That red tape is there for a reason. Here's an excerpt from the wiki article on what the intent of the treaty should be,*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
I would say I'm against disinformation, and emotion based politics. I do believe there is a fervor to rush to judgement on many gun laws. I think that just laws are good laws. If a laws purpose is to make it harder for criminals or anyone who would do me and mine harm, to receive a gun, and that means having to wait a day before getting a gun, or registering your assault rifle with the state, then I am not opposed to it. I understand that we have a second amendment right to own and keep guns, and I will never say to anyone that they should not exercise this right. I enjoy shooting and have been shooting many times since I was a small child at church camp (lol praise the lord and pass the ammo). But I also understand that a clear reading of the text is that it's goal is to restrict the international movement of weapons, not to take away any American citizens guns. You can say that this is a stepping stone, but if your evidence is that any gun law is a bad law, then I don't see that as enough proof.Kogneto
I'm a bit lost in your point, so would you make it clear ? are you for or against anything to do with this treaty? are you ok with some " reasonable" gun laws? I'm not trying to flame you but I really couldn't figure out your point..maybe I'm having a blond day which is hard for a bald guy with brown hair...
right but the government you live in is, does, and will continueAs for me, I don't belong to the UN, and I obey no laws they might make, there's my line in the sand.
I always heard that yawl had to have your guns locked up in some locl armory and had to check them out and bring them back...BigDog - I don't feel that our gun-rights in Canada are all that restricted. I would hazzard to say that the "free-gun" states where concealed carry and any gun imaginable would think we are restricted, but, other states (I believe like NewYork) would think that our gun-laws are fairly easy to get along with.
No, I can't have a full-automatic weapon, but, I can own virtually any semi-auto that I want (hand and rifle). No, I can't have a 100-round magazine attached to my semi-auto, but, I can carry a backpack full of magazines and they are easy enough to change out quickly. No, I can't have a derringer, but, I can have a nice double-action "cowboy" revolver in virtually any caliber I can hold ...
I am also slightly limited to the type of ammo I can own - no flechettes for my shotgun and no armor-piercing rounds (or explosive rounds) ... but - using those kinds of ammo really ruin the meat that I want in my freezer ...
Honestly - I hear those from the USA telling me that I am very restricted, but, in reality, I feel that the rules here are quite reasonable - and - it seems that registration of long-guns will be scrapped after being in effect for just over a dozen years with no loss of long-guns reported due to misuse ..
Hell no. Lockup for me means that if I want to have my gun on the wall to show-off, I just need to use a cable-lock to make sure that it stays on that damn wall and I just need to have my ammo away from the gun to make it more difficult for a thief to snag both the gun and ammo.I always heard that yawl had to have your guns locked up in some locl armory and had to check them out and bring them back...