# Long Gun Registry Gone



## casterpollox (Apr 7, 2010)

For me, I think there still needs to be clarification about some of the cases of unlawful searching that has been done by police since this was introduced in 1995, or what would be normally considered unlawful searching. I'm not against the police and I know they were working with the rules they have but it's not fair to just show up at someone's door and search the place without a warrant.

For me, the registry wasn't that much of a hassle unless I went to sell a rifle or shotgun then it was a pain. I did have some concerns about someone getting a hold of the list and then going on a spree breaking into places and stealing firearms for the black market but maybe that was paranoia.

I do agree with registering handguns and keeping them on the restricted list (for now) but I think the next step is removing the AR from the restricted list. The AR platform is becoming more and more popular in the US as a hunting rifle and I see the benefits, but locally there is no range for me to shoot at so I have no reason to own one since that's the only place you're allowed to shoot them.

That's just my opinion. What's your's?


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

gun registry is just a bunch of crap and so is the licensing to own or obtain a gun (long gun). if someone intendes to use any gun for an illegal purpose it don't matter if the gun is legal or the person is legal to have it or not, it is the persons actions that are illegal. any jackass with a clean record can take a course and have the ability to obtain and use a gun for illegal purposes and on the flip side if your not allowed you can get one unlawfully and do as you please with it. people do and they will simple as that. restricted weapons should simply be banned because they only serve for a negative purpose, hunting/sporting gear (long rifles and shotguns) should have no restrictions as to who can buy sell or own one within reason (age limit, citizenship) if you get in trouble they slap a restricted weapons order on you and your out of the game for 5-10yrs. I hope the registry goes away as well as the PAL, POL, FAC whatever it is or was. I don't own any guns at all the police took them because they weren't registered and my pal was in the mail still. the guns were handed down to me. now all I have is a 10yr weapons order and all I can have is a bow not even a crossbow just a bow. thanks alot canada.


----------



## Ravenhunter (Dec 19, 2010)

The_LG_registry_caused_me_a_pile_of_grief_bringing_a_muzzle_loader_into_Canada_from_the_USA.What_a_joke!


----------



## hunt1687 (Aug 22, 2008)

Good bye and good riddence. Put some teeth in the laws we have and stop the revolving doors at our jails. I'll step off the soapbox now.


----------



## casterpollox (Apr 7, 2010)

hillwilly said:


> restricted weapons should simply be banned because they only serve for a negative purpose,


This would imply that I have nothing but negative intentions because I own a pistol? A pistol I use for target shooting. The only range we have in my town is a pistol range and if you were to ban restricted firearms I wouldn't be able to do any shooting. It's the only reason I have a handgun to begin with.

If this happened it would also affect many Canadians who shoot pistol at international competitions. Do they have negative intentions too?


----------



## araz2114 (Jan 13, 2003)

casterpollox said:


> This would imply that I have nothing but negative intentions because I own a pistol? A pistol I use for target shooting. The only range we have in my town is a pistol range and if you were to ban restricted firearms I wouldn't be able to do any shooting. It's the only reason I have a handgun to begin with.
> 
> If this happened it would also affect many Canadians who shoot pistol at international competitions. Do they have negative intentions too?


I agree with casterpollox... Why would I be a negative intention person for having restricted weapons? I've had them for close to 30 years with no negative intentions. Please have your facts right before you start painting... Divide and conquer is their long range plan.... you seem to me to be on that bandwagon... sorry... really sorry.

Chris


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

Unless you need a handgun for your line of work I just don't see the need for a gun that can be concealed, not allowed to hunt with em anyway. I have known a few folks that had them only one was legal and noone had used them for sport. The only one that even fired one now lives behind bars for murder. Maby it's just that I'm too close to the city and am ignorant to the sporting side of this cause it's something I've never seen. My apologies to anyone I may have offended, I just haven't seen one put to good use.


----------



## casterpollox (Apr 7, 2010)

I like to shoot targets, it's relaxing. Whether its a bow or a rifle or a handgun, I really enjoy just going to the range and shooting. If I ever win the lottery, the first purchase is an acreage followed by a call to the Firearms Centre to get the permits for a private handgun/rifle range to be constructed in my back yard.

Cowboy action, skeet shooting, three gun, long range target, small bore target, 3D and spots. You name the shooting competition and I've likely tried it. The intense focus needed to succeed makes all your problems melt away. You should try it. 

It's the same thing with race cars. Should they be banned because they serve no purpose other than speeding around or down a track?


----------



## rweste (Aug 12, 2010)

casterpollox said:


> This would imply that I have nothing but negative intentions because I own a pistol? A pistol I use for target shooting. The only range we have in my town is a pistol range and if you were to ban restricted firearms I wouldn't be able to do any shooting. It's the only reason I have a handgun to begin with.
> 
> If this happened it would also affect many Canadians who shoot pistol at international competitions. Do they have negative intentions too?


I dont own any restricted weapons but i definitely disagree with this statement. There are many items that are used for enjoyment (skipping ropes, fencing swords etc) that could be used as weapons. What kind of world would that be????


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

hillwilly: Just because you can't see a practical use for something does not give the government the right to prohibit it. 

There's not much practical legal use for a pimped out Honda Civic or similar, and more people are killed by these things being legally owned but illegally used than they are by legally owned but illegally used handguns.

People own and use handguns primarily because they want to - they don't have to have a practical purpose. And while most Canadians don't see any issue with the requirement to establish that they are qualified to own guns (PAL) and establish by special licensing that they will be careful and conscientious owners of restricted guns which by their nature are the kind most likely to be acquired illegally by the criminal element, the current regulations regarding restricted firearms are more than adequate.

The only positive thing I have so say about the long gun registry is that it did provide a disincentive for legal PAL holding long gun owners to sell their registered firearms to people who do not have PALs. I can see where someone like yourself who cannot get a PAL for any reason now will have an easier time of acquiring an unregistered one from someone else who is willing to sell to them without them having a PAL.

Pro-registry proponent have always been quick to say "the ling gun registry saves lives" but I have never heard any one ever be able to give a specific example of an instance where a firearm being registered had prevented a death.


----------



## crkelly (Mar 17, 2011)

It should never have been inforced in the first place.But between the liberals and the police using it as a political hammer in a fear campaign we may never renounce it.I'm tired of hearing the same old (what if) and( if it will save just one life) from the powers that be.We as gun owners deserve fair and honest representation.


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

> I can see where someone like yourself who cannot get a PAL for any reason now


. I can get a PAL in 2015 when my order is done, I only have 1 oops on my record total and it had nothing to do with firearms, violence or anything that should throw a red flag at me. I would not even try to obtain a gun illegally. the way I view handguns is only my opinion and maby a little overkill with banning them. the way other folks here view them is their opinion and I can't disagree with them but I can try to understand their point of view and respect them for giving their opinion. I'm not hard headed just uneducated on the subject, all I know is what i've seen.


----------



## DssBB (Feb 21, 2010)

I for one sure hope Harpers government can sway the vote and have the useless registration put to bed once and for all and stop wasting tax payers money and making honest and responsible gun owners feel like common criminals. The bleeding heart tree huggers have been making every excuse they can concoct to prevent it from being thrown out and from watching the media coverage of it since yesterdays announcement has been quiet enlightening to say the least. 
From listening to one speaker on CityTV who stated the gun registration, which I was unaware of had, actually brought down the suiside rate in Canada by almost 40%. I guess committing suiside with your registered hunting rifle or shotgun isn't a good idea, as you may end up in a heap of trouble should you not succeed.

I for one do not want nor feel the goverment needs to know which and how many guns I own and as long as I follow the rules of storage, transportation, and useage of them, then they should keep there nose out of my personal business. The sad part is that we as Canadians should have stood up a long time ago and forced the government to let us enjoy the use of our firearms weither it be for fun, sport, competition or hunting. The restrictions we have in this country on firearms is pathetic when compared to the USA. As long as gun owners are responsible and follow certain guidelines and rules, then let us enjoy them. We as gun owners are for the most part frowned upon in today's society, because of a few who abuse the system. Criminals are just that, and they will still committ the crimes regardless of the rules placed in todays society or the devices used to committ the crimes.
As far as the handgun and military guns (restricted and prohibited), why should we prevented from using them along with our hunting or target shooting guns. Does the governement honestly believe that the crime rate or severity of crimes in this country will be reduced because they have taken all rights away from responsible gun owners and either extremely limited or banned there use altogether. If an indivdual abuses the rights, then they should be punished in the same manner as we as drivers are dealt with when following the rules of operating an automobile. 
Everyone seems to so afraid of the fact, that having hand guns and military guns available will lead to higher crimes rates and more shootings. The fact is that those crimes are still being committed and will continue to be committed untill the legal system in this country gets their head out of there a** and start dealing with laxidazicle system we have when it comes to dealing with crime. The guns will be always be available to criminals no mater what restriction are on them.


----------



## crazymoose (May 17, 2005)

Well said DssBB.
Enough is Enough.
Health Care and Infrastructure could use some additional funding.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

total waste of good money.. even some of the police forces say so.. it is a known fact that officers should think when entering a house or responding to a call to assume weapons are in place.. so be it then... use our resources to educate judges in giving appropriate sentences to to people who use them in a crime... use a gun in a crime 25 yrs mandatory .. new immigrant to canada .. instant deportation including all and I mean all of your family... this might smarten up a lot of the punks who carry illegal weapons. and parents of such... might smarten up and take control of their kids or turn them in.. to stay in canada... do the crime do the time.. Personally I inherited a bunch of hand guns.. sold and had destroyed the rest.. what a pity my grand fathers .. old enough that they had no paperwork.. but being a law biding citizen followed the rules....I think we should be able to hunt with hand guns and plink tin cans in a safe setting like the old days...proper courses and licensing in place.. imho


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

the only real reason that the AR platform is "restricted" is due to you being able to modify the triger group for a select fire ie 3 round or auto. it would be nice though, the R15 ect makes a great yote gun. on the hand gun side, I have no problem with a special licence to own one, but i would love for the carry part to less restrictive. in my case living in the country, when out walking the dogs on our property, we have many times come across skunks, ***** and and the odd yote that had no fear of 2 people and 4 dogs, and haveing a 22, 9mm or 45 would have been a great help.


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

hillwilly said:


> gun registry is just a bunch of crap and so is the licensing to own or obtain a gun (long gun). if someone intendes to use any gun for an illegal purpose it don't matter if the gun is legal or the person is legal to have it or not, it is the persons actions that are illegal. any jackass with a clean record can take a course and have the ability to obtain and use a gun for illegal purposes and on the flip side if your not allowed you can get one unlawfully and do as you please with it. people do and they will simple as that. restricted weapons should simply be banned because they only serve for a negative purpose, hunting/sporting gear (long rifles and shotguns) should have no restrictions as to who can buy sell or own one within reason (age limit, citizenship) if you get in trouble they slap a restricted weapons order on you and your out of the game for 5-10yrs. I hope the registry goes away as well as the PAL, POL, FAC whatever it is or was. I don't own any guns at all the police took them because they weren't registered and my pal was in the mail still. the guns were handed down to me. now all I have is a 10yr weapons order and all I can have is a bow not even a crossbow just a bow. thanks alot canada.


why cant you have a Xbow?


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

Reed said:


> why cant you have a Xbow?


Crossbow was specified in my prohibited weapons order, only reason I know I can have a bow is from some long conversations with the chief firearms officer in my area. I can't even have an airsoft gun by definition of a firearm in the criminal code. Bows are not considered a firearm by definition or specified in my order.


----------



## cdhunter (Feb 4, 2006)

The end of the long gun registry is long over due. There is now a push to eliminate the pal or Fac, I've listened to enough people on both sides of the argument and some of the peoples responses have surprised me. One came from the pro gun group and one of their top people(sorry can't remember the name) he said " the introduction and maintenance of the pal not only was smart, it put a system in place that for as much as humanly possible guaranteed that gun saftey was being taught to gun owners. my only concern is that when a Pal expires the gun owners are instant criminals." As for restricted and prohibited I'm with Reed for loosening the hand gun transportation and area of use.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

He made a good point about safety being taught.. at least in this day and age it then says you are a law obeying citizen of worth.. when the license runs out you simply get pic and resubmit as I did 2 weeks ago and already have had mine returned and good to go for 5 years.. we do have to buy license plates for our cars and in a timely manner as well or yes you are a criminal for driving with out a license or plates...it sort of gives us a drawn line to who conforms and who does not .. also it does bring money into this fine country we call Canada.. lol lol lol


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

Gun safety was part of the hunting course when I took it. A hunting licence should be enough to own a nonrestricted firearm IMO.


----------



## CaptainT (Aug 14, 2005)

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> He made a good point about safety being taught.. at least in this day and age it then says you are a law obeying citizen of worth.. when the license runs out you simply get pic and resubmit as I did 2 weeks ago and already have had mine returned and good to go for 5 years.. we do have to buy license plates for our cars and in a timely manner as well or yes you are a criminal for driving with out a license or plates...it sort of gives us a drawn line to who conforms and who does not .. also it does bring money into this fine country we call Canada.. lol lol lol


You are pretty lucky then Ted. The last time I renewed I sent in the renewal 2 months before it expired and didn't get my new card for over 5 months. I know a number of people who have had their hunting seasons ruined because their cards didn't come in time.


----------



## crkelly (Mar 17, 2011)

On my last renewal i phoned the Rcmp and asked if i could apply in advance and was told no and to wait untill the form was sent out.
My birthday is in Nov.and i knew if they screwed up i would lose the gun season.I sent the form out 12 weeks in advance and the week prior to the open season,still a no show.Not sure if it's still the same but on their site they state no longer then 6 to 8 weeks waiting.I phoned the Rcmp on the east coast and asked whats goin on and that i wanted to comlpete the process in mid summer and was told no.I was told the the first officer i spoke to gave me wrong information.I was then told because of high applications it would be yet another few weeks.I told the officer i would go hunting PAL or not and if i was charged i would then go after them in court for their incompetence.The PAL arrived 4 days later.


----------



## fisherboy_01 (Jun 13, 2010)

as someone said on another site, praise the lord and pass the ammo


----------



## Punctualdeer (Dec 19, 2009)

It's about time. Now we will be legal hunter.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

This bill will pass and a long road of wasted money and lies will be history. It is a shame we had to go through this and fingers can be pointed in a lot of directions as to why it ever saw the light of day. We must now be warry of the provinces that may want to go down this wrong path.

It was never meant to save a life, it was meant to be the first step on the road to confiscation. The day we forget that will be the day it's ugly head will see light again.

Bob


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

wow you guys got criminal records or what... lol lol lol 2 weeks mailed in oct 5th and back about 17th as my birthday is in nov as well...could of been my pic was just that good looking... again lol lol


----------



## peregrine82 (Aug 25, 2007)

Your pic really is good Ted, I am pretty sure I saw it on the wall in the post office.


----------



## AileenJ (Oct 31, 2011)

Canada set to abolish national long-gun registry! Great news, indeed.  Gun rights supports are looking at Canada with certain interest lately, writes BBC News. The majority Conservative party is presenting legislation that would ban the national long-gun registry. The country's long-gun registry, which affects rifles and shotguns, would be shut down. It's nice to see the Parliament of Canada starting to work together for the good of all Canadians.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

bobby no wonder I got quick service there was no search needed and they new my back ground ..seriously when do they actually vote to dismantle this fiasco and where will the records go they have on file will they be destroyed or sold to the highest bidder????


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

The records...........all the information will be destroyed once bill is passed. I believe it is in committee now and the oppostition will try to make amendments to the bill. Harper has made it clear that this majority government has a firm mandate to dissmantle and end the Long Gun Registry and will not accept any changes to this bill. All other information on PAL and on Restricted and prohibited will stay. 

Support Bill C-19


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

Now that the Long Gun Registry is on the way out, we should join a movement that is trying to allow suppressors to be used on non-restricted long arm for hunting. Please do not call them 'silencers', because they are not. They are tools used to make shooting a long arm safer, less disruptive and less damaging for your hearing. They were legalized in Britain for hunting use and in some countries are REQUIRED for hunting. Things are going OUR way with this government. lets try to make the most of it! If you go on canadiangunnutz you will see a printable petition buy a member named 'suputin' who already has a study done and a printable letter to send to your MP and MPP.


----------



## SuphanXP (Jan 1, 2010)

Does this mean I can now go and buy a fire arm in the USA, given they will sell you one (state law depending)?


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

Rob I believe it is called magnaported and it does come on firearms now and is legal. The type you are talking about is a screw on version and carries the black eye of being called a silencer........................would be interesting to see the versions that are legal in Britian seeing hunting is done by those who are well off or not at all. Guess it is another thing to do home work on. I do support the basis though as many of us have had hearing reduced by shooting sports. We do have the ability to use hearing protection also.


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

GenesisAlpha said:


> Rob I believe it is called magnaported and it does come on firearms now and is legal. The type you are talking about is a screw on version and carries the black eye of being called a silencer........................would be interesting to see the versions that are legal in Britian seeing hunting is done by those who are well off or not at all. Guess it is another thing to do home work on. I do support the basis though as many of us have had hearing reduced by shooting sports. We do have the ability to use hearing protection also.


GA, magnaporting and suppresers are totally different. like a muzzle brake, magnaporting just reduces muzzle rise and recoil< while the suppressers reduce the shot siginature( ie drops the db level.) that would be cool Rob, a suppresser on my encore:tongue:


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

Reed, could you explain in basic the mechanical difference. Drilling, porting the blast near the end of a barrel with positioned holes will buffer the effect of a forced load by regulating the preasure behind that load based on the fact it has already attained the speed near the end of the barrel. Restricted devices that screw on the end of the barrel to lower sound that I have seen are devices with a series of drilled holes in those devices. Again is it not the fact they are detachable that makes them restricted. Not trying to argue the point, on the other hand looking for good information to support it. More homework needed by me on this.


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

magnaporting/ muzzle brakes jsut changes the direction of the gases to the side to help loder recoil and muzzle climb, where a suppressor works by slowing the escaping gases ( with baffels or a liquid in the suppressor body ) and bullet the deaden the sound to somewhat a more tollerent level. Let me put it this was go stand beside and slighly behind a guy with a muzzle brake and you will get what i mean.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

"A suppressor, sound suppressor, sound moderator, or silencer, is a device attached to or part of the barrel of a firearm which reduces the amount of noise and flash generated by firing the weapon."

This is a definition that I came up with when I searched for shotgun suppressor. The difference from the Magnaport system is the addition of a baffle system to route and suppress the preasures and gasses vented by ported hole systems. 

Looking at some of the screw-on types which were huge on the end of a shotgun and the db difference was minimal at best on most models. Some of the lowest only brought the level down to 130 db where the H&S standards for use of hearing protection are 140. Still it is a reduction and should be looked at. I still think the fact that it is a screw-on device will make it hard to sell the government as it can be open to modification. It also stated that they do have a choke effect to shotguns although not huge it still will give a better pattern result.

Going to do some more reading.


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

Bob, they are not silencers. That is a 'Hollywood' term that has no business in a forum where intelligent discourse is taking place. That has a negative connotation that is innacurate. Moderators and Suppressors are accurate terms for these products. They take hunting centerfires db down to a less abbrasive and damaging level. Do yourself a favour and join canadiangunnutz and see what is being discussed. 
There is absolutely no reason these cannot and should not be legal here in Canada.


----------



## jesster77 (Aug 2, 2010)

GenesisAlpha said:


> "A suppressor, sound suppressor, sound moderator, or silencer, is a device attached to or part of the barrel of a firearm which reduces the amount of noise and flash generated by firing the weapon."
> 
> This is a definition that I came up with when I searched for shotgun suppressor. The difference from the Magnaport system is the addition of a baffle system to route and suppress the preasures and gasses vented by ported hole systems.
> 
> ...


magna porting and muzzle breaks actually increase the decibel noise in a firearm. the whole purpose of a break or magna porting is to reduce recoil. a better way of looking at it would be that a muzzle break or magnaporting would be a "recoil" suppressor.


----------



## Raymond 1 (Feb 23, 2010)

Is it really gone now?
Raymond


----------



## thunderbolt (Oct 11, 2002)

Not gone quite yet. Hopefully before the end of the year...


----------



## Raymond 1 (Feb 23, 2010)

Thanks, I was reading up about it this evening. Now I know what I want for Christmas.

"Dear Santa,
I have been a good man all year long. As good as I could be.
All I want for Christmas is the Long Gun Registry to be gone. 
Let's see if you bring my present, Santa Clause.
If you do not, I will never believe in you again.
PS I will leave a meat grinder on the table for you and a box off apples for the Reindeer, so they can get nice and fat for you.
Love,
Raymond"


----------



## c.sitas (Dec 29, 2010)

You have to pay atten. here Canada,is England and I don't care how you color it. I was up there hunting when their first laws were made and they were so dumb that they didn't even care . They had some smart people talking . Just like now in the US. Don't let anyone talk you into any form of gun control. Right now I'm just back from Alaska, had to drive through Can. and at the border they took my pepper spray. They consider this a weapon and all I wanted it for was to chase a bear maybe. I was fishing for salmon. I guess what I'm trying to say is , They are mostly smoke and have no direction in some of these goings on. You gotta love them and watch em ,just like here. Most people I talk to don't seem to understand that when you go into Can. you are in a foreign country. Just break a law and you'll learn quick.


----------



## usernametaken (Nov 19, 2010)

Mace or pepper spray is illegal in Canada - bear or dog repellant is not... The only difference being the label on the canister. Don't mace anyone here in Canada, the fine is upwards of $500,000 and it could also land you a three year prison term for using it on a human.


----------



## jrr051468 (Oct 14, 2011)

SuphanXP said:


> Does this mean I can now go and buy a fire arm in the USA, given they will sell you one (state law depending)?


good luck with that...


----------



## jrr051468 (Oct 14, 2011)

GenesisAlpha said:


> "A suppressor, sound suppressor, sound moderator, or silencer, is a device attached to or part of the barrel of a firearm which reduces the amount of noise and flash generated by firing the weapon."
> 
> This is a definition that I came up with when I searched for shotgun suppressor. The difference from the Magnaport system is the addition of a baffle system to route and suppress the preasures and gasses vented by ported hole systems.
> 
> ...


Sir,

You are talking about THREE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MECHANICAL DEVICES with three ENTIRELY DIFFENT FUNCTIONS here...

First, porting by any name, Mag-na-port being the most commonly known, Pro-port, Pro-comp and an array of others are simply holes or slots cut/drilled into the actual barrel, or many times in the case of a shotgun, a choke tube of what ever constriction you like, simply for the purpose of allowing propellant gases to escape prior to exiting the muzzle for the purpose of reducing felt recoil. These cuts/ports also allow the gases to be directed in pre-planned directions to hold down muzzle rise/flip. You can literally port any firearm with a drill press...

Secondly, a flash suppressor is simply a slotted "cage" placed on the muzzle of a firearm, usually a military type weapon, that reshapes the flow of gasses and powder flash into or through several slender slots in line with the weapons axis to redirect/reduce the overall expansion of the flash of the shot thereby making the shooter/weapon harder to locate visually.

Thirdly, true top end suppressors are highly refined devices that reduce the sound signature of a weapon by capturing the muzzle blast inside an appropriately sized for caliber "can" or tube and directs it through a pre-planned escape route within the can (which is a series of baffles) that both cool the exhaust and slows the sound waves. They can be threaded and screwed on/off of the firearm but much better are the twist-lock type that slides on over the end of the barrel and with a 1/4 twist, lock into a recieving fixture mounted on the barrel. Some of the higher end cans like the Gem-techs can reduce sound signatures to about 85 db (9mm). This is much less than a .22 long rifles normal signature. They function very well on semi-auto handguns (especially with lockable breeches)and sub machine guns such as the H&K 94. They are not cheap. Cans for rifles are also very functional for REDUCING the signature of multiple shots in a combat enviroment. They are very effective (130 db as opposed to 185 db) and will reduce a 5.56mm signature to equal the un-suppressed sound level of a 22 magnum. They must be cleaned often and maintained well to work properly. By totally capturing the muzzle blast, the suppressor ELIMINATES all muzzle flash also.

I'm not sure what you mean by "open to modification"... hope that helps.


----------



## Pierre Couture (Oct 28, 2004)

Back to topic about the long gun registry please.... :tea:


----------



## jrr051468 (Oct 14, 2011)

Why sure...

So does this mean I don't/won't have to send off for the 8 pages of forms and registrations and do all the "here's my serial number of the rifle I'm bringing to Canada" crap before I go back to Sask.?


----------



## Pierre Couture (Oct 28, 2004)

jrr051468 said:


> Why sure...
> 
> So does this mean I don't/won't have to send off for the 8 pages of forms and registrations and do all the "here's my serial number of the rifle I'm bringing to Canada" crap before I go back to Sask.?


The best way to find out will be to call the Canadian Customs to see how it might affect your carrying guns north. My guess is that it probably won't change much as the same kind of paperwork is required to travel south of the border with guns.


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

It looks to me that we can take the elimination of the LGR at face value on the Federal end of things. Its open to Provincial installment but the records will be destroyed and for a provincial government to take on a 'boondogle' would be courting disaster. Lets get on the ball with legalizing suppressors. No reason they shouldn't be legal or more to the point required.


----------



## Cory J~ (Jun 29, 2010)

Just think 2 BILLION, let me say that again TWO BILLION of our taxpayer dollars wasted on a registry of probably the most law abiding members of society.

Study the chart below, and think, what could/should we have spent that money on... (by the way the crime area is 3 oclock on the chart)


----------



## hunter-4-life (Feb 22, 2011)

imho EVERYTHING needs to be scrapped, the registry and the whole "PAL" crap. It isnt doing any good anyway. What criminal is going to use a registered gun to kill somebody or rob something. And if he does how is anyone going to know and track it? Its a money scandle if you ask me!


----------



## D3TH_OVRH3D (Sep 23, 2010)

Sorry for my ignorance, guys, but what's the current status on the long gun registry? What stages are they at in terms of complete dismissal of this wasteful moneygrab? My boss (who is somewhat argumentative) is telling me that it may not get dropped, while I'm insisting to him that the registry is on it's way out. I've read and heard mixed information on this so I'm hoping for a little better clarification. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## D3TH_OVRH3D (Sep 23, 2010)

hunter-4-life said:


> imho EVERYTHING needs to be scrapped, the registry and the whole "PAL" crap. It isnt doing any good anyway. What criminal is going to use a registered gun to kill somebody or rob something. And if he does how is anyone going to know and track it? Its a money scandle if you ask me!


I respectfully disagree with your idea of scrapping the PAL. Here's why.. I've had absolutely NO experience with guns, other that shooting my friend's rifle and shotgun only a couple of times. I decided that I'd like to broaden my horizons a little, so I talked to the local instructor and asked him if he thinks I could pass the exam without having to take the actual course he provides. He told me that if I buy the books from him (both Restricted and Non-Restricted) and study them thoroughly, I could likely pass the exam. So, I paid the $60 (IIRC) for the two books and studied them throroughly for one week. I challenged the exam for both Restricted and Non-Restricted and scored 100% in 2 written and 2 practical exams. I was very proud of myself and I learned a lot about firearm safety and handling just from studying the books and handling the weapons during the exam. 

I don't believe it'd be a great idea if just anyone could purchasea firearm and/or ammunition without some sort of proof of competency. Not just because of "illegal activity" but because some people just don't have the common sense to carefully handle a firearm... Then again, I see people everyday who shouldn't be allowed to drive a car.lol


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I don't think the vast majority of Canadian gun owners have any issue with the PAL. 

The course and test are pretty much a joke - that I know from having worked in the hunting department of a major outdoors store and seeing the intelligence level of some of the people who show up with PALs and must therefore have actually passed a test.

But the background check is valuable. It is not going to stop a serious criminal from obtaining an illegal firearm, but it does put barriers in the way of many people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns.


----------



## Pierre Couture (Oct 28, 2004)

D3TH_OVRH3D said:


> I respectfully disagree with your idea of scrapping the PAL. Here's why.. I've had absolutely NO experience with guns, other that shooting my friend's rifle and shotgun only a couple of times. I decided that I'd like to broaden my horizons a little, so I talked to the local instructor and asked him if he thinks I could pass the exam without having to take the actual course he provides. He told me that if I buy the books from him (both Restricted and Non-Restricted) and study them thoroughly, I could likely pass the exam. So, I paid the $60 (IIRC) for the two books and studied them throroughly for one week. I challenged the exam for both Restricted and Non-Restricted and scored 100% in 2 written and 2 practical exams. I was very proud of myself and I learned a lot about firearm safety and handling just from studying the books and handling the weapons during the exam.
> 
> I don't believe it'd be a great idea if just anyone could purchasea firearm and/or ammunition without some sort of proof of competency. Not just because of "illegal activity" but because some people just don't have the common sense to carefully handle a firearm... Then again, I see people everyday who shouldn't be allowed to drive a car.lol





Stash said:


> I don't think the vast majority of Canadian gun owners have any issue with the PAL.
> 
> The course and test are pretty much a joke - that I know from having worked in the hunting department of a major outdoors store and seeing the intelligence level of some of the people who show up with PALs and must therefore have actually passed a test.
> 
> But the background check is valuable. It is not going to stop a serious criminal from obtaining an illegal firearm, but it does put barriers in the way of many people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns.


I remember a specific case back in 1995. I met a man one week at my grandfather's funeral. He was the owner of the funeral parlor, and seemed to be a decent fellow, but events proved me wrong. The following week, I heard about a hostage situation in a town next to where I grew up. That man had taken his daughter hostage. The local police chief who knew him well tried to negotiate with him. He got killed instead by that man, who then proceeded to kill his daughter before taking his own life with a shotgun. 

We learned later that he had been condemned for spousal abuse in the past, but that he had recently been allowed to get firearms again. The PAL serves precisely that purpose. To prevent people who are "at risk" from acquiring firearms. It's not a panacea, but, like locking up firearms and ammo in separate locations, has done a lot to save lives. More so than the registry itself.


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

I agree with alot of what is being said here. Bad guys will continue to get illegal guns, the registry didn't and could never stop that. The PAL (FAC) serves/served its intended purposes. Some people shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms. Drivers Licences serve the same purpose keeping many off the road.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

Stash said:


> I don't think the vast majority of Canadian gun owners have any issue with the PAL.
> 
> The course and test are pretty much a joke - that I know from having worked in the hunting department of a major outdoors store and seeing the intelligence level of some of the people who show up with PALs and must therefore have actually passed a test.
> 
> But the background check is valuable. It is not going to stop a serious criminal from obtaining an illegal firearm, but it does put barriers in the way of many people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns.


I very much agree! The Problem from the start was they attached the POL/PAL system to the legislation that contained the registry. If you said yes to part of it you got the whole package. Testing is done with the hope you were listening and like any test it is done with a bell curve for degree of forgiveness.


----------



## FarmerPaul (Jun 9, 2005)

I do not agree with the PAL part of the regs. Possession , Aquisition Licence . I am all for taking the firearm safety course , I am all for having to be checked out to be able to purchase or borrow a fire arm , I am not thrilled having to have a Possession Licence . They should go back to an FAC system . Why should I have a licence to own something I purchased legally ?


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

Paul, going back to the initial start of this legislation they offered two types of licence. POL and PAL. The first being a possession only licence, this by far was the worst of the two. This made you register all your firearms and did not allow you to buy or sell (not sure loan or borrow). By definition you were backed into a corner with I believe the only people who could get these were family upon your death and the police. You could upgrade to PAL but you would have to go through training and backround search for a second round.

I remember the FAC which allowed you to buy or sell firearms, it had a backround check but no education value or was it manditory. The PAL is manditory in all cases. It proves you have had the education and passed all tests and backround search.

I was as you know against both at the start. Not because both were bad but because they were a bundle tied to the registry and if you said yes to one you got both. I am proud to be a gun owner and I value my privacy. But in society today give and take is the rule. The registry is done. If to win this battle I still have to raise my hand in public to say I am a proud gun owner so be it, I renew my moose licence every year and I do not throw rocks at them, so in the same vane they know.

We walk a fine line here, the majority of Canadians do not own firearms. If put to a vote, we would lose our right to own firearms in Canada. We have won a battle here but the war is still out there. If we fight on too many fronts we will lose the war. If this is the best line to hold, lets make our stand on what we have now. If the province decides to take up this loss by the federal liberals, I can't wait to see how many of our loyal troops line up to register again.


----------



## crkelly (Mar 17, 2011)

One other thing to keep in mind is that in order to purchase ammunition you need to produce a valid PAL. If you don't believe the powers that be should have the right to know what or how many guns you own then it should all be scrapped.
If we are to be held responsable for the actions of a very few bad people then why not just declare a police state. I don't like to see the loss of an innocent life and my heart goes out to their loved ones.The truth is that not all homicides premeditated or not are commited with firearms.We don't live in a perfect world and evil will always be a part of it.You can give up all your rights and make as many laws as you wish but the reality of it is that when you wake up tomorrow evil is still there.


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

I agree with Bob to a point. It is a give and take situation. BUT, and I mean a big BUT, This current Federal Gov't knows it won a majority on our backs (firearms owners). I say since we have a somewhat warm Gov't that knows how hard we can push we should try to take more ground on the firearm friendly front.... cases in point: getting suppressors legalized for hunting and allowing handguns for hunting again. There is no reason this can't and shouldn't happen. There are already active movements for both. 
Also, join canadiangunnutz.com. This is the 'powerful firearm lobby' that helped get Mark 'skidmark' Holland turfed from the Ajax/Pickering riding. He was the Liberals rabid Public Safety Minister. Extremely anti-gun. He actually accused 'the powerful canadian gun lobby' of making him lose his seat as an MP. Not that he was a rude, arrogant jerk. Canadiangunnutz helped rally the troops and turf him. We are a powerful group of voters and should be respected and have our ideas considred. Educate yourself on 'Suppressors' for hunting and 'Handgun hunting in Canada'. There is a movement out there.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

charles I think you mean pol possession only is minimum requirement..I think stabbings are up there now in numbers other than mass gun killings...


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

I`m not for suppressors for hunting..I`m for being able to hear a poacher .... so as to report him to police.. I am for handgun hunting.. partridge with a pistol or that nice 410 pistol


----------



## Mr. Bill (Dec 5, 2007)

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> I`m not for suppressors for hunting..I`m for being able to hear a poacher .... so as to report him to police.. I am for handgun hunting.. partridge with a pistol or that nice 410 pistol


Do you think the "poacher" will choose to abide by the no suppressor law even though he is.... poaching?


----------



## hunter-4-life (Feb 22, 2011)

Ok, i was wrong to say to get rid of the PAL system. HOWEVER i do think the registry aspect of thinks is just a $$$ maker. Im hoping it is gone by next hunting season


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

Suppressed rifles still make noise, just less damaging to hearing and offending non-hunters. Its a win win win. And to report poachers cuz you heard a shot doesn't make sense.


----------



## dbierman (Nov 27, 2008)

hillwilly said:


> Unless you need a handgun for your line of work I just don't see the need for a gun that can be concealed, not allowed to hunt with em anyway. I have known a few folks that had them only one was legal and noone had used them for sport. The only one that even fired one now lives behind bars for murder. Maby it's just that I'm too close to the city and am ignorant to the sporting side of this cause it's something I've never seen. My apologies to anyone I may have offended, I just haven't seen one put to good use.


Come on down here and take a walk with me through South Memphis. Not everyone lives in Mayberry. Just because you don't need one doesn't make it right for you to think everyones guns (that you have no use for) should be banned. That's a ridiculous gun grabber, tree hugger, peta, bleeding heart liberal yada, yada, yada statement if I ever heard one.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

dbierman said:


> Come on down here and take a walk with me through South Memphis. Not everyone lives in Mayberry. Just because you don't need one doesn't make it right for you to think everyones guns (that you have no use for) should be banned. That's a ridiculous gun grabber, tree hugger, peta, bleeding heart liberal yada, yada, yada statement if I ever heard one.


hillwilly is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Because the use of Restricted Firearms in Canada is limited, education on them is also limited to those who own them. I have a restricted licence and may own a handgun someday. I applaud those states that have CCW. It might work in Canada in wilderness areas where a charging Grizz needs a warning shot but the GTA.........I don't think so.

If South Memphis is not Mayberry than carry is not the answer to the problem. It is a roadblock for the bigger cure. I bet, I could guess the demographics of the area, not a lot of jobs, low income, high crime rate? Sporting a gun does not solve these issues. Banning guns does not solve them also. I would go on to say what I think might help to start the "Change" but that would be the tuff road and it is easier to just carry and do nothing. Just my opinion and it's free.


----------



## crkelly (Mar 17, 2011)

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> charles I think you mean pol possession only is minimum requirement..I think stabbings are up there now in numbers other than mass gun killings...


I think you missed the point Ted.


----------



## dbierman (Nov 27, 2008)

GenesisAlpha said:


> hillwilly is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Because the use of Restricted Firearms in Canada is limited, education on them is also limited to those who own them. I have a restricted licence and may own a handgun someday. I applaud those states that have CCW. It might work in Canada in wilderness areas where a charging Grizz needs a warning shot but the GTA.........I don't think so.
> 
> If South Memphis is not Mayberry than carry is not the answer to the problem. It is a roadblock for the bigger cure. I bet, I could guess the demographics of the area, not a lot of jobs, low income, high crime rate? Sporting a gun does not solve these issues. Banning guns does not solve them also. I would go on to say what I think might help to start the "Change" but that would be the tuff road and it is easier to just carry and do nothing. Just my opinion and it's free.


Until a better fix is put in place this is my only option to protect myself and my family. Someone saying all handguns should be banned because he see's no good use for them is something I take offense to. I don't know too much about Canada or their gun laws but in the United States we can still carry to protect ourselves because we take such a hard stance on people with that type of opinion. Most people in the States still believe that if you ban guns "only the criminals will have them". Just ask the people of the countries that have let their government ban their guns.

And yes you are right, everyone is entitled to their opinion just like I'm entitled to respond to it.


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

Thats the slippery slope Bob. You always talk about uniting sportsmen and this and that but you can't have it both ways. You can't say its ok to have one if a Grizzly charges in the wilderness but 'you don't think so' for downtown Toronto. Odds are likely far greater needing a legal handgun in T.O. than in the wilderness if a grizz were to charge. 
Its your opinion as the contrary view is an opinion as well. Who gives anyone the right to yay or nay? Many of these laws were born out of political optics trolling for votes than from arising from any need ie: LGR. 
This current federal gov't. is the type of climate we need to get some rights back. The problem of Canadians is thinking to small all of the time.


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

dbierman said:


> Come on down here and take a walk with me through South Memphis. Not everyone lives in Mayberry. Just because you don't need one doesn't make it right for you to think everyones guns (that you have no use for) should be banned. That's a ridiculous gun grabber, tree hugger, peta, bleeding heart liberal yada, yada, yada statement if I ever heard one.


I'd love to come on down and visit the south. it would more than likely shed some light on the subject for me, sounds like a totally different way of life than what i've seen here.


----------



## dbierman (Nov 27, 2008)

hillwilly said:


> I'd love to come on down and visit the south. it would more than likely shed some light on the subject for me, sounds like a totally different way of life than what i've seen here.


Watch the movie "Hustle and Flow" it's a good movie set in south Memphis. I can't remember the main character's name right now but he does a great job.

It's not a lot of killing and gang banging or anything but a pretty realistic story and you can see what the streets really look like.

Then come down here to the Rendezvous and have a slab of the best dry ribs you ever put in your mouth (but be sure to bring your piece).


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

dbierman said:


> Watch the movie "Hustle and Flow" it's a good movie set in south Memphis. I can't remember the main character's name right now but he does a great job.
> 
> It's not a lot of killing and gang banging or anything but a pretty realistic story and you can see what the streets really look like.
> 
> Then come down here to the Rendezvous and have a slab of the best dry ribs you ever put in your mouth (but be sure to bring your piece).


The only piece the Canadian gov. Let's me have is some sticks and strings LOL. I think I'd stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

the poacher thing is if I hear a shot out of season or on my land I`m going to investigate.. the suppressor gives the criminal even more of a edge from trespasser to poacher.. when you guys say suppressor how many decibels does it lower the noise ???


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

It lowers it in the range of 20-50 db. Some guns less ie: 30-06 some more ie: .222 Remington. A varmint rifle probably puts out about 140 db (going off top of head here) so a suppressor brings it down to say 100ish db. Still not great for your hearing but not nearly as bad. States and countries that allow them have them on an 'on permit' type of basis from what I'm gathering. Also would piss off alot less new to the country-life types that aern't sure they like people hunting nearby yet.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

dbierman said:


> Until a better fix is put in place this is my only option to protect myself and my family. Someone saying all handguns should be banned because he see's no good use for them is something I take offense to. I don't know too much about Canada or their gun laws but in the United States we can still carry to protect ourselves because we take such a hard stance on people with that type of opinion. Most people in the States still believe that if you ban guns "only the criminals will have them". Just ask the people of the countries that have let their government ban their guns.
> 
> And yes you are right, everyone is entitled to their opinion just like I'm entitled to respond to it.


Responses are always welcome, but this just adds fuel where there is no fire.................."That's a ridiculous gun grabber, tree hugger, peta, bleeding heart liberal yada, yada, yada statement if I ever heard one.".

We have just won a 10+ year battle to end the LGR. Think about it for a second, 10+ years of waiting to get a government that was not going to lie to the public at large and tell them this draconian law would save lives. 10 years of loses in courts and many good folks who tried to battle this law, some who even went to jail over it on the long gun owning Canadians behalf. Many of us who supported the CPC, CSSA and others with finances and time. Those folks that did not register or take their PAL to protest this bad law. And its not a bad law because it was a pain to do, it was a bad law because it does not save lives!

So now we have to ask ourselves where do we go from here. Do we think that asking for Sound suppressors or CCW in Canada will be a reality some day? Do you think that restricted firearms will be pulled from that group and put in the non-restricted firearms group? Nice wish list but reality, I think not. If the CPC ran an election on these we would see them lose government in a heartbeat and we would get a Liberal/NDP coalition that would have you looking at your guns through a window just like you look at a newborn baby. You have to get a weekend pass to get them out.

Canada is not the USA. As I said I tip my hat to them for CCW and their understanding that guns don't pull their own trigger. I wish we had a group like the NRA in Canada that would bring us all together to fight bad laws and protect the ones we have. I see it getting better through the CSSA but we need to all support them, clubs and individuals. 

Do I think we could get a Handgun season in rural areas, a good supported run at it and I think we could do it. If we put forward the ideas to make it legal in the eyes of the MNR and the RCMP so the transport issue and area issues where resolved, but again it takes money and support. Not idle talk, chest pounding and armchair mentality.

dbierman, don't get me wrong here. I find it sad that you feel the need to have to carry because of fear for self and family. My point was is that situation will never go away until the climate it is in is addressed. But it has to start somewhere because there is always a faster draw out there somewhere and a brave dead hand can not protect anything. Governments love it when we are busy fighting amongst ourselves, less watching them and the lame ideas they come up with and the things they try to impose on you and I. So it leaves the start point with you and I. Question is are we ready to act to fix the problems or is it okay to carry, ready to take a life?

Our government is now passing laws in Canada to make equal use of force law. So if in defence of ourselves and family we do not go to prison for standing up against criminals that would do us or ours harm. Another good move forward.

I wear who I am on my shirtsleve, I tell you what I see and think. I put my money where my mouth is and support the cause in everyway I can. Do I take ownership in winning this battle over getting rid of the LGR.................dam right I do! I stood up at every meeting in my area and wrote letters from the begining and told as many that were willing to listen how bad this law was. My reality check came years ago when the Handgun owners came to us as long gun owners and asked for our help to stop the move toward registries, and we the long gun communittee let them down. Seems some still have not had their reality check yet, my advise is when this bill is passed and it will be, take a look at the whole.............."WHOLE PICTURE" of gun ownership in Canada and then search your gut to see where this can and will go if we do not get on board and build on our wins to protect what we have Now! Becuse when and we know someday that coalition will gain government we will be in the fight again.

Bob


----------



## dbierman (Nov 27, 2008)

GenesisAlpha said:


> Responses are always welcome, but this just adds fuel where there is no fire.................."That's a ridiculous gun grabber, tree hugger, peta, bleeding heart liberal yada, yada, yada statement if I ever heard one.".
> 
> We have just won a 10+ year battle to end the LGR. Think about it for a second, 10+ years of waiting to get a government that was not going to lie to the public at large and tell them this draconian law would save lives. 10 years of loses in courts and many good folks who tried to battle this law, some who even went to jail over it on the long gun owning Canadians behalf. Many of us who supported the CPC, CSSA and others with finances and time. Those folks that did not register or take their PAL to protest this bad law. And its not a bad law because it was a pain to do, it was a bad law because it does not save lives!
> 
> ...


I don't know why you addressed me with your response, it sounds to me that we're on the same side of the fence.

I stand by my position that any ban of guns whatever they may be, (suppressed, full auto, sawed off, assult, long gun, shot gun, hand gun) is a bad idea and should be done away with. Any of these guns are perfectly safe and have a good use when in responsible hands. The bans should be placed on the irresponsible people, not the guns.

I don't know anything about your laws or the struggles you guys face and my statement wasn't directed toward them, it was to the statement he made that guns that he see's no good use for should be banned. That is the _"That's a ridiculous gun grabber, tree hugger, peta, bleeding heart liberal yada, yada, yada statement if I ever heard one"_ statement I was referring to. People with that position are a big part of your problem.

Good luck with your struggles.


----------



## dbierman (Nov 27, 2008)

hillwilly said:


> The only piece the Canadian gov. Let's me have is some sticks and strings LOL. I think I'd stick out like a sore thumb.


Let me know when you get here and I'll meet you, with my piece of coarse.

BTW my intent wasn't to flame you personally, but anytime someone thinks banning guns is the answer to any problem I have to respond. You ever heard the saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? Banning guns is the same thing to me. Those statements are asking me to hand over the one thing that would protect me from the one thing they made me give up.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

dbierman said:


> I don't know why you addressed me with your response, it sounds to me that we're on the same side of the fence.
> 
> I stand by my position that any ban of guns whatever they may be, (suppressed, full auto, sawed off, assult, long gun, shot gun, hand gun) is a bad idea and should be done away with. Any of these guns are perfectly safe and have a good use when in responsible hands. The bans should be placed on the irresponsible people, not the guns.
> 
> ...


dbierman, I agree with you on every part of the above. Too add, their problem is education on the issue and we here in Canada have not done a good job doing that for years. I believe and try to relay this statement, " If we allow others to lose a right, we weaken our ability to defend the ones we hold firm.". It was a lesson we learned early in the 90's when the government went after the bans on certain firearms in the restricted group to ban them. When all was lost the handgun folks told us we would be next and we were. The devices you mention (suppressed, full auto, sawed off, assult) are already on the ban list for the most part and to be upfront will never come off that list. With media and anti groups it would be a killing field for the cause if they were on the agenda of any on side group or government. It is the truth and the reality of Canada.

I have travelled to many places in the USA, have always been treated well and never felt to any degree threatened. But those place I know are not the reality for all. My best wishes and hopes that someday you do not feel the need to carry for defense but that it comes from the enjoyment of freedom and the love of shooting sports.


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

dbierman said:


> Let me know when you get here and I'll meet you, with my piece of coarse.
> 
> BTW my intent wasn't to flame you personally, but anytime someone thinks banning guns is the answer to any problem I have to respond. You ever heard the saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? Banning guns is the same thing to me. Those statements are asking me to hand over the one thing that would protect me from the one thing they made me give up.


 I take no offence to your posts, If I didn't REALLY have an open mind on this subject, I'd have given a better rant. sometimes you have to stir the pot to find out the whole story.


----------

