Oh Canada.

[TSimonetti]

This act, as disappointing as it is to gun owners, does not render Trudeau a dictator. Nor would his cultivation of a paramilitary support base make him a democratic republican (small d, r). In a broad sampling, armed supporters are more likely a feature of repressive regimes than open ones.

He signed an executive edict, without any legislation written by representatives of the people, forcing citizens to surrender their property and a small part of their freedom. That's about as dictator as it gets. The fact that Canadian law allows this or that he feels he's doing it "for their own good" is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

And both Canada and NYS will have reasonably fair elections in which voters can render a verdict.

That doesn't change the fact that the order by Trudeau was dictatorial in nature and scope.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...about-to-dawn/

Talk in this country of judges deciding bans are illegal. If that happens, pressure could shift to intensive registration, as in a public interest to know who is in possession of what kind of firepower, for safety purposes. I know some people who fear that a good bit more than a selective ban on some types of firearms.

That's sugarcoating it quite a bit. The gun control lobby are crapping their pants over this.

- - - Updated - - -

Public register? Seems unlikely.

Newspapers in various states with licensing and registration have been using freedom of information laws in order to publish the names and addresses of gun owners, willfully putting these folks in personal danger because....agenda.

[togor]

Not saying it couldn't happen.

But if the courts decided guns cannot be regulated on the WHAT side, that leaves the WHO. Ultimately it's the wrong person having firepower that creates trouble. Bans at least are non-intrusive compared to registration.

The argument can go that police get a 911 call at a house, domestic disturbance or noise problem, and while rolling get the list of what kind of firepower is registered to the occupants.

Point is there are worse things than selective bans.

[TSimonetti]

Not saying it couldn't happen.

But if the courts decided guns cannot be regulated on the WHAT side, that leaves the WHO. Ultimately it's the wrong person having firepower that creates trouble. Bans at least are non-intrusive compared to registration.

The argument can go that police get a 911 call at a house, domestic disturbance or noise problem, and while rolling get the list of what kind of firepower is registered to the occupants.

Point is there are worse things than selective bans.

Bans only seem non-intrusive compared to registration because by the time bans are instituted, all of the mechanisms are in place for the ban. There is no difficult transition, no need to accumulate data or paperwork, or search for the guns, and if you are lucky, you might even get fully compensated for being forced to surrender your property. But a ban is by nature the most intrusive act of all. It's a ban on a freedom. Bans are even less "intrusive" when they are grandfathered, so you've actually lost your freedom forever for future generations, but you get to keep your banned gun until you die, THEN it gets chopped up. That still goes in the lost freedom column in the end.


Americans could live pretty seamless lives with universal gun registration and be free to enjoy our firearms. The problem is that the Left only views gun registration as a precursor to confiscation of various degrees against the law abiding not only of guns, but also gives them the opportunity to ratchet down on our ability to buy ammunition, (a gun control two-for-one so to speak). So the impasse is borne out of the fact that while registration might be the right thing to do from a rational perspective, it's certainly not the ultimate solution that those pushing for registration are looking for. And by now, everyone knows it.

Yes there are worse things than selective gun bans, that's how they can be sold more easily. Gun bans normally and historically start out as selective and get more general and encompassing over time.

I would think cops getting a 911 emergency call for domestic abuse should just assume that the homeowner is armed. That sort of effectively eliminates all of the unknowns.

[rayg]

Love your posts, TS....Ray

[lyman]

Not saying it couldn't happen.

But if the courts decided guns cannot be regulated on the WHAT side, that leaves the WHO. Ultimately it's the wrong person having firepower that creates trouble. Bans at least are non-intrusive compared to registration.

The argument can go that police get a 911 call at a house, domestic disturbance or noise problem, and while rolling get the list of what kind of firepower is registered to the occupants.

Point is there are worse things than selective bans.

not sure how it is up in Wisconsin,

here in Va, a bunch of the local Sheriff's and CLEO's have a list, some place pins on a map, of who has NFA in their jurisdictions,


so if called to bob's house, and Bob has filed a form 4,,(remember, a copy goes to the CLEO) then they know going in,


a friend, now deceased, was told by a handful of Officers he knew, in both his county and from the City of Charlottesville, that if the S hit the F and they (police) needed additional fire power, he would get a knock on the door,

and they were not joking

[clintonhater]

Americans could live pretty seamless lives with universal gun registration and be free to enjoy our firearms. The problem is that the Left only views gun registration as a precursor to confiscation...

To by-pass the civil-liberty objections that outright confiscation would raise even in states like CA or NY, there's a much "smoother" way to accomplish the same thing: merely impose an annual "registration fee" (insignificant in the beginning, but rising every yr "to keep up with inflation") on registered guns that would, over time, discourage owners from keeping them; owners, that is, who aren't rich. This has already been proposed several times in the NY legislature for pistol-permits, but has so far been beaten back. Personally, I'm not too worried, as I probably won't live long enough to see it happen; there are some advantages to old age.

[Vern Humphrey]

To by-pass the civil-liberty objections that outright confiscation would raise even in states like CA or NY, there's a much "smoother" way to accomplish the same thing: merely impose an annual "registration fee" (insignificant in the beginning, but rising every yr "to keep up with inflation") on registered guns that would, over time, discourage owners from keeping them; owners, that is, who aren't rich. This has already been proposed several times in the NY legislature for pistol-permits, but has so far been beaten back. Personally, I'm not too worried, as I probably won't live long enough to see it happen; there are some advantages to old age.

The counter to that is to have Supreme Court Justices who will recognize that ploy for what it is -- an end run around the Constitution.

Vote for Trump!!

[togor]

To by-pass the civil-liberty objections that outright confiscation would raise even in states like CA or NY, there's a much "smoother" way to accomplish the same thing: merely impose an annual "registration fee" (insignificant in the beginning, but rising every yr "to keep up with inflation") on registered guns that would, over time, discourage owners from keeping them; owners, that is, who aren't rich. This has already been proposed several times in the NY legislature for pistol-permits, but has so far been beaten back. Personally, I'm not too worried, as I probably won't live long enough to see it happen; there are some advantages to old age.

As much as ammo costs for regular shooters, the real objection to registration would be the information, not the fee. As we know there is an element that thinks in terms of preparing to take up arms against the state, and by extension, the Constitution that governs its operation. As much as one might like to think that a wave of Trump appointed judges would endorse this view, the answer is that no, even they have a line. Even the most reactionary of judges is still part of the system. If need drives legislatures to mandate registration, judges are not going to stand in the way. The key being, "if need drives...."

[TSimonetti]

As much as ammo costs for regular shooters, the real objection to registration would be the information, not the fee. As we know there is an element that thinks in terms of preparing to take up arms against the state, and by extension, the Constitution that governs its operation. As much as one might like to think that a wave of Trump appointed judges would endorse this view, the answer is that no, even they have a line. Even the most reactionary of judges is still part of the system. If need drives legislatures to mandate registration, judges are not going to stand in the way. The key being, "if need drives...."

The assault on the 2A is multi pronged. Confiscatory fees, major delays in processing applications, per bullet taxation, restrictions and/or bans on ammunition, sales tax and transfer fees, mandatory safety training at approved ranges, subjective permit standards, conflicting statutes, one gun per month laws, bans on transporting guns outside the home, requirements for home storage, attempts to force gun owners to purchase liability insurance etc. All designed to highly discourage and in some cases punish ownership. If this were concerning voting, such overt attacks would be labeled voter suppression and deemed highly unconstitutional. Of course, some fundamental rights are more important than others apparently. Registration is still the Left's wet dream though. It's the mechanism by which control over the population's ability to defend ourselves is completed. The last piece of the gun ban puzzle.

The need to balance safety in society with rights is of course self-evident and some restrictions are necessary, but bans are not restrictions, they are bans. Owning an AR-15 is not like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Owning an AR-15 is like owning a fire hose in case a fire breaks out. Sure there are people preparing to take up arms against Tyranny and arm themselves accordingly, but there are also people who want to overthrow our republican system of government and our free market economy, and by extension our Constitution that governs and safeguards their operation, but yet we don't ban them from voting.

[togor]

Bottom line is that a significant portion of the public has concluded that ARs in general circulation pose a net danger to the public, not a benefit. Once upon a time it was possible to claim that the extra firepower that comes with a limited-recoil semi-auto with detachable large capacity magazines was irrelevant to the damage done in mass shootings. But now that such guns are pretty much the type of choice in mass shootings, that is no longer the case.

Neither the second or fourth amendments are intended to prevent the public from addressing a gun-related cancer in their midst, if one of sufficient size develops. None of these Trump judges are going to endorse a nihilistic philosophy of personal liberty that sustains itself with threat of armed force against the state.

That's just the reality of the situation.

[Art]

The attempts to ban "assault weapons" is not due to the number of crimes committed with them The 2018 U.S. FBI crime stats show over 6,000 murders committed with pistols compared to 297 murdered with rifles of all types. That's fewer deaths with rifles than murders with personal weapons (hands and feet) 672 or blunt objects - 443. In the interest of clarity there are about 2000 gun homicides in which the type of weapon is not reported but even in those cases it can be safely inferred that the number of murders committed with rifles is correspondingly small.

The left knows it cannot ban handguns which are really responsible for most homicides including mass shootings due to court decisions so the "assault weapon" by whatever definition is used is the fall back position. It helps the antis that while only a tiny fraction of murders are committed with rifles of all types the events themselves can be spectacularly horrific and there for form an easy target.

The fact that rifles are the know weapons in a tiny fraction of homicides is swept under the rug and the justification for a ban is based on, in reality, the ideas that nobody needs one and the inference that anyone who would want to possess such a weapon has something wrong with him/her mentally or morally.

It is telling that we still don't know what weapon's were used in this mass killing in Canada. That leads me more and more to believe that any assault weapons ban there will not be based on an actual recent killing with an "assault rifle."

[togor]

Well Art there are shootings and there are shootings.

Crime and suicide via handguns is something society has lived with for a long time. It represents a loss, but one to which the public has grown accustomed.

To the extent that there is a new animal stalking the forest, the politically motivated mass shooting with a high-firepower weapon, people look at that differently, specifically since it seems designed to influence public life, and isn't just for personal reasons.

Added:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6897787/nova-scotia-shooting-guns-used-assault-rifle-ban/

No specific type mentioned but said to be among those on the "bad" list.

[Vern Humphrey]

The left knows it cannot ban handguns which are really responsible for most homicides including mass shootings due to court decisions so the "assault weapon" by whatever definition is used is the fall back position. It helps the antis that while only a tiny fraction of murders are committed with rifles of all types the events themselves can be spectacularly horrific and there for form an easy target.

Actually, of course, the guns are not "responsible" for homicides, any more than spoons are "responsible" for obesity.

You may note that most anti-gunners lump suicides with homicides when arguing for a ban. When pressed, they will cite a study that shows suicide by firearm is more likely to result in death than suicide by most other means. They get really mad when you point out the study doesn't control for intent -- most people who "commit suicide" don't intend to die. This is sometimes called "a cry for help."

But people who DO intend to die, tend to choose the surest method. And banning guns won't stop them.

[togor]

Actually, of course, the guns are not "responsible" for homicides, any more than spoons are "responsible" for obesity.

You may note that most anti-gunners lump suicides with homicides when arguing for a ban. When pressed, they will cite a study that shows suicide by firearm is more likely to result in death than suicide by most other means. They get really mad when you point out the study doesn't control for intent -- most people who "commit suicide" don't intend to die. This is sometimes called "a cry for help."

But people who DO intend to die, tend to choose the surest method. And banning guns won't stop them.

So much for Vernon believing in the value of life.

Gun suicides have a high rate of success. More than ODs. There are people we would judge as worthwhile walking around today who admit to suicide attempts who got help and got better.

[Art]

But people who DO intend to die, tend to choose the surest method. And banning guns won't stop them.

With that in mind - Japan and Korea have 4-5 times the suicide rate of the United States but gun ownership in both countries is almost impossible. The preferred method of suicide in both countries is hanging. In Japan students who "cannot live with the shame" of having done poorly on entrance exams tend to throw themselves in front of trains.