhere. I still have mine. Not a hand gun though, I have little time for those.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   


The liberals sure will be surprised when North York and Scarberia end up as free-fire zones in the next five years.


The use of the term Scarberia prompted me to find out just what such a thing is and I found this article that not only explains the meaning of that term, but also the situation in and around Toronto that has the Canadian Liberals calling for a handgun ban.

For us Americans and other foreigners:

the-underground.ca...



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   


Our government is no where near tyranical, greedy, inept, disfunctional more fits the bill.


I didn't mean to imply that Canada has a tyrannical government, but our Founders and the Americans who ratified our Constitution in 1789, understood that there must be protections for the people in light of the historical evidence that all power tends toward "unrighteous domination." Thus was born the first ten amendments to our Constitution, which we call the Bill of Rights and without which, it is doubtful that the Constitution would have ever been ratified. The Second Amendment declares that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Unfortunately, that right has been in near constant danger since day one. Prudent folks know that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on without a means for the populace to protect themselves from all manner of threats, including ambitious political parties and the like.

Anti-gun laws never do anything, but empower criminals, both of the street variety and those in government.


[edit on 2005/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
As much as residents like to play up the niceties of Scarlem, there are areas which are simply crime-ridden. In toronto, the majority of gun crimes happen in the Jane-Finch corridor, North York, and Scarberia.

en.wikipedia.org...

The area has always had drug problems, the only real difference now is the gun violence involved. Now, having been through Scarberia, I can say that there are probably not a lot of legal guns in the area. The Real Toronto , while somewhat staged, does show some very worrying aspects of the area.

DE



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   


Now, having been through Scarberia, I can say that there are probably not a lot of legal guns in the area.


Indeed!

This comes from this thread's cited article:




"Basically, all handguns in Canada are illegal now," said Comartin. "The only people who get permits are those who are using them for recreational purposes or those who need it for their own personal safety and there's not a lot of those that are granted."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The article continues, providing the very reason why anti-gun laws never work. The law-abiding are left unarmed and the criminals do what it takes to arm themselves.



He said the announcement sounds like "a political ploy during an election to garner some headlines and make it look like you're actually doing something when, in fact, what you're proposing is pretty meaningless."

Given the number of stolen guns used in crime, Comartin said there had been some discussion earlier this year at the all-party Commons justice committee about tightening regulations governing safe storage and use of handguns. But that is something that falls under provincial jurisdiction.

www.macleans.ca...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




[edit on 2005/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
You've pretty much got Toronto down Grady BUT the rest of the country isn't Toronto. Even the other urban areas. To base all stats in Canada off of that would be EXTREMELY erronious.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I find Martin to be showing the party line in this dubious ploy for votes. The disastrous Gun Registry, already costing billions, is a miserable failure and has no impact on crimes where guns are used. And yet he attempts to paint legally licenced gun holders as the cause. Ludicrous!

The guns used in these acts are smuggled into Canada. They are not registered guns. The people using these illegal guns do not belong to clubs or organizations. By tightening controls on lawful gun owners, he does nothing useful other than subliminally bolster the Gun Registry boondoggle.

By the way...about Canada sinking into a morass of violence in less than a generation...I doubt it, really. Where I live, basically everyone has a rifle to scare away pesky grizzlies, packs of marauding wooly mammoths, windigos and tourist-poachers.
.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   


You've pretty much got Toronto down Grady BUT the rest of the country isn't Toronto. To base all stats in Canada off of that would be EXTREMELY erronious.



I'm not doing that, intrepid, but your Liberal Party is. If such a law is passed, it will affect all Canadians, not just Torontorians, as I believe they call themselves. Just a word to the wise. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.




[edit on 2005/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Why don't the Liberals pull their heads out of their butts and just patrol the border?


I'd be interested to know how many of the gun-related deaths in Toronto involved registered handguns. I'm thinking not many.

My guess is that the Liberals will try to tie the handgun issue with this:



McLellan yesterday condemned the controversial National Rifle Association for reportedly offering assistance to help "like-minded" Conservative candidates win election in close races in swing ridings.

The Edmonton incumbent MP cited a speech by one of the NRA's directors to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association this past weekend and the group's bid to influence Conservative delegates at a national convention held in Montreal earlier this year for her remarks.

McLellan to NRA: Butt out

I think they are laying the groundwork to use the exact same strategy that worked for them last time. You know, the one where we get told that if we vote Conservative we will turn into/be taken over by the US.

I can almost see the commercial now. First, they will flash statistics showing gun deaths in Canada vs. those in the US. Then some pictures of a bunch of pro-gun people marching with signs will be interspersed with video of this NRA person speaking at an event in Canada. Then they'll cut right to a picture of Stephen Harper and say that in order to maintain our sovereignty, we have to vote Liberal.




posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   


McLellan was troubled that the NRA, which views gun ownership as a constitutional right, was "working with Conservative candidates" with the goal of influencing electoral outcomes. [emphasis mine]

vancouver.24hrs.ca...



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You gotta love that spin, "...the NRA, which views gun ownership as a constitutional right...." [Emphasis mine.]

The American liberal elite pulls that stunt with certain demographics, too, banking on their lack of education and understanding of the Constitution and its associated rights.



THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

usinfo.state.gov...




[edit on 2005/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   



You've pretty much got Toronto down Grady BUT the rest of the country isn't Toronto. To base all stats in Canada off of that would be EXTREMELY erronious.



I'm not doing that, intrepid, but your Liberal Party is.


My apologies Grady, I wasn't implying that you were, very tired last night. You seem to have a good read on the situation. Your statement here is exactly the point. It a desperate ploy by the Liberals imo.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Good article, I agree with everything you said except the part about the mixed results of banning guns in Australia and the U.K. The results are uniformly bad. There is nothing good that has come from the gun ban and much bad that has and that isn't mixed results. The exact same thing will happen in Canada if it follows suit.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Martin said a Liberal government will seize or confiscate legally registered handguns in Canada as it targets gun crimes by banning the weapons.

The $325-million crime prevention strategy includes a gun amnesty program to compensate owners for their guns or they will be given the option of permanently disabling their weapons in order to keep them.


Source

What the hell. Honestly, what is this going to do when a piece goes for two grand on the street? I'm fairly glad that there's balanced reporting on the Global site.

If you're willing to do a drive by and kill some folks, why would a handgun ban matter to you?

DE



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join