October
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Who's Online Now
2 members (Der Ami, CJF), 558 guests, and 5 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics39,491
Posts562,022
Members14,584
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 28
Sidelock
**
OP Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 28
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: Dave in Maine
....(I have time to research and write my rejoinder to those dimwits on the other site b/c I have article-posting privileges there and they don't.)

I understand the hazards of trying to prove cause-and-effect but also recognize that in the heat of debate (or even in the less-heated room of forming opinions) no one takes the time to parse out where the gaps might be. And I know how to construct a pretty solid case even when there are gaps.

I also appreciate that reasonable minds can differ....


You might consider just asking them if they'll be open to reading your research, before you take the time to do it. It may not be practical to blame them if they decline to appreciate your efforts.


I don't ask them permission. I just ram it in their face. Sometimes they do read it and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they just shut up and slink off, which I count as a win. The point is I try to use hard info from "objective" sources, i.e., sources that don't really have a dog in the fight. The "hard" info they can't argue without going into appearing delusional.

They usually come back with the written equivalent of "...but, but, but [this punctures my previous beliefs]".

But, as I said, in the place I'm having this argument I have article-posting privileges, which means what I post will be up there with a sticky and in their faces for a very long time.

Last edited by Dave in Maine; 04/12/15 08:49 AM.

fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 115
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 115
Tim, the answer to your question is yes. It is illegal to confiscate a persons legally held property without due compensation. The Government admitted to 97 Million but I suspect the real figure was much higher. I used the money from my three pistols to buy three rifles. Stuff that Tony Blair!

The problem arose out of a school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland. It was at the time of a forthcoming election and the dying embers of the Conservative Party who tried to get some cheap votes out of the tragedy. They commissioned an independent enquiry which examined the evidence to support a ban. At a cost of 1 1/2 Million pounds and they couldn't find evidence to support the ban so the Government ignored this anyway saying it's what the public wanted; although they didn't consult the public. Well, after all they are the Government so know what people want without having to ask. They were going to ban all but .22rf. for target shooting but Tony Blair and the Labour party thought they would get even more votes by banning those as well. Labour got in anyway and the Dictator Blair was in office. Lagopus.....

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 181
Likes: 64
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 181
Likes: 64
Thanks Lagopus for the information. I wondered how that would proceed with confiscation. Handguns in Canada have always been considered a restricted item and required either a permit or registration. To my knowledge, I dont ever recall an outright ban that involved confiscation though. Usually if an owner possessed a firearm legally that then became banned through legislation, that person was still able to continue to possess it until they either no longer wanted it or died, but then it couldnt be passed on or sold to anyone else, it would at that point have to be surrendered to the authorities and then destroyed.

We in Canada have been through a very long and drawn out political battle involving our long-gun registry. It came into effect through a similar situation in 1989 involving one lunatic that had a hate on for women, whom proceeded to shoot 28 people (killing 14 women) at a college in Montreal, Quebec. In 1993, the Federal Liberal Party got elected as the Government and in 1995 proceeded to create the long-gun registry, due mainly to massive political pressure from the French Canadian population in Quebec. In short, the long-gun registry bureaucracy grew and ended up costing a whole lot of money to institute and maintain. In 2011, the Conservative party got re-elected with a majority Government and proceeded to scrap the long-gun registry in 2012. The Province of Quebec then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada because they wanted the Federal Government to turn over the long-gun registry data as it pertained to Quebec, in-order to create their own Provincial gun registry. The Supreme Court of Canada has just now ruled that the Federal Government does have the right to destroy their own gun registry records, and so the records pertaining to Quebec can now also be destroyed. It was a close vote in the Supreme Court; it only passed by one vote. No doubt when or if the Liberal or New Democratic parties get in as the new Government, they will likely be trying to reinstate another federal gun registry. The Leader of the New Democratic Party stated as much. So the fight will be continued on into the future. Im not sure how much compliance or success that future Government will have the next time with gun owners though.

I have attached a couple newspaper links for anyone interested.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/the-rise-and-fall-of-canada-s-long-gun-registry-1.2862001

http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/long-gun-registry

Tim

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.084s Queries: 20 (0.049s) Memory: 0.8106 MB (Peak: 1.9016 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-10-06 19:04:11 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS