City of Toronto Attempts Bylaw By-Pass to Affect Handgun Ban

[Mehul Kamdar]

David Miller can take comfort in knowing that more than 60% f the scenes of this movie: http://movies.sulekha.com/tamil/arasangam/default.htm were filmed in Toronto. There are two other film projects that I have in hand, both of which are due to be shot in Canada, and neither of them will be filmed in his town. Nor, for that matter, will any film that I work on be shot there as long as he and his band of fascists are in office in their various holes in Ontario.

I shall post when my next project starts and send the details to him along with a breakup of the actual amount of money spent so that he knows what his city is losing. And yes, I am an old UIT shooter who drops by here sometimes. I no longer shoot ISSF disciplines but I am a fond supporter of gun owners' rights. My name is here for Mayor Miller to check out if he wants to assure himself that this is not an empty post. A copy of this will also be sent to his office.

Mehul Kamdar,
Chicago, IL

[Richard H]

David Miller can take comfort in knowing that more than 60% f the scenes of this movie: http://movies.sulekha.com/tamil/arasangam/default.htm were filmed in Toronto. There are two other film projects that I have in hand, both of which are due to be shot in Canada, and neither of them will be filmed in his town. Nor, for that matter, will any film that I work on be shot there as long as he and his band of fascists are in office in their various holes in Ontario.

I shall post when my next project starts and send the details to him along with a breakup of the actual amount of money spent so that he knows what his city is losing. And yes, I am an old UIT shooter who drops by here sometimes. I no longer shoot ISSF disciplines but I am a fond supporter of gun owners' rights. My name is here for Mayor Miller to check out if he wants to assure himself that this is not an empty post. A copy of this will also be sent to his office.

Mehul Kamdar,
Chicago, IL

There are some news agencies that actually support the rights of individuals, I'd like to forward some of that info to them so that the people of Toronto truly see the cost that this jerk and his little minions are costing the city.

[Ernie Rodriguez]

I often wonder why History is taught in our schools-we really don't learn anything from it. We all seem to know that most politicians are self serving,narrow minded,short sighted,selfish phony clowns-and yet we still vote them into office. There is ample proof from our past and present that guns are not the major problem to our crime problems in our cities.In fact,some of our cities,with the most restrictive gun laws have high crime rates. There are many answers and some of them are complicated-but if the people of each country allow laws to pass,that in the long run will hurt their own country-THEY are accountable.If they vote in politicians,without using good common sense-the PEOPLE are accountable. If the PEOPLE care more about IMAGE-rather than the quality and freedom of their own country-the PEOPLE are not only ACCOUNTABLE but,in fact,DESERVE exactly what they get.

[Steve Swartz]

Yep-

We are about to prove that in November big time . . .

[Richard H]

I often wonder why History is taught in our schools-we really don't learn anything from it. We all seem to know that most politicians are self serving,narrow minded,short sighted,selfish phony clowns-and yet we still vote them into office.

So what's the solution, don't vote?

One of the big problems is we all think no one should touch our freedoms, but we don't mind when the government infringes on freedoms that we don't agree with.

All infringements of freedom are based on "them being reasonable infringements on an individual's right for the benefit of society as a whole" and the majority go along with it. The freedoms that we disagree with are the ones that actually need protection. So next tiem they bann kids skateboarding in downtown, or ban wearing certain clothes, or talking on cell phones, or pornography or any of the other thousand of things at are under assault think twice before jumping on the bandwagon because guess what one day they will come and take away a freedom that you want.

This includes many issues like Gun Control, Abortion, Siezure of property with out due process, holding people with out charges or trials, ect.

People always want to defend their rights but don't want to do crap to defend someone else's. In fact the government is really good at play everyone of one another, for an example, Pro-gun is usually conservative, thus against pro-choice, pro-choice are usually liberal thus pro gun control, when in reality they are both fighting for the same thing, which are the RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS over that of the collective.

I find myself more and more defending things that I don't agree with, because that is the right thing to do.

[elected official]

The point is that you need more "good and judicious" people running for office, not just the same self serving greedy ones we have now. Voting someone out of office really only does work if someone else is willing to run for that office & give people a choice.

IMHO, where the NRA misses a big chance is that they should be prompting and helping local citizens run for local office. And not just those that have an effect on "gun control", but any office where the public servant would be seen as upholding the fabric of the community.

[Richard H]

I agree the pro-gun orgs. would be better served if they got people in to change the from the inside rather than fighting from the outside all the time.

In Canada we have two major parties the Liberals (seen as anti gun) and Conservatives (seen as pro gun). Except for the fact that registration was actually put in place by a Conservative government.

Many think the Conservatives are our friends, but in reality if they thought throwing us under the bus would get them further they would. The only way to ensure our continued freedom is to get people who feel strongly in favour of firearm ownership into both parties in sufficent number and in high enough places to effect party policy.

[alb]

People always want to defend their rights but don't want to do crap to defend someone else's. In fact the government is really good at play everyone of one another, for an example, Pro-gun is usually conservative, thus against pro-choice, pro-choice are usually liberal thus pro gun control, when in reality they are both fighting for the same thing, which are the RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS over that of the collective.

Polititians represent the wishes of their constituencies. And there is no need to impute cynical motives to them. They get elected (or not) because they believe in their principles; and their actions, e.g., voting records, speeches, etc., demonstrate this over a long period of time. In the US, we have two major political parties, the republicans, who tend to be conservative, who typically represent the wealthy and the upper middle class, and the democrats, who tend to be liberal and who typically represent the poor and the lower middle class.

These two contrasting political philosophies represent a whole fabric of issues that all stem from the same root basis: the conservative philosophy is geared toward maintaining wealth and power, and the liberal philosophy is geared toward redistributing wealth and power.

For example:

- Democrats typically want to raise taxes, while republicans want to reduce taxes -- who pays the majority of those taxes?

- Democrats favor social welfare programs, while republicans favor smaller government -- who pays the majority of the bill for these social welfare programs?

- Democrats favor redistribution of wealth through inheritance taxes, while republicans typically oppose such taxes -- who is hurt most by inheritance taxes?

- Democrats favor legal abortion, while republicans don't -- who has the most pregnancies out of wedlock, and who picks up the tab for the resulting abortions through higher healthcare costs?

In Philadelpia recently, Mayor Nutter and the police commissioner used the slaying of a police officer to promote their anti-gun policies. They blamed the slaying on guns. The NRA, on the other hand, blamed Mayor Nutter and the police commissioner. Considering the extensive criminal resume of the killer, which included a number of violent crimes, he should have been locked away in a cage long ago -- the NRA had a point. Unfortunately, Little Johnnie Gangbanger has relatives, and they would get upset if he were sent to prison, and they vote! So we have an administration that is soft on crime, and wants to place the blame elsewhere.

In addition, a lot of the people in the big cities live in fear of being murdered by drug addicts and gang members. To them, drive-by shootings are a regular occurance. Wouldn't the world be a better place if only there weren't any guns? It wouldn't, but unfortunately there aren't many people with PhD's in econometrics living in low income housing projects. There aren't many polititians with PhD's in econometrics either.

Not only that, but many of these people have probably never stood up to anyone in their entire lives, or if they have they weren't successful. They are the ones who would benefit most from lower barriersw to legal gun ownership and relaxed concealed-carry laws, but they simply can't see themselves successfully defending themselves in an armed confrontation with a mugger -- no matter how well-armed they are.

What's worse, the anti-gun crowd doesn't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of what they need to measure. They tend to see gun crime as a separate and independent category of violent crime and crime in general. If you can dry up the supply of guns then you should reduce the rate of gun crimes relative to other types of violent crime, and isn't this a good thing? Wouldn't the total crime rate then be lower? But, when you disarm potential victims, you reduce the opportunity-cost of committing violent crimes, and you can expect the absolute rate of violent crimes to increase. And you can expect the absolute rate of gun crimes to increase also, just not by as much -- but so what? Murder is murder, whether you do it with a gun, a kitchen knife, a tire iron or your boot.

These are all testable hypotheses, and they have been tested and confirmed. But don't expect a polititian to understand it. Or most other people for that matter.

So, we have places like Philadelphia, which currently has the distinction of having the highest violent crime rate of any major city in the US. We have Mayor Nutter and the Philadelphia city council passing gun-control laws in defiance of state law, an issue that has already been adjudicated in Pennsylvania's supreme court. Of course, about a mile away from Philadelphia, just across the river, is Camden, NJ, where they have very strict gun-control laws as well as laws banning effective self-defense ammunition, such as hollow-point bullets, as well as knives. And the violent crime rate in Camden is 50 percent worse than in Philadelphia.

So go to the polls at election time and vote.

Regards,

Al B.

[Steve Swartz]

A very strong, rational and objective case could be made that your characterization Alb was somewhat

[engage politeness filter]

slanted (biased) in a particular direction.

[politeness filter off]

The mainstream media would be proud- and you would fit right in with a typical Political Science faculty!

Perhaps my post (and a couple of previous posts) are a good example of why we really shouldn't discuss political issues (aside from gun control laws and policies) in this forum.

An analogy- at our campus rec center, some students got together and printed a "Our Thoughts And Prayers Are With You" banner for the students flooded out at IA State. Students were encouraged to sign the banner and include "Best Wishes" remarks.

We never got to send the banner. Too many "Obama" stickers and comments.

Really sad.

[alb]

A very strong, rational and objective case could be made that your characterization Alb was somewhat

[engage politeness filter]

slanted (biased) in a particular direction.

[politeness filter off]

The mainstream media would be proud- and you would fit right in with a typical Political Science faculty!

Steve,

I'm shocked, just shocked that anyone would accuse me of being biased or having a political viewpoint! I'm so outraged that I've even taken time away from clipping the coupons on my gilt-edged debentures in order to reply!

Seriously, though, gun-control is a complex issue that affects all of us. And there is no point in attributing cynical motives to politians who express views consistent with those of the people who elected them. I don't live in Philadelphia, or I might see the issue differently, although I doubt it. I avoid going into Philadelphia as much as possible, and I haven't gone there without being armed with some kind of weapon in over 30 years -- the last time I was the victim of a violent crime.

I apologize for my somewhat cartoon-like characterization of liberal vs. conservative viewpoints -- its far too complex a topic to do justice to on a chat forum. I do believe, however, that gun-control is one of many issues that form a fabric that has a consistent underlying motivation. If you favor one point of view on gun-control, you're likely to favor one side or the other on other issues as well, consistent with an overall liberal or conservative bias.

I believe that Mayor Nutter and the members of the city council who voted for Philadelphia's recent anti-gun legislation are sincere in their beliefs -- that's what got them elected in the first place. Those of us who don't agree with his views need to go to the polls and vote in November, so that we get people elected whose views we agree with.

Regards,

Al B.

[Richard H]

Quick update Toronto City Council voted to discontinue the leases to both clubs, but they say they will help them find new venues, yea right, that makes a world of sense. "We hate what you do, we're kicking you out, but we'll find some other place for you to do the sport we are soooo against".

[Steve Swartz]

"If you favor one point of view on gun-control, you're likely to favor one side or the other on other issues as well, consistent with an overall liberal or conservative bias. "

Ummm, pretty much "NOT!"

*Both* of the two "major political parties" (actually, two dimensions of a single, statist party) have very hypocritical and inconsistent views on gun control.

The Demmicans believe in "individual liberty" except for economic freedoms and personal property rights (where they are collectivist)- so they should be in favor of the 2d amendment.

The Republicrats believe in personal property rights and individual liberties, except for personal behaviors (where they are collectivist)- so they should oppose the 2d amendment.

Welfare State or Police State?

Pretty lame choices.

I took an oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America many years ago; I still believe in the constitution and have not disavowed my oath.

Therefore, there is no way in h**l I could support *either* party as currently designed and operated.

When it comes to gun rights- we should all be "libertarians" (note the lower case l) or at least "constitutionalists."

Perhaps our own Supreme COurt will recognize the importance of the current case- or, heaven forbid, they will- and choose Evil.

[Sparks]

The Demmicans believe in "individual liberty" except for economic freedoms and personal property rights (where they are collectivist)- so they should be in favor of the 2d amendment.
The Republicrats believe in personal property rights and individual liberties, except for personal behaviors (where they are collectivist)- so they should oppose the 2d amendment

Awwwwww, that's so sweet Steve, you still think politicians believe in things! Awwwww!

[Fortitudo Dei]

In Canada we have two major parties the Liberals (seen as anti gun) and Conservatives (seen as pro gun). Except for the fact that registration was actually put in place by a Conservative government.

Many think the Conservatives are our friends, but in reality if they thought throwing us under the bus would get them further they would.

Interestingly, the very same situation occured in Australia. The 11-year rule of John Howard's Liberal Party (i.e. "Liberal" in its traditional meaning of Centre-Right Conservatism) was quite draconian in terms of the anti-gun laws which were passed. Two major gun "buy backs" occurred with nearly a million firearms being seized from their owners and destroyed. Now even a .22 semi-auto rifle is illegal.

Meanwhile Australia's new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd (Australian Labor Party = Social Democratic or "Liberal" in the contemporary American usage of the word) has been shooting for years and has not shied away from the media about his support for shooters rights. One of Australia's largest gun clubs is in his electorate and is known to regularly present the trophies at the conclusion of important competitions.

[Fred]

I agree the pro-gun orgs. would be better served if they got people in to change the from the inside rather than fighting from the outside all the time.

I strongly agree with what Richard said in his first posting, and with what I think he intends to say in the above quote. However, I believe that what he actually says above is completely wrong. Anything that would once and for all clearly establish gun rights is anathema to the pro-gun orgs (I'm thinking mostly NRA here), because they then would lose their reason for being, and nearly all the contributions they receive from us.

They would have to go back to administering competitions and promoting marksmanship, their original purposes - no army of full-time jobs and fancy new buildings there. The pro-gun orgs and the anti-gun orgs need the continual conflict, and they need each other, to thrive and grow. A solution would be a disaster for both. Contrary to what Al B. has said, it's hard not to see a huge amount of cynicism around this issue.

FredB

[Richard H]

Unfortunately it's parts of the "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Many organizations that started with good intentions and become behemoths that basically begin to exist to further the organization rather than the cause.

[Miked]

How does the Mayor of Toronto propose to strengthen US gun control laws? For that matter, how does he propose to have tougher border inspections?

Methinks he's dreaming....

[Richard H]

How does the Mayor of Toronto propose to strengthen US gun control laws? For that matter, how does he propose to have tougher border inspections?

Methinks he's dreaming....

I take it, that its a rhetorical question but, I'm sure he plans on banding together with all the gun control, gun banning idiots that you have down there, cause you guys have a lot of them too.

[alb]

I'm sure he plans on banding together with all the gun control, gun banning idiots that you have down there, cause you guys have a lot of them too.

True, but apparently not 5 of the 9 who count.

[Richard H]

Yes, congratulations that's good news for you guys. Now if someone could just smack someone up side the head at the State Department, so that some of your fine companies could export some of their great products up here to Canada once again. I know that we here in Canada are a great source of worry, like Denis Leary said " on a cold night you can hear all those Canadians sharpening their skates, they are going to skate down here and steal all our **@#$&!%^ cheese".