01.05.2016 02:04 PM

How they got their guns

Obama’s move today won’t solve the problem they’ve got – but it’s something.

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 2.00.16 PM

12 Comments

  1. The old combat arms veteran in me has often looked at the gun control debate/fiasco/inferno and wondered why government just doesn’t regulate and or outright ban the bolt and firing pin as opposed to the weapon itself. Gun owners can then buy all the guns they want but without the firing mechanism because it would be a either a controlled device or essentially banned all together. And here in Canada, we wouldn’t need a gun registry at all, frankly. My two cents. Possibly a pipe dream.

    • Kelly says:

      I like your idea. I am going to assume, however, that a large percentage of people who collect firearms aren’t really interested in collecting them for the historical value and then putting them on the wall to look at — at least not really — no matter what they might say.

      In the end this isn’t really about guns. It is about a bunch of people who think they can do whatever they want versus people with common sense who believe in the common good and the public’s right to act collectively to regulate dangerous equipment and stupid behaviour for the benefit of all — including that of idiots who don’t know better.

      Take all those nutters occupying the nature lodge in Oregon. If the shit ever REALLY were to go down, all their guns wouldn’t save them. They would just be blown to hamburger meat by a pimply faced drone operator in a mountain in Colorado eating — well — a hamburger.

    • Kelly says:

      Those are excellent reason for owning a gun, Les. Same for people up in Churchill Manitoba. Sometimes the only thing that will save you from becoming polar bear lunch is a heavy slug from a 12-guage magnum shotgun round. Livestock farmers, people living in remote areas who are engaged in subsistence hunting — as in many Aboriginal communities — are other excellent situations where maybe a rifle or shotgun could be justified.

      Now, as for cities. I don’t see any reason to have guns at home. Why not store them at a registered club or a police armoury? Or do like Switzerland and make it against the law to have more than a couple of rounds of ammunition at home (even though a large number of people have military spec weapons at home because of mandatory military service requirements.

      Just my 2-cents worth.

    • I think provisions in any legislation can be made for people without reasonable access to a Safeway or a Loblaws.

  2. ABB says:

    Do they really think that in a country with 200,000,000+ firearms of various types already in the hands of citizens, some new regulatory forms filled out in triplicate will make a difference?

  3. Justin, not in Ottawa says:

    I fear this will stoke the anger of the more militant gun owners. You’ll see a bigger profitable black market in the future.

  4. Mapsonburt says:

    Nnmatter whether you think fun control is valid or not, This is a really huge mistake by Obama and the left. They think they can circumvent congress and make law by fiat without due course and recognition of the constitution. What they fail to recognize is that they are laying the groundwork for the republicans to do the same thing when they take control of the Presidency. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US and this problem isn’t going to be solved by a stroke of his pen. He’s just (further) opened up Pandora’s box. This is a country that was founded on armed rebellion and engaged in a bloody civil war that pitted brother against brother. When people can’t trust their leaders to follow the rules of law, chaos follows. This isn’t going to end well.

  5. Matt says:

    “Obama’s move today won’t solve the problem they’ve got – but it’s something.”

    Well, he wants to be SEEN as doing something, but the reality is it will not stop another mass shooting from happening.

    Using your example of Sandy Hook, increased background checks would not have stopped it as the shooter killed his mother and used her guns.

    Increased background checks would not have stopped the most recent shooting in San Bernardino as they shooters had a friend buy their guns.

  6. monkey says:

    I think the only way the US can actually get sensible gun laws is to repeal the 2nd amendment and the problem is this is next to impossible. The constitution can be amended, but it requires 2/3 of states, 2/3 congress, and 2/3 in the senate which I don’t see happening for a long time. Unlike in Canada, there is no escape clause as we have section 1 which allows for reasonable limits, but the US has not such thing and we also have section 33 which is the notwithstanding clause, while the US has no such thing. Granted using that is a nuclear option, but this would probably be a case of the US had such clause it would make sense to use it.

Leave a Reply

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


*