Canada banning handguns ??
 

I was just reading on the internet that the liberals in Canada were stating that if elected they were going to ban handguns due to the large increase in murders in Toronto commited with handguns. Of course collectors would be given time to turn or disable the collections and there would be an amnesty period for people to turn in weapons. Part of the blame was smuggled weapons coming in from the US.

Has anyone ever given any thought to what would happen here in the US if the Republicans or Democrats were to start a major campaign against gun ownership? I don't think we would see anything like this in the near future but sometime down the road this could happen. Wouldn't you hate to see your collection that you've spent a lifetime acquiring being carried out the door.


Any thoughts on Canada or what could happen here?

Nothing new.


San Francisco Approves Handgun Ban

Newsmax | November 9 2005

Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.
The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and makes it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Only two other major U.S. cities - Washington and Chicago - have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled Wednesday that the longstanding ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Washington, D.C. is constitutional.

Washington, D.C. now bans the possession of all handguns (though subject to a grandfather clause that allows handguns owned by residents before 1976) and the possession of rifles and shotguns unless they are locked and unloaded. It is thus illegal to keep any guns in such a way that they are readily available for self-defense. D.C. Code �§�§ 6-2311, 6-2312, 6-2372.
Chicago bans the possession of all handguns (again, subject to a grandfather clause). Chicago Municipal Code �§ 8-20-040(a), -050(c).

rk

Another break for the criminals.

I don"t care what the law is my shottie is locked and loaded and near at hand, you bust into my place while I'm there and they are carrying you out in pieces.

No military recruiters in schools, these peeps dont have a clue what it takes to keep our country free. They should go live in the middle east for a while. If it wasnt for those folks putting there families on hold and lives in harms way and sacrificing their lives and limbs over the decades we would not be the nation we are today. We are not perfect but I wouldn't want to live anywheres else on the planet myself.

I have a bud in England who had to give up his Mauser broomhandle and handguns during the amnesty over there, what a shame.

And the bad guys will always have access while the gun weenies adopt laws to "protect" us. It's very sad and it makes me very very mad when I see this stuff going on in other countries too.

RK, As I recall when I lived in Calif. that the state has a preemption law that prohibits municipalities from enacting laws more restrictive than the state law. So I expect that the SF ban will eventually go away, once the courts get involved. TH

Under a provision written into the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress made it mandatory for high schools to provide military recruiters access to juniors and seniors, including names, addresses and telephone numbers. Generally, schools were required to give military recruiters equal access to students as they did to institutions of higher learning, such as colleges and universities. Also under the 'No child left behind' program it is mandatory that schools allow recruiters access to the junior and senior high school students. If they (the schools) fail to comply they can loose all of their federal funding. It would make me very happy to see all federal funding pulled from any of these schools that do refuse to comply, then watch tem get on their knees and beg the recruiters to come back. Shortly before I was stationed at Fort Polk LA. in 1965, the Leesville population complained about the great amount of soldiers that roamed the town on weekends and got the Mayor involved to talk to the post commander. The post commander being an understanding man put the town off limits. Within a month the town was about to go bankrupt due to the lack of business, they had no idea that those soldiers spent thousands of dollars every day in their little dump of a town. The mayor was back on post asking the commander to lift the restriction, nothing more was ever said about it. I saw signs on peoples lawns that said Soldiers and dogs keep off the grass. That was quite a place to be as a soldier. These are the kind of people that our military men and women put their lives on the line for. What we need in this country is a full scale invasion, a lot of bombing and killing to open their eyes to what our military really means to each and every one of us every day. Until their personal safety is endangered they will never understand what true freedom means. But then who would want to invade CA anyway?

I've been reading the replies and have been doing a lot of thinking on the subject and I'm thinking that the middle age and older folks seem to have a better idea of things. They've fought the wars and defended our nation and realize what the real world is like. The younger generation has the thinking that the world can be an ideal place and guns are a big nono. The evening of 9/11 my wife turned to me and told me "you get those boys out and teach them how to shoot and handle a firearm". My two boys who are still at home are now teenagers and know how to handle a firearm and I have to say are pretty good shots. They know it's not the gun that kills.

Brent every era has it's "Doves", Neville Chamberlin thought he could have "peace in our times" when he helped give away parts of Europe to Hitler. The problem with "Doves" is they never recognize when they are dealing with a "Hawk" and they end up being lunch.

We seem to never learn from history just keep on repeating it.