Canada banned all handgun sales

I was not the sharpest tool in the shed in school when it comes to U.S. Government voting procedures. At the risk of sounding uninformed / ignorant why don't we have nationwide / statewide special elections for some of the more serious issues that pop up. Such as abortion, the death penalty and firearm regulations. The people we elect and pay to do this for us do not have a clue as to what there constituents want. They seem to have their own agendas $$$$$$$. Let the people vote on these issues and see what the majority in the country wants. Maybe some of the more informed here can set me straight on this.
 

I was not the sharpest tool in the shed in school when it comes to U.S. Government voting procedures. At the risk of sounding uninformed / ignorant why don't we have nationwide / statewide special elections for some of the more serious issues that pop up. Such as abortion, the death penalty and firearm regulations. The people we elect and pay to do this for us do not have a clue as to what there constituents want. They seem to have their own agendas $$$$$$$. Let the people vote on these issues and see what the majority in the country wants. Maybe some of the more informed here can set me straight on this.
I can see some logic in that, and some problems also.

I do not believe there is any mechanism for a nationwide vote as you describe, not in the US anyway. Maybe there should be.

Some states do have ballot initiatives, California is famous for them. And the results of many of these change state laws.

The problem I see with these things is wording and of course all of the political ads that often misrepresent. Abortion is a good example, if you look at polling the results pro or anti are often just driven by wording. And with abortion is it right to force the morals of a majority of say 55% on the 45%?

In our representative government our elected representatives are supposed to be wise people who can take the time to really study these issues and come up with reasonable answers. Unfortunately we do not always manage to elect people like this...
 
I have always heard that you should not pull a gun unless you planned to use it. The gun itself is likely to draw fire. I know all situations are different, what are your thought on that?


I'd think not, but I do like some "nut cakes".
"Plan" to use it & "Prepared" to use it are almost the same thing. The quote about not pulling a gun unless you're planning to use it applies to some individuals pulling a gun only as a bluff & never being prepared to use it.
A gun does not always draw fire; sometimes it ends a conflict without firing.
 
Many years ago I worked with an English gentleman, who at the beginning of WW2 had enlisted in the RAF. When he was posted to sentry duty he was issued a wooden pole that was sharpened on one end. "What is this" he asked? "It is a pike, the only weapon we have to give you". It seemed that draconian gun laws had effectively put the gun manufacturers out of business and there was no one to supply the military.
 
All but a few states require gun registration in the USA, as well. Also background checks, and successful completion of a safety class, and successful completion of a safety and ownership responsibility class, and a license to carry and/or conceal, and all of them prohibit certain types of guns, too. Like, you can't own a M142 HIMARS, for example :p.
 
"Details: The ban will bar anyone from buying, selling or transferring handguns within Canada, and it will stop people from bringing new handguns into the country."

Eventually a gun owner dies. What happens to the gun? Can it be transferred to his heirs or does the government confiscate it? This could be an eventual disarming of the populace in slow motion.
 
"Details: The ban will bar anyone from buying, selling or transferring handguns within Canada, and it will stop people from bringing new handguns into the country."

Eventually a gun owner dies. What happens to the gun? Can it be transferred to his heirs or does the government confiscate it? This could be an eventual disarming of the populace in slow motion.
Don't know about Canada but in Australia heirloom guns that would otherwise be illegal can be kept if rendered inoperable. Probably OK to pass on a gun provided a new registration is legal but not just handed over without some paperwork.
 
The ARA keeps filling American's head with LIES about what the laws are in Canada. Do your own research, and find out the truth. JimB,
As far as I know, ARA stands for American Restaurant Association
But that was when I worked for them back in the '60s
Please educate me as to what you know to be ARA
or
advise what the American Restaurant Association has been saying
 
Yeah, this thread topic seems to always breed less than cordial remarks
You're right but I don't see why it should.

In the end I think we all want the same thing, a safe place to live and as much freedom to do what we want as possible. If we could keep this discussion to those issues we'd be ok, and probably learn a few things from each other.
 
You're right but I don't see why it should.

In the end I think we all want the same thing, a safe place to live and as much freedom to do what we want as possible. If we could keep this discussion to those issues we'd be ok, and probably learn a few things from each other.
It usually starts with "My country's better'n yours," or "You people are nuts."
 
"Details: The ban will bar anyone from buying, selling or transferring handguns within Canada, and it will stop people from bringing new handguns into the country."

Eventually a gun owner dies. What happens to the gun? Can it be transferred to his heirs or does the government confiscate it? This could be an eventual disarming of the populace in slow motion.
Canada has no intention of disarming the populace. Before the ban, 95 percent of gun owning homes had long guns, only 12 percent of populace owned handguns. Again, we have different views than some Americans. Sadly, misconceptions continue to proliferate.
 


Back
Top