Posted on 08/01/2007 7:05:02 AM PDT by george76
Citing concern over the "sinister uses" of guns, University of Toronto officials are closing down their 88-year-old shooting range. No word yet on the fate of the university's chemistry labs.
More than just one more example of political correctness run amok (which of course it is), I take this gesture as academic ideologues' invitation to government to follow suit and ban gun sport and gun collecting nationally. Alas, I think the initiative might find broad public support.
To many liberal Canadians nowadays, tolerating gun use in any capacity is akin to complicity in Bambi's mother's murder, fatalism regarding school massacres and genuflection to American imperialism.
Such a ban would be a mortal blow to civil liberties and property rights in this country, but it wouldn't take much muscle to finish the job: The implementation of the Firearms Act in 1995 has already battered gun lovers to their knees.
Unlike the United States, Canada has little in the way of a criminal gun culture...
Enter the Firearms Act, which had nothing to do with general gun crime (at a low ebb when the Act was introduced), or actual prevention of homicidal intent, and everything to do with appeasing feminists' irrational fear of a frightening -- but statistically tiny --menace.
The good guys who suffer the most are gun collectors -- invariably men -- in the process of a marital breakdown. For in its obsession with protecting women, the Firearms Act now accords spouses control over their husbands' right to renew their licences ...
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
.
And here in the US, most divorces, no matter how civil, are accompanied by a restraining order which immediately requires the male spouse to give up his firearms.
University of Toronto officials are closing down their 88-year-old shooting range. No word yet on the fate of the university’s chemistry labs.
“And here in the US, most divorces, no matter how civil, are accompanied by a restraining order which immediately requires the male spouse to give up his firearms.”
Any statistics on this? Is this a trend? All states the same? Most worrying.
What other items are there that can have “sinister uses” as well?
Swords, baseball bats, staplers, hammers (with and without nails), batteries, pepsi cans, lug wrenches, telephone books, cloth, fuel, chemicals or nearly any variety, a boat, a plane, a car, straws... and on and on. How will they handle all these “sinister” items???
“Turning Legal Gun Owners Into SOCIAL LEPERS”
Yeah just like the government does now with anything they don’t like.. like smoking, obesity, drinking, fast food, and so on.
Not a shock.. won’t bother me.. I enjoy being a social leper if it means anti gun liberals will stay away from me.. lol
That guy from the Dems YouTube debate didn’t help any...........I think he was a planted ringer......
Another article on this states that there are 450 members. I would assume that that is a significant percentage of the student body.
So where are the protests?
gun grabbers...
Yes, but when the $hit hits the fan they will come looking for gun toting,knuckle dragging, good old Americans, to defend their sorry @sses! Typical liberal idiots.
“sinister uses”
also cast iron frying pans...
>And here in the US, most divorces, no matter how civil, are accompanied by a restraining order which immediately requires the male spouse to give up his firearms.<
Men, If she asks you to leave the house, make sure to take all your firearms and ammo with you. Do not leave any serial numbers for the lawman to find.
Has anyone seen fit to organize a real counter-movement or opposition to this? So far, a lot of b*tching and moaning but nothing that would make these prats sit up and take notice.
Mine did!! But it came after he pushed in and took his handguns and then he threatened to shoot himself in the head in front of the house, where the kids would look right out and see it.
I was afraid he’d shoot me instead, so I got a restraining order.
I’d LOVE to give him back his guns, I’d love for him to be normal.
I have virtually never watched Judge Judy, but saw it yesterday. Boy is she ever an anti-gun nut! These neighbors accused a guy of shooting over their head with a BB gun, shooting out their garage windows, etc.
He explained he had not shot BB guns in the neighborhood after they claimed he’d shot near them, and offered to pay for a window, although all the kids in the neighborhood had BB guns.
1. the window was OBVIOUSLY not shot out by a BB, the hole was relatively huge
2. How would they know he did it? They had a grudge against him for another incident, years before, with a swimming pool leak
3. Ole Judy, i refuse to honor her again by using her title, was on the gun owner like white on rice, demanding shrilly to know how he could know what his son was doing while he was at work. Well, he was disabled, didn’t work. How could he lift a BB gun if he had a bad back?????? (huh?)
IT COULD PUT OUT SOMEONE’S EYE!!!
Was she joking or just stupid??? I vote for abyssmally STUPID.
I have no problem with TRO’s against real threats, but there is a trend where lawyers are getting TRO’s as a matter of course. Once there is a TRO, it is mandatory that the firearm owner give up his guns and then go thru hell to get them back. TRO’s are immediate and temporary until a judge can hear the case, at which point they may or may not become permenant.
That's interesting. Do you have a source?
One had the feeling that the candidates selected the questioners in that debate and wanted Floyd R. Turbo for a gun question. All in the interest of fairness and balance of course! ;)
These judges grab our guns fast. TRO’s, etc.
Criminals do not care much because they can get replacement weapons immediately from their local drug dealer or pimp.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.