[ 04-30-2003, 07:36: Message edited by: boilerroom ]

DUK,

I do not post often but I refuse to sit and read your posts without commenting.

Your reference to America's use of Atomic Weapons as "sensless" really shows how naive you must be.

Dec. 7, 1941
Japanese planes attack Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military base on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, killing 2,403 men, women and children.

Dec. 11, 1941
Germany and Italy declare war on the United States.

The United States was attacked. When the U.S. declared war on Japan both Germany and Italy decared war on the United States of America.

Jan. 1, 1942
Allies forge Declaration of the United Nations. A joint declaration is signed by 26 nations at war with the Axis nations.

The United Nations Charter was drawn up by the representatives of 50 countries at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, which met at San Francisco from 25 April to 26 June 1945. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.

October 24, 1949
Cornerstone laid for present UN Headquarters in New York City.

The United States is one of the few nations that will actually allow the United Nations to conduct it's business while it's members enjoy Diplomatic Immunity. Who pays for this immunity? Largely, the The citizens of the United States, and New York City, in particular, foot the bill. How many nations could afford to host the U.N. ?

You call the United States �aggressive�. I call it brave. We, as a nation, refuse to let the whole world suffer under the threat of terrorism. We, as a nation, have one of the greatest fighting forces in the world�s history. We could use that fact to take a defensive position and let the world fall to pieces around us but the United States refuses to do so. As KuduKing pointed out, the United States has shed blood on foreign soil many times and refuses to let those who have fought for the United States die in vain by changing our ideals. We will continue to honor those men and women by acting when action is necessary.

I sometimes wish the United States more adhered to Theodore Roosevelt�s �Speak softly and carry a big stick� policy. Unfortunately we can not. Many nations cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. is here to take on all comers and fight for democracy in any nation in the world. Whether that nation deserves it or not.

Boileroom

MAYBE THE PROBLEM IS...

boileroom:

What fascist history have you been reading? German POWs died overwhlemingly in SOVIET concentration camps, not Allied. And you equate the French Resistance, which killed lawful combatants, eg. German soldiers, with terrorsts? With guys with box cutters slashing the throats of innocent civilians then killing, among several thousand others, a little 2 yr old girl by flying her into a building while she clung frightened to her mother? I knew people that died on 9/11 and in their memory I would glady kick your slimey little ass up and down that faggot bi-polar bi-lingual histrically-confused "nation" of yours for suggesting it.

What happened to you Canadians? Have you all gone limp? I've just about had my fill of Canadian leftists. I think we should be building a big fence on our northern border, rather than with Mexico. I didn't see any Mexicans flying planes into office buildings or murdering American children. Yet, every Tom, Dick and Terrorist gets a free pass into USA through Canada. Your government is all upset that we are profiling the terrorist bastards that have been marching right in courtesy of a Canadian visa, along with the many common criminals from foreign lands that you admit who wind up defrauding $$$$$$ in the USA. Either your one of us, or one of them, it's time to choose.

DUK:

You are the archtypical proponent of the Big Lie. You would have done well in Nazi Germany, and probably pine for the Third Reich on a daily basis, wishing for the glory of conquest and world domination that you failed at. I used to wonder sometimes why we let you have a military again. However, I see now that modern Germany is nothing more than a bunch of feckless cowards, useful during the Cold War as a potential vomit bag for Soviet munitions, while the Americans again guaranteed your security.

"Senseless" atomic attacks on Japan during WWII? As a student of history you are as ignorant as they come. 200,000 Japanese died as a result of the atomic attacks. At least 10 MILLION Japanese would have died as a result of an American invasion of the home islands, along with 1 million American casualities. I know in your black-and-white self-loathing world you can never understand the reality of war, but the atomic attacks saved lives and hastened the end of a terrible conflict.

[ 01-18-2003, 07:51: Message edited by: KuduKing ]

KuduKing

I don't recall hearing on the news that it was Candian planes flying into your buildings or canadians killing your children.They did leave from US airports.And piolet training was from US flight schools. Unfortunatly if the terrorists got into the States from Canada or any other country that is a fault of US customs not Canada. It seems to me that immigration and customs in both our countries suck the big one and need major work done on them. But it is not Canada's fault for the terrorist attacks on the US. Which seems like you are implying.

[ 04-30-2003, 07:42: Message edited by: boilerroom ]

Hey Chips Fan
I thought only homos like chips. Do you also like the Vilage people?
At least someone has some humar left in him on this topic.

What happens if a bear decides to join you in your tent? Will you have enough time to unsecure a gun that shouldn't have to be secured in the first place? Nope. You just became dinner. Yum-yum!

My take on this is the same as Gatehouse's. I'm not a lawyer, but I do teach the firearms courses, and as the law is written, as long as the firearm is under your personal supervision, in your hand or close to you, safe storage rules do not apply. Technically, you could walk down Yonge street in Toronto with your rifle in your hand and be legal. I wouldn't want to try it, but that is the way the law is written. I think what everyone is missing here is the fact that this is a fishing expedition by the OPP (Ontario provincial Police, think state police). They might have a leg to stand on with drinking while having a firearm under your care, but as to the storage laws, they're going to lose. Won't stop them from trying it again, it's police politics, but they will lose. The firearms laws themselves (according to the NFA , our NRA, lawyer), especially regarding safe storage, are so poorly written that the only time anyone should be convicted is if they plea bargain down from something else. FWIW - Dan

[ 01-19-2003, 20:54: Message edited by: dan belisle ]

[ 01-20-2003, 16:42: Message edited by: corey006 ]

((3) Sections 5 to 14 do not apply to firearms when they are used or handled by individuals in the course of any of the following activities when they are lawful:

(a) hunting and target shooting;
...

-----------------------------------------

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.


These are from the storage section of the code. All storage requirements are required to be observed unless they are exempted by one of these clauses.
Now I agree that in certain instances like having your rifle leaning against the camp while you are splitting firewood and intending to go back hunting shortly can be argued to be "in the course of" ... "hunting" and would be fine. But, I'll bet when you land in front of the judge and testify that while you were sleeping on the couch you were "in the course of hunting", he will chuckle and check to see what the fine range is for improperly stored firearms.
The last section is the one I brought up to the warden teaching the firearms course as the reason forearms didn't have to be locked up at night in the deer camp since it was a remote wilderness area. I got firm NO. The definition of wilderness area means one that no one else except those hunting could reasonably be expected to be there. With ATV's very few camps can claim that now though some might be able to argue that depending on location.
Believe me I wish you were right. I have arrived at my deer stand, climbed up, pulled my rifle out of the case and found that the trigger lock was still on and the keys back in my other coat this past year. I'm just not used to having a lock on it.
It is crazy that I might have to lock my rifle up when I come back to the house for lunch instead of leaning it behind the door until I leave again during hunting season. But the laws are written (or should i say carefully crafted) so this is actually argueably what it says. if you have a good enough lawyer, and a reasonable judge you could most likely win a fight. i personally don't have the time or money to bother

Here's some better news!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2003/01/14/10982.html

EDMONTON -- Edmonton police backtracked on plans to charge former sergeant-at-arms Oscar Lacombe under new firearms legislation yesterday, calling the law "difficult and confusing."

The 74-year-old was interviewed by investigators at downtown police headquarters around 4 p.m., but was released minutes later without charge.

Police spokesman Wes Bellmore said investigators will now defer a decision on whether to lay charges to provincial Crown prosecutors.

"The overall implementation of this law is difficult, it is confusing," said Bellmore. "And police right across the country will find out that laying these charges (is) difficult."