According to the NRA,

[Sean the Nailer]

As I just finished reading in the daily NRA email-blast, they stated:

"Vice-President Joe Biden is also seriously considering proposals for a national registration database to track the movement and sale of all firearms, and much more."

The point I am making, and have made so many times here already in the past few weeks is this:

I have not heard one single person talk about/refer to Canada's recent (this past summer) abolishment of our own "Long-Gun Registry" which was ALSO a knee-jerk reaction to a similar situation as yours. The anti's got all up-in-a-panic and something needed to be done, after a chaotic episode by one person. This purported 'registry' was gonna be the be-all and end-all answer to all the problems hindering life, liberty, and utopian happiness. The only thing it wasn't going to automatically supply mankind with, was our own personal unicorn for riding to the meditation meetings.

All joking aside, over the past 10 or so years of the 'registry' being in existence, it has had NO PROVEN EFFECT, and has also cost us taxpayers almost 2 Billion dollars. Nobody was safer, nobody was 'protected' any more than they were previous to the law coming into effect. But, the actual law-abiding citizen gun-owners WERE hindered more, limited more, restricted more, and scrutinized further. To the point of frustration where quite a number of the 'older' crowd just said "screw-it" and gave up their freedoms.

Our present gov't up here quashed the registry this past summer, and deleted the information. Crime has not 'jumped through the roof', murder-rate has not 'skyrocketed' and nothing much else has changed, either.

My point of this topic, and thread, is suggesting that ya'll PLEASE, USE THIS INFORMATION!

Get it out there. Scream from rooftops. Your Neighbor-to-the-North and Brother-In-Arms (literally) has ALREADY DONE what is being proposed, and it HAD NO EFFECT other than a financial drain. And again, this is recent/current and not 'a long time ago' stuff.

We were smart enough to get rid of the knee-jerk idiocy put in place by feather-sniffers and soft-brained pantywaists. Don't make the same mistake, by ignoring the actual issue and serious problem at hand.

That is all, I was just getting tired of repeating myself in threads and PM's. One last blanket statement for all to read and do what ya'll want, with.

I'm trying here, I really am.

Sean.

 

[High Binder]

Re: According to the NRA,

That's good info!

Think most people see 'registration' as the precursor to 'confiscation' and/or constant police harassment.

I think a registration law would trigger a lot of (say 300 million) boat accidents. In-fact, I'd be surprised if 2% of the population actually registered their guns and that's where we need to strike. If an insignificant number of people register their guns despite a law directing them to do so, it is in-effect nullification of that law by a fed-up populace. Much like the sit-ins seen during the Civil Rights movement in the 50s. In short this is where the real power of the people is, i.e. peacefully not adhering to tyrannical laws.

 

[my human host]

Re: According to the NRA,

Some of us have been listening, Sean. I remember your posts when you first announced the elimination of the registry.

The extreme gun control measures being proposed have people extremely worked up. The voice of reason isn't loud enough to be heard amidst all the racket.

 

[Michael]

Re: According to the NRA,

I'm old enough to remember having to register .22 rimfire purchases at the local sporting goods store.

Can't fight emotion with reason.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: According to the NRA,

People,,,, let me share with you a few MORE details. Listen up, because THIS HAPPENED HERE!!!!!

In the early '90's, there was a school in Quebec that had a devastating incident similar (somewhat) to what ya'll had a month ago. (not a competition, nor a comparison. Just establishing the mindset in general) We at the time had the 'opposite' government to what we have now.

----Frank, and the Mods, I'm keeping politics out of this, and am being as ambiguous as I can, to stay neutral. I also am not posting the asshole's name, nor the place in which he did his dastardly deed, because I don't want to give it/that one more iota of credibility. If anyone is actually interested, they can google the generalities and it'll show up right quick. But here is the "why" for me to add this now:

After the event, there were "Order-In-Council's" passed (which are nearly identical to your gov't's "Executive Orders." (we on the same page now?)

A number of firearms/longarms which were originally classified as "non-restricted" were then classified as "restricted." The owners of these firearms had a certain time-span to come in and register these firearms, and because of the status change they could no-longer use them for typical hunting/plinking use. They were ONLY legal to be used on "Restricted Certified" ranges, aka pistol ranges.

These firearms included AR-15's, Franchi SPAS-12's, Benelli Shotguns, and a list of others.

About 3 or 4 months later, the wonderful government at the time then decreed in another "Order-In-Council" that this new list changed the classification of certain firearms from "Restricted" to "Prohibited" with NO Grandfather clause attached.

So then, all of these law-abiding citizens whom actually had items like SPAS-12's, Valmet's, Daewoo's, and whatever was on the second list, and had registered them (to stay legal) were informed that they had 30 days to turn these said firearms in to the local constabulary. Otherwise, at the end of the 30 day period, the constabulary would be knocking on YOUR DOOR, to confiscate these weapons for destruction. Oh, and by the way, we know who has them now, and know where you/they are, because you just registered them up to a month ago.

THIS DID HAPPEN HERE, AND I DO KNOW OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO LOST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF FIREARMS..... SIMPLY BY STEPPING UP AND BEING FORTHRIGHT AND LAW-ABIDING.

It'll never happen to you though, right?

Now to make matters worse, and even stupider (there really isn't any other word to use there), the broad who made these changes did so by looking through a 1986 edition of GUNS annual digest (iirc) and literally picked out/pointed to the pictures that looked "icky" and those were now on the list.

The snapperhead that I'd alluded to in the beginning of this post happen to use a Ruger Mini-14 on his particular dastardly deed. It was a 'ranch rifle'.

You'll never guess what wasn't on 'the list' because it was deemed 'OK' because it didn't look 'icky' enough? To this day, the Ruger Mini-14 is still classified as a "Non-Restricted Firearm."

Explain to me the logic of this whole diatribe, eh?

To make a short story very long, and please, please PLEASE, get the gist of what I'm trying to say:

They done DID here what some of ya'll assholes are talking about, and it SOLVED NOTHING. There are literally millions of legal, law-abiding citizens here, with legal firearms who appreciate and enjoy the whole GAMUT of shooting sports. (alot more than just hunting)

And yet, there are also still criminals here, illegal aliens, human traffickers, drug smugglers, drug pushers, negligent doctors, delinquent adolescent's, incestuous parents, con-men/women, embezzelers, and yes, even "crooked politicians" who have 'conflict of interests' like the mayor that just got ousted from a major city in Ontario. (again, google it cause he don't deserve to be linked, here)

So those laws were made, long ago, making these deeds both BAD and ILLEGAL, yet they still happen, and those convicted are still getting out of jail early/or suspended often enough.

Look at the real problem, which has a lot more to do with Mental Health and other issues, than dumb-shit like this.

I'll shut up now,,,, and hope this helps. I really do hope so.

Feel free to PM me, if anything else is needed.

 

[Captain Kirk]

Re: According to the NRA,

Very interesting to hear the cause and effect of a registry first hand. It would be interesting to see the statistics, if there are any...Seems most don't talk numbers when emotion runs the debate

 

[Mead]

Re: According to the NRA,

With neighbors like you, who needs friends?

Thanks Sean

 

[pyplynr]

Re: According to the NRA,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> To the point of frustration where quite a number of the 'older' crowd just said "screw-it" and gave up their freedoms.</div></div>

I honestly believe that is what our gov wants.

 

[bcjolly]

Re: According to the NRA,

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "It is useless to enact laws that cannot be enforced."
Barry C Jolly

 

[sdelorge24]

Re: According to the NRA,

Couldn't agree more. People are sheep, proven time and time again, O they wont round you all up yall are crazy...what about the Japanese in WW2?
The govt will protect you, they won't drive a tank into your house in Waco...will they?

I shutter to think that someone like a young LT straight out of college being the guy that decides whether you can have your guns or not, or being the one who will come and seize them if all this passes.

I've had several conversations with someone in my office who thinks that we dont "need" Ar-15's the Govt should only have them. I had to explain to her that if we the people didn't need them, and pistols were the acceptable form of self defense, then why did we get deployed with them and not Beretta 92f.

Don't forget people, that the Govt, its agencies, the military is a dictatorship 'protecting' a democracy. Those at the top do so with impunity.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: According to the NRA,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sgt_Steve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Couldn't agree more. People are sheep, proven time and time again, O they wont round you all up yall are crazy...what about the Japanese in WW2?
The govt will protect you, they won't drive a tank into your house in Waco...will they?

I shutter to think that someone like a young LT straight out of college being the guy that decides whether you can have your guns or not, or being the one who will come and seize them if all this passes.

I've had several conversations with someone in my office who thinks that we dont "need" Ar-15's the Govt should only have them. I had to explain to her that if we the people didn't need them, and pistols were the acceptable form of self defense, then why did we get deployed with them and not Beretta 92f.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Don't forget people, that the Govt, its agencies, the military is a dictatorship 'protecting' a democracy. Those at the top do so with impunity.</span> </div></div>

Propaganda got you, too. The USA is a constitutional representative republic. Look up what that means, and then look up the concepts of pure democracy.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: According to the NRA,

I look forward to the wordsmith who can combat the tired old canard that says, "The gun ban would work here, if it wasn't for all those guns over there."

That is the lever being used against us. Much as the Commies claim that it wasn't the inherent fraud that is communism that doomed it but the sabotage of it by greedy American (And some others) capitalists. Their answer of course was to undermine capitalism rather than face the fallacy and failure of their life's work!

The angle being used against us that is most pernicious is the smarmy, "We have no worry about what you do with your rifle but when it falls into the wrong hands...". Many attempts to force upon us safes, inspection regimes, registrations, depositories, and other less scary first steps have been floated in much the same way Sean describes the first steps that occurred in Canada.

Space does not permit the EPA, Lead poisoning, Noise pollution, bogus fire risks and other supposed causes for regulation or banning on the basis of "Health" concerns that are in reality just flanking maneuvers.

I am entirely too political for my own good and don't want to violate the rules here. Suffice it to say that if someone with a straight face can state that butt sex is protected by the 1st amendment, and have it stick for 48 years, then there should not be so much difficulty in making the plain truth about the 2nd amendment stick.

Where is the word smith who can make this unequivocal to the extent that anyone who would deny it would be a laughing stock to all but the looniest extremist?

 

[spaniel]

Re: According to the NRA,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People,,,, let me share with you a few MORE details. Listen up, because THIS HAPPENED HERE!!!!!

In the early '90's, there was a school in Quebec that had a devastating incident similar (somewhat) to what ya'll had a month ago. (not a competition, nor a comparison. Just establishing the mindset in general) We at the time had the 'opposite' government to what we have now.

----Frank, and the Mods, I'm keeping politics out of this, and am being as ambiguous as I can, to stay neutral. I also am not posting the asshole's name, nor the place in which he did his dastardly deed, because I don't want to give it/that one more iota of credibility. If anyone is actually interested, they can google the generalities and it'll show up right quick. But here is the "why" for me to add this now:

After the event, there were "Order-In-Council's" passed (which are nearly identical to your gov't's "Executive Orders." (we on the same page now?)

A number of firearms/longarms which were originally classified as "non-restricted" were then classified as "restricted." The owners of these firearms had a certain time-span to come in and register these firearms, and because of the status change they could no-longer use them for typical hunting/plinking use. They were ONLY legal to be used on "Restricted Certified" ranges, aka pistol ranges.

These firearms included AR-15's, Franchi SPAS-12's, Benelli Shotguns, and a list of others.

About 3 or 4 months later, the wonderful government at the time then decreed in another "Order-In-Council" that this new list changed the classification of certain firearms from "Restricted" to "Prohibited" with NO Grandfather clause attached.

So then, all of these law-abiding citizens whom actually had items like SPAS-12's, Valmet's, Daewoo's, and whatever was on the second list, and had registered them (to stay legal) were informed that they had 30 days to turn these said firearms in to the local constabulary. Otherwise, at the end of the 30 day period, the constabulary would be knocking on YOUR DOOR, to confiscate these weapons for destruction. Oh, and by the way, we know who has them now, and know where you/they are, because you just registered them up to a month ago.

THIS DID HAPPEN HERE, AND I DO KNOW OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO LOST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF FIREARMS..... SIMPLY BY STEPPING UP AND BEING FORTHRIGHT AND LAW-ABIDING.

It'll never happen to you though, right?

Now to make matters worse, and even stupider (there really isn't any other word to use there), the broad who made these changes did so by looking through a 1986 edition of GUNS annual digest (iirc) and literally picked out/pointed to the pictures that looked "icky" and those were now on the list.

The snapperhead that I'd alluded to in the beginning of this post happen to use a Ruger Mini-14 on his particular dastardly deed. It was a 'ranch rifle'.

You'll never guess what wasn't on 'the list' because it was deemed 'OK' because it didn't look 'icky' enough? To this day, the Ruger Mini-14 is still classified as a "Non-Restricted Firearm."

Explain to me the logic of this whole diatribe, eh?

To make a short story very long, and please, please PLEASE, get the gist of what I'm trying to say:

They done DID here what some of ya'll assholes are talking about, and it SOLVED NOTHING. There are literally millions of legal, law-abiding citizens here, with legal firearms who appreciate and enjoy the whole GAMUT of shooting sports. (alot more than just hunting)

And yet, there are also still criminals here, illegal aliens, human traffickers, drug smugglers, drug pushers, negligent doctors, delinquent adolescent's, incestuous parents, con-men/women, embezzelers, and yes, even "crooked politicians" who have 'conflict of interests' like the mayor that just got ousted from a major city in Ontario. (again, google it cause he don't deserve to be linked, here)

So those laws were made, long ago, making these deeds both BAD and ILLEGAL, yet they still happen, and those convicted are still getting out of jail early/or suspended often enough.

Look at the real problem, which has a lot more to do with Mental Health and other issues, than dumb-shit like this.

I'll shut up now,,,, and hope this helps. I really do hope so.

Feel free to PM me, if anything else is needed. </div></div>

I was not aware of all of these details...thanks.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: According to the NRA,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's good info!

Think most people see 'registration' as the precursor to 'confiscation' and/or constant police harassment.

I think a registration law would trigger a lot of (say 300 million) boat accidents. In-fact, I'd be surprised if 2% of the population actually registered their guns and that's where we need to strike. If an insignificant number of people register their guns despite a law directing them to do so, it is in-effect nullification of that law by a fed-up populace. Much like the sit-ins seen during the Civil Rights movement in the 50s. In short this is where the real power of the people is, i.e. peacefully not adhering to tyrannical laws. </div></div>

Realistically I'd bet money that about 60-70% WOULD register.

I know a lot of people, they like their house, job, car, wife, freedom.......and they fear jail.

This is the point Mel Gibson made in "The Patriot" - until he lost his son of course, that was a very divining moment in that movie because much like real life, there are those that will not be all in until they lose all.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: According to the NRA,

ArcticLight, that is an extremely accurate statement. All of them.

 

[hofhine1]

Re: According to the NRA,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Realistically I'd bet money that about 60-70% WOULD register.

I know a lot of people, they like their house, job, car, wife, freedom.......and they fear jail.


</div></div>


This is reality.

This is America.

This is a republic, (or better yet) an empire in collapse.

As a tired, 93 year old patriarch of the business I work at once told me, 'those people weren't shoved into the rail cars, they walked right in'.

Unfortunately, I think we will do the same, especially since we decided that somehow civil forfeiture laws allow any law enforcement agency to confiscate your property with out due process.

Imagine having a simple collection of parts that could allow some agency to take your house, car, whatever they want because it wasn't on some fucking list somewhere in Virginia?

We've watched them burn people to the ground for that same collection of parts, no one cared, for he, and the folks there, were 'crazy cult members'.

I'd bet my life were Patrick Henry around to see this shit he'd be a hell of a lot more volatile than James Yeager.

And the real power, (in my opinion) is we stop paying or start shooting, other than that this whole thing is just some debate in the girls room at the local high school over the color of mascara we're wearing to the dance Friday night. Last time some folks sat around in disobedience to LE they got CS gassed with a garden sprayer, or if we really want to talk about a blast from the past, Kent State anyone? Or how about the whole 'Bonus Army', if you think this is some kind of joke.

Government doesn't like people to fuck with it's power to intimidate. From the dog catcher to the oval office, that's what they do, always have.

Just my couple of pennies.

sean

 

[bassani]

Re: According to the NRA,

canada has also decreased taxation and as a result the economy is booming while ours is stagnate

 

[tiNdvenTFHwMdqKW]

Re: According to the NRA,

Great points Sean!

I think Australia has only a 19% compliance rate with their gun confiscation laws.

Canada compliance rate with their registry was only around 30%. I know some people who know some people and those people never bothered to register their guns.

I strongly advocate people in the US to think twice before ever complying with any form of registry and ban. Strong civil disobedience would be the best course of action until the political climate changes and any laws are reverted.

The realistic downside of these laws is that it drives recreational shooting underground. We would all have to sneak around finding remote places to shoot for fun or the guns just get stashed away and only taken out for periodic maintenance.

Of course, I would probably turn in anyone that voted Democrat and tried to hide their guns - I'm just mean like that.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: According to the NRA,

PB has some good points.

There is a fact that needs to be brought forth, though. In order to hunt, and unless you're using archery, a spear, or Rambo'ing with a knife, then you need to use a firearm.

The conservation officers up here have confiscation ability, arrest ability, and search ability. So, since the influx of this law, how many people do you suppose gave up their ability to hunt?

Or simply go to the target range, to shoot. Gotta travel on the roads and highways to get to the ranges, or the farm, right? RCMP and city police monitor the roads. How's your taillights? Oh, what's this?

And remember this. The way they got things all wrapped/warped-up up here, is if you break a law with a firearm, you lose ALL PRIVILEGES for firearms, so they clean you out. With NO recompense.

Really makes one wanna "stand up and NOT register", eh? I'll show them, by not using anything anymore.

I'm not saying anything to anything about anyone or nothing. But I am saying this:

<span style="font-weight: bold">YA'LL HAVE RIGHTS, AND WE ONLY HAVE PRIVILEGES. DON'T LOSE YOUR RIGHTS.</span>

(this is NOT a political post. This is a <span style="font-size: 17pt">"everybody wake-the-hell-up-and-get-off-yer-ass-and-actually-do-something-about-it"</span> post)
<span style="text-decoration: underline">
Whilst you still have the chance</span>.

<span style="font-weight: bold">LEARN FROM OTHERS MISTAKES.</span>

And yes, your friendly neighbor to the North is YELLING at you. Clear?

 

[Eznutz]

Re: According to the NRA,

sean,

Do you have any figures for crime rates that can help prove that the law didn't work. The story is great but people on the fence might need hard evidence to be swayed to the correct direction. You say it cost the citizens over 2 billion... where did that come from? I have shared the thread because i'm an advocate for our freedoms. If you have any links to the canadian statistics for gun violence and the reason the law was finaly removed would be incredibly helpful. thanks for your post.

 

[dino67]

Re: According to the NRA,

Australia went down the gun registry route. It's ended up a huge clusterf%$k. To the best of my knowledge not one crime has been solved as a result. It's a huge unmanageable administrative nightmare and we only have a population of 23 Million and a lower rate of gun ownership per head of population.

It's not uncommon for the Police to turn up to do a safe and firearm inspection and have rifles listed against your name that you've never had or have sold or disposed of years earlier. Some Australian states have misplaced or lost thousands of firearms from their records.

There are unconfirmed rumours of Registries being hacked and targeted thefts. This data would be mighty useful for criminals looking to fill a shopping list.

Fight this with all your might as it will be the beginning of the end.

Australian's talked tough but the majority rolled over and took it in the arse when we lost our semi-automatic weapons after a nutjob went off in 1996.