“Ontario has no intention of recreating the now scrapped federal long-gun registry but is asking firearm vendors to respect federal laws that require they collect the names and addresses of gun buyers.” – Premier Dalton McGuinty [via cnews.canoe.ca]

30 Responses to Quote of the Day: A Canadian Gun Registry By Any Other Name Edition

    • You do realize that Canadian officials used the long gun registry to aid in confiscation of firearms almost right up until the dissolution of the registry, right?

      There are several recent examples of the RCMP revising previous decisions, thus administratively deciding that certain rifles, some of which were decades old, were suddenly prohibited, thus necessitating the confiscation of all copies in country.

      The only reason they were able to do this is because they had a detailed list of gun owners, which listed who owned what guns, and where those gun owners lived.

      Don’t believe me?

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/17/guns-confiscation.html

      • Don’t confuse Mike with the facts. I’m just flabergasted that Mr. McGuinty says that he is not recreating the now abolished registry, but he still wants the names recorded which is obviously recreating the registry. So he is actually conspiring to break Canadian law.

    • “You’re not still pushing that old “registration leads to confiscation” bit are you?”
      —–
      It isn’t a “bit”, Michael. It’s a historical fact.

        • Adding that qualifier only makes it a false argument, Michael. There are several places where it has occurred on this planet. I do not want this country to become like those places, thank you very much.

        • It can’t happen here and you know it. Haven’t you also used that other argument about how the 2A and the gun owners are what keeps the government from becoming tyrannical. Well, if that’s true, which you believe, not me, then how in the hell is there ever going to be wholesale confiscation of firearms in America? You wouldn’t allow it, would you?

        • Yeah, it will not happen here because I am not going along with your registration schemes in the first place.

        • New Orleans. The Hurricane Katrina debacle lead to house to house searches and seizures of legally owned firearms…
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_firearms
          …during a time when a bit of self reliance was at the utmost importance. It’s not as if the population could trust the “public servants” to keep them safe…
          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44035946/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/jury-convicts-officers-katrina-shootings/#.T6FzWdmQnKc
          …but of course a man of such journalistic integrity would only focus on what Bill O’Riley would have to say about it, right mikey?

        • You mean other than Canada in the last 10 years and the UK a couple decades ago?

        • Are you really going to compare the US with its 80 million gun owners and its 2nd amendment to Canada and the UK?

          I don’t think so.

        • *ahem*

          Tell us Moon of a place where that’s happened which resembled the United States.

          Your exact words. I proved you wrong. As usual, instead of admitting that the facts don’t support your argument, you make more asinine comments. Do you enjoy the humiliation of always being wrong and never having a single fact to support your position?

        • I think I proved you wrong. Those places did not have the number of guns per capita that we do or the gun culture we do or the 2A that we do.

        • California, 1997:

          In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal “and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff’s department.” This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.

          New York City, 1991:

          In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns, according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun control.

          Those locations not only “resemble the United States”, they are the United States. I look forward to your acceptance of these facts with bated breath.

    • mikeb,

      You already know the response to your question (what is bad with registration since it has been discussed here so often) so why are you even asking it? How many times do you need us to keep explaining it to you? Do you get off on us responding to you the same way again and again?

      Why don’t you go start a website covering how the federal government is selling firearms all over the world?

      • The only difference between what you’ve been explaining to me and what I’ve been explaining to you is that I’m outnumbered over here. You guys think that repetition and attacking my ideas en masse counts for something, but it doesn’t really.

        Take the way I’ve explained to you over and over again how registration and licensing would put an end to straw purchasing.

        Or, how about the most obvious one, background checks on every gun transfer.

        And on and on it goes. So, don’t try to say I just don’t get it no matter how patiently you keep repeating it. I say the same to you.

        • “registration and licensing would put an end to straw purchasing.”

          “Gee officer I’m afraid I lost my entire collection in a freak boating accident. Give me a call if they ever turn up won’t you?”

        • The only difference between what you’ve been explaining to me and what I’ve been explaining to you is that I’m outnumbered over here. You guys think that repetition and attacking my ideas en masse counts for something, but it doesn’t really.

          You’re the one who keeps repeating baseless claims without a shred of proof to support them. We provide you with data to support our claims time and again and each time you ignore it and scream louder that you’re right and the facts are wrong.

    • Yup. Still believe registration can lead to confiscation.
      From what I have read is most criminals get their guns off the black market or they are loaned to them by their aquantainces.
      Straw FTF purchases are about 10 percent.
      Right now, some of the guns for the black market are stolen, and even if they are under lock and key the better criminals can get them.

      • In other words, ALL of them come from lawful gun sources. I believe the straw purchase figure is higher than 10%, but the point is whether stolen or straw purchased or bought privately, all the guns in criminal hands come from you guys.

        And since you won’t take responsibility for that, you need to be constrained by the federal government to do so.

        It’ll begin to happen in Obama’s 2nd term.

        • So how do you explain the presence of criminals getting guns in countries that are islands and guns are banned? Hmm? Where are your mythical “legal sources providing guns to criminals” there?

          Again, Facts 1, MikeB 0.

        • SOME criminals will always get guns, agreed. Through proper gun control, we could keep that number down. That’s how we save lives.

        • “And since you won’t take responsibility for that, you need to be constrained by the federal government to do so.”
          —–
          I’m very sorry, but I must categorically refuse to take responsibility for someone else’s bad behavior. Quite simply, your inability to articulate a fact-based argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks is not my fault.

        • When I say “you,” I’m talking about ALL lawful gun owners. When you say “I,” you’re whining about personally being accused of something. “Ad hominen” comments aimed at an 80-million collective don’t really have to be taken personally, unless you have an overwhelming desire to be the victim.

  1. Calling him “Canadian Premier” is sort of misleading. He’s the premier of Ontario, though he is one of 1o Canadian provincial premiers.

  2. Still better than Quebec. Quebec is just flatout not obeying the law and is still registered because they got an injunction.

  3. Mike B,

    If it was possible to make every gun and gun manufacturing facility on Earth disintegrate all at the same time, there would be working firearms in the hands of liberty minded indi viduals within an hour. Criminals don’t follow the law. They will get their hands on guns one way or another. Laws requiring registration are anathema to true Americans and freedom lovers everywhere. They don’t solve any problems and create many more. Just ask the more than 150M people who have been killed by their own govt. Oh, wait. They’re dead. You aren’t entitled to your own facts nor can you reject reality and history and substitute your own. As for straw purchases, the crimes committed with them are minuscule so it’s a non-issue.0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *