Replies

"Is Michael Moore actually in favor of total disarmament or more gun control because there is a difference? I'm not a Michael Moore fan so don't flame me but I think it is important to accurately report a person's position on a given topic. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that gun control advocates are actually seeking some form of stiffer control....maybe not as bad as Canada but stiffer than the current US laws."

The point of "reasonable controls" on gun owners is to know who has the guns. Then, later, when you control the government and media better, you can go and take them. The Soviets and the NAZI's both used this tactic, to terrible effect. I side with the no controls at all crowd, personally. Use a firearm in a legitimate manner and you have no problem. Use one illegitimately, and get caught in the cross-fire from all the gun owners around you.

I don't think you have much to worry about. The cost of implementing a program would be astronomical in the US. Our latest program in Canada cost Billions and we only have 1/10th the population AND the program has proven to have zero impact on crime.

We have a different perspective on guns in Canada, where I live anyway. Very few people, including me, feel the need to own guns for personal protection. Worrying about gun toting criminals isn't on most peoples radar. We own them but it's all for hunting or sport. When you don't have to worry about personal protection, registering a handgun is not a big deal....just a paper work pain in the @ss. We also don't fear having them taken away because in much of Canada's wild, they are a necessity.