Back in 1989, a Canadian nut went berserk and shot and killed several innocent people.

The idiot politicians at the time decided that the solution was to make Canadians register all of their guns, including “long guns”, hunting rifles etc.

The conservatives have been in power for a while and they voted last week to repeal the gun registry law.

As usual, the stupid law penalizes law abiding gun owners and sends a message to criminals everywhere that they’re victims are less likely to put the bullet in their head that they deserve.

I don’t know the origins of the Canadian right to bear arms, but the biggest mistake made in this country on the subject is to believe that our Second Amendment is about self defense or hunting.

That’s a part of it, obviously, but it’s there mostly because our Founders believed that the government should always be aware that we are capable of an armed uprising.

I would hope that that was the reason for the Candians’ insisting on the right to bear arms, eh.

  • Mike from Monroeville

    I am against Canadians having guns, eh.

    What if we want to invade them??

    • John Steigerwald

      Shock and awe.

      • Martin

        I am for all americans owning firearms if they choose, but as somone that has had the unfortunate situation where 2 people I loved were murdered by people with unregistered guns I am all for people registering guns so that these people can be caught. LIke most hard right wingers until it happens to you I’m sure you will all take your stand. Typical, against abortion, gays, addicts , gun control, etc…until it affects you. Hopefully none of you have any one shot with one of those guns. And don’t waste your time with the “if they had guns themselves” rhetoric, both of my loves one had guns on them at the time.

        • Paul

          So if the gun was registered, it would not be used in a crime? Or the criminals would have registered it before they committed the crime? Or it would be easier to find after the crime? I don’t understand how registration would have changed anything.

        • oksteelerfan

          You really think making people register guns would have caught them? Here are problems with your argument. For starters that would mean they would have to leave the gun behind and not have filed off the serial number and they obtained the gun through legal channels. If they didn’t leave the gun behind then all they can do without the gun is say what kind of weapon it came from, that’s not going to trace it back to one person.
          I’m sorry you had people murdered, but making people register guns is not going to save any lives and it’s not going to make people who intend to use guns in a crime obtain their gun through legal channels.

          As for being against abortion, I had a loved one who got an abortion that just made me even more against abortion because of how it damaged her. The pro-abortion crowd doesn’t want to talk about that though, they’d rather just say it’s all about a woman’s right and act like there are no consequences to abortion and they’re not around to pick up the pieces of a woman or girl who suffers for years after an abortion.

          • Martin

            I’m not naïve enough to think crimes would not happen nor that the people I know would not have died if the guns were registered. The point is why not make it harder for criminals to get guns. Most law abiding citizens do not have an issue getting guns. Unlike most on both politic sides I am willing to be flexible, maybe you are right about registration of guns but having anyone buy as many guns and types of guns as they want just seems ridiculous to me without any registration or background. The real answer is probably as simple as just following the gun laws that are already in place. And as far as your relative I’m sorry she had a rough time but it was her choice. She has to live with the consequences. I am not running around killing babies, my own choice would be never have an abortion, and I would tell the same thing to my relatives. But it’s my choice. And I agree with you that we should focus on the consequences, between that and birth control we may not even have to worry about this topic.

          • oksteelerfan

            You’re not making criminals work harder to get guns, you’re making law abiding citizens work harder to buy guns. If the law says I have to register my gun(thankfully my state law doesn’t say that) then because I follow the law even when I don’t like the law then I’m going to register my guns. However, I’m tired of our rights being shit upon and the 2nd amendment gives me the right to bear arms without any stipulations.

            If a criminal wants a gun, most aren’t buying guns anyway where they have to go through a background check, so why would they register a gun? They’re going to steal it or buy it off the street.

          • oksteelerfan

            Oh and as far as my relative she was a scared teenage kid who was told by planned parenthood how abortion was the best option and made it sound like going in to get a tooth pulled. Her Mother failed her as well, buying into the whole it would ruin her life and it was her choice. If I had known about it before it happened I would have told her the other side, but I didn’t know about it until long after.
            So yes it was her choice, but a teenager doesn’t understand all the consequences especially when everyone makes it sound like it’s a fun day at the park and then her problem would be over.

  • Niblick

    I just don’t get this fascination with guns in this country in the year 2012. The whacky NRA people feel that the Russians are coming over Mt. Washington at some point. Those idiots are scary. That isn’t going to happen. Does anyone seriously think there is the slightest chance that there will be an uprising in this country? My goodness, are times that bad and I am missing it? You can’t possibly compare us to third world countries.

    What is wrong with gun registration? What is wrong with waiting a few days for someone to check you out? People have misinterpreted the second amendment for many years. We still don’t know exactly what was meant by those statements. The original intent was based on English law in 1689. Do you think times have changed?

    • John Steigerwald

      The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear and it’s easy to find what the Founders believed about the right to bear arms. Of course, it’s far fetched to think of needing an uprising now, but you don’t know what conditions will be 100 years from now. It’s a timeless principle.

    • Forbes St. Clair

      Why do people need to wait a few days to purchase a gun? When you buy a gun, you need to fill out a several page application and they run a criminal background check on that person. Done deal. This isn’t the 19th century, if you are a law abiding citizen, you can buy a gun using a “gasp!” computer contraption to verify you are not a criminal. Do you want to limit people who do the right thing and go through the process of buying a gun, or would you rather us have to buy guns through a black market and buy from an unregistered dealer? If criminals want to buy a gun they will have no problem doing so, why do you want to make it hard for law abiding citizens to own a gun?

    • Paul

      Yeah, that’s it champ, I think the Russians are coming. That’s brilliant analysis.

      We do know exactly what was intended by the 2nd amendment. It’s found in the Federalist Papers. Kind of sad attempt at muddying the waters on your part though.

      • Niblick

        The Supreme Court explained that the Second Amendment (not just the word “arms”) must be interpreted and applied with the militia end in view.

        Even if the NRA whackos were correct about the relationship between the two clauses of the Second Amendment, it is difficult to understand why a military term such as “bear arms” would be used to describe the right to own and carry guns for private purposes. Protecting a “‘right of the people to keep and bear arms” is an odd way of protecting an individual right to possess firearms for rebellion, self defense, or hunting. It is not clear, cut, and dried. During those times, those phrases carried a military connotation.

        • John Steigerwald

          There can be no militia unless everybody is armed. The militia referred to every able bodied man over 16. The word “regulated” did not mean the same as it does now. Back then, it meant well equipped, (with regulation in a regulation NFL football) and well drilled. If you read letters written during that time you will see how it was used. I read a book on James Madison that included a letter describing dinner at the White House. A female guest said that Dolly Madison’s dinner was conducted with “great regularity.” It meant that she followed all the proper etiquette etc. In a letter from John Paul Jones describing how impressed he was with the Russian navy, he says they were exceptionally well regulated. That did not mean that it was controlled by government regulations. It meant it was well equipped and well drilled. So the “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with government regulating who gets to own a gun.


          “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
          Thomas Paine

          “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
          Richard Henry Lee
          American Statesman, 1788

          The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
          Patrick Henry
          American Patriot

          “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
          Alexander Hamilton
          The Federalist Papers at 184-8

          What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
          Thomas Jefferson
          to James Madison

          We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
          —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

          No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
          —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

          [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
          —James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

          .[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
          —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

          Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
          —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


          “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
          Sara Brady
          Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
          The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

          AND THIS:

          “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
          Adolph Hitler
          Chancellor, Germany, 1933

          • Dan

            I agree with every single quote you posted except those last two. There is NOTHING wrong with owning a gun. There is also NOTHING wrong with registering it unless you have something to hide. It helps law enforcement immensely to be able to trace a gun back to it’s owner when a crime is being investigated.

            Spare me the “law-abiding citizen” talk too. All those nutbags who shoot up their office buildings and then kill themselves were law-abiding gun owning citizens too until the moment they weren’t.

            Nobody wants to take your guns away people! That’s never been the goal and Obama’s never said it or even hinted at it.

          • oksteelerfan

            Does it really matter what Obama has said, although I disagree with you when he has said he supports city gun bans, that is a violation of their constitutional right.
            Here are a few sites on Obama and his record on gun control.


            The one thing that bothers me the most is the guy who was being charged with owning a gun after he used it to defend himself and when legislation was introduced to stop it, Obama voted against it, which says Obama is a bald faced liar when he spouts he believes in people being able to protect their families.

          • DavidMcGwire

            The “Obama’s trying to take away our guns” myth is just a ploy by gun manufacturers to get people to buy more guns.

            A study from finds that firearm sales and concealed handgun permit applications are at all-time highs since the 2008 election.

            Just to show a few statistics illustrating what those in the industry call ”the Obama effect:”

            Ruger’s firearm sales have gone from $117 million to $232 million, an increase of 98%

            Winchester’s sales of ammunition have gone from $431.7 million to $572 million, an increase of 33%

            Federal excise taxes collected on the sale of new firearms and ammunition has risen 48.3%

            January 2012 was the 20th straight month of increases in NICS background checks compared to the same month in the previous year

            December 2011 saw over 1.41 million NICS background checks run, the most ever for a single month

            The few states which regularly report concealed carry permit numbers have seen increases in active permit holders ranging from 46% to 161%

            Gun manufacturers would love nothing more than to see Obama reelected.

          • oksteelerfan

            So gun manufacturers just made up how Obama has voted on gun issues and put the words Obama has said in his mouth?

            People bought guns and ammo in record numbers not because of what the gun manufacturers said, but because people knew that Obama had supported gun bans. Concealed carry permits have went up because people want to be protected and when a state enacts it people line up to get one.

            It seems as if you ignored the links, so I’ll highlight it for you.

            Obama voted against the bill allowing illegal gun use in a home invasion.
            Obama co-sponsored a bill to limit hand gun purchases to one a month.
            Obama voted no on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
            Obama voted for expanding the definition of armor piercing ammunition.(Many of the ammunition is common hunting ammunition.)

            Obama said out of his own mouth and it’s on public record:
            As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

            “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“

            “There’s been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation. So I think there’s a lot of room before you getting bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about.”

            That’s just scratching the surface. Call us all stupid but we get that Obama doesn’t like guns and if he thought he could get away with it he’d ban us all from owning them tomorrow.
            He’s told us that numerous times if people would just listen, one of his favorite ways to explain this is: I don’t think we’ll be able to do this in the white house but we need to do this instead it’s just common sense.
            I’m not a member of the NRA and I’ve actually bought very few new guns in my lifetime, so I’m not really concerned with what the gun manufactures say or do. I pay attention to how a politician has voted and I pay attention to what they say and how they say it about an issue. Obama’s words and actions scream to me, I have to say this but if I could figure how to do it, we’d shut down gun sales today and start gathering up every gun we can find.

          • DavidMcGwire

            I guess we’re still waiting for all these gun bans that are “right around the corner.” We better go out and buy some guns, before Obama takes them away!

            Open your eyes…It’s propanganda. I

          • John Steigerwald

            How do you think the two Supremes he appointed feel about the 2nd amendment?

          • oksteelerfan

            Open your eyes, if he could just make an executive decision our right to own guns would be gone. If he gets another 4 years and somehow got lucky enough to get a democratic controlled congress without the worry of being re-elected our right to own guns would either be totally gone or they would make it extremely hard for us to buy a gun and the latter would only be because some democrats would fear being kicked out on their ear.
            However, the entire crap in Arizona was due to trying to use a backdoor way to first make us all have to register guns and then to ban certain guns.
            As John said he would also more than likely get another appointee to say the 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms.

            It’s not propaganda, it’s what he believes and what he would love to do if given the chance.

          • Dan

            Open your eyes, if he could just make an executive decision our right to own guns would be gone. If he gets another 4 years and somehow got lucky enough to get a democratic controlled congress without the worry of being re-elected our right to own guns would either be totally gone or they would make it extremely hard for us to buy a gun and the latter would only be because some democrats would fear being kicked out on their ear.
            However, the entire crap in Arizona was due to trying to use a backdoor way to first make us all have to register guns and then to ban certain guns.
            As John said he would also more than likely get another appointee to say the 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms.”

            This is eactly what I mean by living in the bubble!!!! Facts don’t get through, but conspiracy theories and randical propaganda does. People got so used to, possibly even enjoying, living in fear under Bush (THREAT LEVEL:ORANGE.) that some are still living in that fear under Obama.

            Obama was right – why deal with the real world when you can just live in your comfy bubble clinging to your guns and your Bible and living in fear of the big scary black guy in the suit. I don’t ever see anyone but white people saying they’re scared of Obama.

          • oksteelerfan

            I guess it’s not propaganda when democrats and insert your group of choice says one more vote on the SC and abortion will be illegal?

            So I guess according to you Paul only people on the right and people who care about constitutional rights live in their bubble?

            I guess when choosing who to vote for we should never look at their voting record or pay any attention to words they’ve used as a guide where they stand on issues or just how they might choose to govern?

          • oksteelerfan

            Oh and Paul I will admit it, I know if we get one more vote on the SC Roe v Wade will be overturned.

            So why is it so hard for Obama supporters to admit he knows one more appointment could result in the SC taking our constitutional right to own a gun away?

    • Joe

      Yeah, it’s silly to think that there might be a time when having a firearm might be necessary to protect your family and property when the government can’t help.

      Unless you lived in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, when people tried to protect themselves during all of the chaos and looting. But Mayor Ray Nagin decided that the best use of police manpower was to ILLEGALLY round up the guns of law abiding citizens.

  • Mason

    I prefer the government out of every day life as much as possible, but I do strongly believe that if the government insists on intruding, have mandatory weapons training as part of your schooling. it is either Sweden or Switzerland that requires training as well as ownership and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

    • bald guy

      Mason, that’s an excellent point. Many firearm accidents are due to poor training by those using the weapons.

      However,he NRA lobby will never allow that to pass. They want us to have unfettered access to any kind of weapon, with no government involvement. They’d rather have thousands of people die than have the government require that gun owners be trained.

      • John Steigerwald

        The more guns the less people die.

      • Paul

        That’s funny since the NRA offers training programs of it’s own. They also offer classes for kids on what to do if they should ever find a gun. So no, they rather not have thousands of people die. And thousands of people don’t , BTW.

      • Joe

        The NRA takes such a hard line stance for a reason. I know it’s cliche to use the “slippery slope” (or slippy slope for those of us in Pittsburgh) argument, but it does have merit.

        Think about smoking in public. When I was a kid, smoking was permitted in restaurants. Then it became smoking and non-smoking sections. Then it became, “Well you can only smoke at the bar”. Then it was “You have to smoke outside”. And from there “You need to be 100 feet from the entrance.” To now, where you have places like NYC trying to ban smoking outside period; and some cases of parents being sued to stop smoking in their own homes.

        The thing about the government is that it never gets smaller (if you can think of one example, please let me know). They might say they only want to ban (or regulate) assault weapons, and say that means automatic weapons. From there, it would become semi-automatic, but only those with certain features. Then it would be all semi-automatic weapons, etc. etc.

        • John Steigerwald

          The right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. The Pa. Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be QUESTIONED.

  • bald guy

    Now that you’re using Canada as a model for what we should do in the US, I guess you want us to follow their lead in what they do for healthcare.

    Just a few days ago you were talking about electric cars in China, not realizing the situation in the US is very different.

    The GOP is constantly complaining that Obama shouldn’t be looking at other countries to determine what’s best for us to do in the US. Yet, that’s exactly what you’ve been doing.

    We’re the United States of America. We can do better than other countries. We don’t have to look to them to set the bar. We set the bar, we set the standard, for the rest of the world.

    • John Steigerwald

      You have reading comprehension issues. Canada is wising up and moving toward the United States on gun ownership. That’s a good thing.

    • oksteelerfan

      Why does it seem then as if Democrats want to move more towards Britain and use other countries health care systems as an example of why we need a national health care system?

  • Dan

    This is insanely stupid. First, show me a study that says crime falls if guns don’t have to be registered. Second, uprising? That’s working out real well for the citizens of Syria right now – fighting tanks and missiles with revolvers. That’s so silly I can’t believe you’d try to make that point, as if it’s still the latr 1700’s. Third, now someone can dump a murder weapon and it won’t be traced back to them through a registry.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with owning a gun. I choose not to but I like that I live in a country where if I change my mind one day I can buy one. I would not find it intrusive or nonsensical to register the gun though unless I wanted to get away with something in the future. Lots of people are law-abiding gun owners – until the day they aren’t.

    I know one thing, not owning a gun, my chances of ever committing a gun crime are ZERO. How backwards is this country that people want LESS people like me among us in the public and not more?

    All this because some pansies couldn’t handle a little paperwork.

    • John Steigerwald

      How many people in Syria have access to guns, 12? Sixty million gun owners would be pretty annoying for anybody who decided to trash the constitution (more than it’s already being trashed.) The number one reason for the citizenry to be armed is to keep government accountable.

      Interview with John Lott, Author of “More Guns Less Crime.’

      Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

      John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called “shall-issue” laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

      Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

      Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

      Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

      Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

      Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.”

      Now mugging is worse in London than in Harlem
      by MICHAEL CLARKE, Daily Mail
      Comments (0)
      London is now more dangerous than Harlem, according to figures released yesterday.
      The chances of being mugged in Britain’ s capital are 25 per cent higher than in the oncenotorious area of New York.
      The statistics will put extra pressure on David Blunkett, as he struggles to contain a big rise in muggings on the streets of Britain’s cities.
      The figures, produced by the Conservatives, will also increase the Home Secretary’s frustration with the Metropolitan Police which, say critics, is failing to tackle violent crime in the capital.
      Mr Blunkett wants to know why the Metropolitan force has a similar budget to the New York Police Department but manages to field 30 per cent fewer officers.
      He is also furious that murder rates in parts of London are soaring while in New York they are at a record low.

      Read more:

    • jimmike

      Why does the government need to keep tabs on guns? We still have a significant amount of crime with our current gun laws in place. What percentage of those crimes are committed with registered guns? But that’s beside the point.

      If it ever came to the point that we needed an uprising against our government, would you feel more comfortable with the fact that the government that needed overthrown knows exactly where every single gun is kept? I don’t own a gun but I certainly don’t believe that MY government needs to know that I might/might not have one.

      I am given a privilege to drive a car. It is a RIGHT not a privilege to own a gun. Big difference.

    • oksteelerfan

      It has nothing to do with being lazy or not wanting do paperwork, it is the fact the government should have no business having a record of what guns I own. If they ever decide to outlaw guns, it makes their job pretty damn easy to take our guns if they have a national register.
      I have owned guns my entire life, I was shooting guns not long after I could walk. I have never committed any gun crime, I’ve never committed any crime for that matter, I’ve never even gotten a speeding ticket, so why should the government need to know what guns I own? They already know how much money I have, where I live, what kind of car I drive, shouldn’t their be a limit to what the government needs to know about us?

      • John Steigerwald

        None of its business.