• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A good place to start!!!

kolanuraven

Well-known member
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hl-fs-eng.htm


he main purpose of the Firearms Act and its supporting regulations is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are likely to be a danger to themselves or to others. The Criminal Code and its supporting regulations define a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act, and set out penalties for the illegal possession and misuse of a firearm.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hl-fs-eng.htm


he main purpose of the Firearms Act and its supporting regulations is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are likely to be a danger to themselves or to others. The Criminal Code and its supporting regulations define a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act, and set out penalties for the illegal possession and misuse of a firearm.

"is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are likely to be a danger to themselves or to others."

You mean like drug cartel people?
 

Silver

Well-known member
okfarmer said:
Silver said:
hopalong said:
Fast and furious comes to mind!!!!! :D :D :D

Eh kolo=jingo=lulu=allie :wink:

So you support the act she provided the link for then?

No. What are your reasons I should?

I was trying to ask Hoppy in a round about way just exactly what he thought the Canadian Firearms Act had to do with "Fast and Furious".
Personally, I don't care if you guys south of the border support this act or not. It has nothing to do with you.
Our conservative gov't finally got a majority, so now registration of non restricted firearms is out the window.
In my mind I no longer have a problem with gun control in Canada, and obviously you don't have a problem down there so I guess everything is peachy on both sides of the border.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
MY statement was made as an answer to penalties to the criiminal act of possesion and mis use of a firearm...must be a day foir densness if you read my support of anything that you read!!!!!!

Knowing kolo=jingo=lulu=allie, am not convinced she even knew what she posted
:wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Silver

Well-known member
hopalong said:
MY statement was made as an answer to penalties to the criiminal act of possesion and mis use of a firearm...must be a day foir densness if you read my support of anything that you read!!!!!!

Knowing kolo=jingo=lulu=allie, am not convinced she even knew what she posted
:wink: :wink: :wink:

Oh you're not THAT dense Hoppy..... Actually your statement "Fast and Furious comes to mind" in response to her post was just plumb stupid. Dense doesn't begin to describe it! lol


EH Hoppy????

:lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Ok you win,,,,,,,sure glad all Canadians are not as dense as you are are
EH silver.....those I know sure as heck are not!!!!! :wink:

you have the last word :D :D :D
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Silver said:
okfarmer said:
Silver said:
So you support the act she provided the link for then?

No. What are your reasons I should?

I was trying to ask Hoppy in a round about way just exactly what he thought the Canadian Firearms Act had to do with "Fast and Furious".
Personally, I don't care if you guys south of the border support this act or not. It has nothing to do with you.
Our conservative gov't finally got a majority, so now registration of non restricted firearms is out the window.
In my mind I no longer have a problem with gun control in Canada, and obviously you don't have a problem down there so I guess everything is peachy on both sides of the border.

Fast and Furious was against US laws but didn't stop the Justice dept. What good is the Canadian system if a government dept. breaks it's own rules.

Heard on the news that last night a business in Regina was held up by three men with handguns. :shock: What they are a restricted weapon and have needed to be registered in Canada since 1934.
I was wondering if Kolo has a concealed carry permit? In Canada she wouldn't as you need a permit every time you take your gun to the range and you can't even stop to pick up milk on your way home.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
okfarmer said:
No. What are your reasons I should?

I was trying to ask Hoppy in a round about way just exactly what he thought the Canadian Firearms Act had to do with "Fast and Furious".
Personally, I don't care if you guys south of the border support this act or not. It has nothing to do with you.
Our conservative gov't finally got a majority, so now registration of non restricted firearms is out the window.
In my mind I no longer have a problem with gun control in Canada, and obviously you don't have a problem down there so I guess everything is peachy on both sides of the border.

Fast and Furious was against US laws but didn't stop the Justice dept. What good is the Canadian system if a government dept. breaks it's own rules.

Heard on the news that last night a business in Regina was held up by three men with handguns. :shock: What they are a restricted weapon and have needed to be registered in Canada since 1934.
I was wondering if Kolo has a concealed carry permit? In Canada she wouldn't as you need a permit every time you take your gun to the range and you can't even stop to pick up milk on your way home.

Can't argue with you there. A law is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Which doesn't mean there should be no laws. Laws also give "the people" the right to prosecute and punish when folks do break the laws of the land.
I saw a quote the other day I kind of liked. Went something like this:
"Supporting gun laws doesn't make me anti gun any more than supporting traffic laws make me anti car"
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Silver said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
I was trying to ask Hoppy in a round about way just exactly what he thought the Canadian Firearms Act had to do with "Fast and Furious".
Personally, I don't care if you guys south of the border support this act or not. It has nothing to do with you.
Our conservative gov't finally got a majority, so now registration of non restricted firearms is out the window.
In my mind I no longer have a problem with gun control in Canada, and obviously you don't have a problem down there so I guess everything is peachy on both sides of the border.

Fast and Furious was against US laws but didn't stop the Justice dept. What good is the Canadian system if a government dept. breaks it's own rules.

Heard on the news that last night a business in Regina was held up by three men with handguns. :shock: What they are a restricted weapon and have needed to be registered in Canada since 1934.
I was wondering if Kolo has a concealed carry permit? In Canada she wouldn't as you need a permit every time you take your gun to the range and you can't even stop to pick up milk on your way home.

Can't argue with you there. A law is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Which doesn't mean there should be no laws. Laws also give "the people" the right to prosecute and punish when folks do break the laws of the land.
I saw a quote the other day I kind of liked. Went something like this:
"Supporting gun laws doesn't make me anti gun any more than supporting traffic laws make me anti car"



"Supporting gun laws doesn't make me anti gun any more than supporting Free speech laws make me anti Free speech"

REALLY? :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.

The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.


As a result of both the different ways in which these statistics are collected and of varying definitions of “violent crime,” there will naturally be some discrepancies between countries. Enough to account for a 5:1 difference between Britain and the United States, though? I rather think not. As I observed last year when covering the London riots:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
 

Silver

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
"Supporting gun laws doesn't make me anti gun any more than supporting Free speech laws make me anti Free speech"

REALLY? :???:

Really. So apparently you think there are no laws pertaining to free speech Big Muddy? Or is it that you think there should be no laws pertaining to free speech?

REALLY?????
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Silver said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
"Supporting gun laws doesn't make me anti gun any more than supporting Free speech laws make me anti Free speech"

REALLY? :???:

Really. So apparently you think there are no laws pertaining to free speech Big Muddy? Or is it that you think there should be no laws pertaining to free speech?

REALLY?????

Generally speaking Laws regarding guns are restrictive and unrestrictive for Free speech.

Now are you telling me you think we should have unrestrained Gun ownership as well as unrestrained free speech?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
"Supporting gun laws doesn't make me anti gun any more than supporting Free speech laws make me anti Free speech"

REALLY? :???:

Really. So apparently you think there are no laws pertaining to free speech Big Muddy? Or is it that you think there should be no laws pertaining to free speech?

REALLY?????

Generally speaking Laws regarding guns are restrictive and unrestrictive for Free speech.

Now are you telling me you think we should have unrestrained Gun ownership as well as unrestrained free speech?

Not sure how you picked that up Big Muddy, but if that's what you got you are mistaken.
The fact is there are already laws around each. Being for laws that control these freedoms in no way makes one against having the right.


Mothers against drunk drivers, the Pope is against the pill The union’s against the workers working against their will The President’s against the Congress, the Senate is against the House People are against politicians and I’m against cats in the house
 

alice

Well-known member
Silver said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
Really. So apparently you think there are no laws pertaining to free speech Big Muddy? Or is it that you think there should be no laws pertaining to free speech?

REALLY?????

Generally speaking Laws regarding guns are restrictive and unrestrictive for Free speech.

Now are you telling me you think we should have unrestrained Gun ownership as well as unrestrained free speech?

Not sure how you picked that up Big Muddy, but if that's what you got you are mistaken.
The fact is there are already laws around each. Being for laws that control these freedoms in no way makes one against having the right.


Mothers against drunk drivers, the Pope is against the pill The union’s against the workers working against their will The President’s against the Congress, the Senate is against the House People are against politicians and I’m against cats in the house

Me too, Silver...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
alice said:
Silver said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Generally speaking Laws regarding guns are restrictive and unrestrictive for Free speech.

Now are you telling me you think we should have unrestrained Gun ownership as well as unrestrained free speech?

Not sure how you picked that up Big Muddy, but if that's what you got you are mistaken.
The fact is there are already laws around each. Being for laws that control these freedoms in no way makes one against having the right.


Mothers against drunk drivers, the Pope is against the pill The union’s against the workers working against their will The President’s against the Congress, the Senate is against the House People are against politicians and I’m against cats in the house

Me too, Silver...

Me three Alice...
 
Top