# Harper in process of scrapping gun registry



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

After all the BILLIONS of taxpayers money spent over the years, Harper has
decided to scrap the gun registry and erase all data on gun registrants from
the data base, so that future gov'ts would have to start all over if they
wanted to re-instate it. 

Argument seems to be that only law abiding citizens register their guns and
it doesn't prevent crime.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

The most common number associated with the gun registry is the 2 billion it cost to create and get setup. The irony is that the ongoing cost is "only" $60 million a year .... which is cheap for a government program and that the cops find it useful and want to keep it.

Personally I'd be happy if they used the same logic and decided we didn't need to register our cars and more that would save us more money.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

LondonHomes said:


> The most common number associated with the gun registry is the 2 billion it cost to create and get setup. The irony is that the ongoing cost is "only" $60 million a year .... which is cheap for a government program and that the cops find it useful and want to keep it.


I suspect the real value of this would come out if the police were told they could either keep the registry, or take the $60 million for themselves and apply it to their budgets. 

Which alternative do you think they would choose?

hboy43


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I suppose that should apply to everything else the government asks us to register...cars, houses, deaths, births, etc.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

how so, the gun registry "doesn't prevent crime." It's not intended to prevent crime. Nothing can prevent crime. It's just intended to aid in cutting down the statistics. In that sense it does provide a benefit.

the difference between prevalence of hand-guns & violent crime in canada vs the US is overwhelming. One of the reasons for this is gun control, imho.

there were so many people close to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre who devoted their whole lives afterwards to creation & enactment of gun control legislation. I'll have to go & see what they are saying now.


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

The gun registry would not have prevented Ecole Polytechnique.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Harper is making good on his campaign promises, and remaining true to his Reform Party roots.

The good news is that after he is finished the people will be so horrifed.......that the Tories will never see power again.

One of the big reasons the Liberals win in Ontario, is the Mike Harris legacy.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

We've spent so many billions on the program already. Why not keep the databases around at least? The Tories can sometimes be too ideological and stupid.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The thing is people like me have never registered our guns. Soon we won't be breaking the law due to some former governments brain fart.

It's very strange a Prime Minister actually fulfills a campaign promise....must be a first since before Trudeau.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I've been following a series of articles on this subject in my local newspaper. And I am coming to the conclusion that it isn't unregistered hunting rifles & shotguns that are the public safety problem. It's the definitions of what are prohibited or restricted firearms. So-called "civilian" versions of military weapons can be too easily converted to the restricted or prohibited full military operation. And yet there seem to be a lot of gun aficianados out there who think they need an AK47 to hunt deer or do target shooting.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Xander said:


> The gun registry would not have prevented Ecole Polytechnique.


Yes, that is my understanding. Apparently his semi automatic (assault rifle)
was bought legally. You can't prevent the nut cases from going off and
shooting people when they get pi**ed off by society.
FACs and gun registration just help the police track down where the
registered gun owners are.

In the Mayerthorpe AB. RCMP shooting case, where the guy that shot 4 RCMP officers, apparently, he owned them legally. The cops were able to trace
that down AFTER the shooting took place. So in a standoff between an
angry gun owner and police anything can happen, whether the cops are
investigating some crime or there for other reasons.

My brother lives in northern AB and is a avid hunter-fisherman. He owns 3 or
four rifles. Out there you need a gun for protection against bear/wolf intrusion,
or surprising a male moose in rutting season, while walking in the woods. 
They will charge at you. IF you don't have a loaded gun at the point when
they charge..you are (probably) history. 

As a hunter, he doesn't like the fact that he has to register all his rifles, 
but complies with the law, like most law abiding gun owners.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The way to reduce the impact of rampaging psychopaths like the Ecole Polytechnique, Columbine High School, Fort Hood, etc. attackers is to remove the weapons of mass killing. That does not mean all rifles and shotguns. They have legitimate uses. But handguns and automatic/semiautomatic rifles are a little too useful at killing large numbers of people.

I don't get too exercised one way or the other about the registry. I'd happily trade eliminating the registry for the banning handguns and automatic/semi-automatic rifles.


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

While I agree with Andrew in that most murders, assults and other crimes are commited with handguns and/or assult rifles, most if not all of these guns were aquired illegally. Banning illegal guns is impossible. Criminals will always want guns and someone will always be willing to risk getting guns for them for a profit.

Banning booze didn't work almost 100 yrs ago. Making cocane, heroin etc illegal to have or use isn't working today either. People still have grey/black market satelite dishes too. 

If you want to break the law you will. Period. Assult, murder, rape, theft all occur in countries with very strict gun control such as the UK. People will find a way.

Banning guns will not work today or tomorrow. Locking the perps up for a long, long time will at least prevent offenders from reoffending for the time they are behind bars.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Xander said:


> If you want to break the law you will. Banning guns will not work today or tomorrow. *Locking the perps up for a long, long time will at least prevent offenders from reoffending for the time they are behind bars*.


Only, for the ones that have already committed a crime. It will not prevent
any new crimes be committed with rifles by somebody who hasn't got a
criminal record. 

The new FAC laws do allow a minor (under 18 to possess a gun "for lawful purposes" such as target practice if a member of a gun club, and approved
by a FAC officer. The new rules are supposed to prevent those that already
have a criminal record or would harm themselves with a firearm, or become a threat to society owning one...but that is only at time of application..they can't control what happens later with that firearm even if it is legally acquired. 

Fully automatic rifles were banned in 1991 and semi-automatics that could be converted to automatic were banned in 1995. Military style assault rifles (ie: AK-47) were banned in 1995 as well.

"Lepine" (the perp for the Ecole Polytechnique), already owned a low caliber
(.22 calibre?) semi-automatic rifle in December 1989, and would have been grandfathered as most owners of automatics were at that time. 

from wiki...
Twenty-five-year-old Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi, who had changed his name to Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Ruger Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

The Ruger Mini-14 remains unrestricted for those that have one under
the grandfather clause in bill C-68. (1995).
You can kill just as many people with a small caliber gun as with a larger
Ak-47. 

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Law/ChangesToTheLaw.pdf

To get ammo, you now need to present your FAC, but I'm sure there are
ways of obtaining ammo without buying it at the sporting goods store.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Xander said:


> While I agree with Andrew in that most murders, assults and other crimes are commited with handguns and/or assult rifles, most if not all of these guns were aquired illegally. Banning illegal guns is impossible. Criminals will always want guns and someone will always be willing to risk getting guns for them for a profit.
> 
> Banning booze didn't work almost 100 yrs ago. Making cocane, heroin etc illegal to have or use isn't working today either. People still have grey/black market satelite dishes too.
> 
> ...


So, because enforcement is not 100%, we should make no effort to restrict handguns and assault rifles? That's pretty tortured logic. I suppose you also favour the legalization of all drugs.

For that matter, murder, assault, theft, etc. is impossible to completely eliminate, so we should not prohibit them?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

And yes, carver, grandfathering should not be allowed for weapons. If they are dangerous and not to be in the possession of the general public, that should apply universally.


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> So, because enforcement is not 100%, we should make no effort to restrict handguns and assault rifles? That's pretty tortured logic. I suppose you also favour the legalization of all drugs.
> 
> For that matter, murder, assault, theft, etc. is impossible to completely eliminate, so we should not prohibit them?


Never said that at all. 
I don't think that we should punish people who have done nothing wrong by taking away their property just because there is a very small minority who might break the law. 

And for the record, I do believe restricting guns. Only trained, responsible, law abiding Canadians should own them. In you previous post you mentioned banning them. That I disagree with because you can't.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Why would law-abiding citizens need tools whose only purpose is to kill other humans? It's like arguing that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess weapons-grade plutonium or SAM missiles, despite the fact that a small minority would use them for mass murder.


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

Whatever Andrew.
You hate guns. You think nobody should have them. I get it. I just happen to disagree with you. 

I like to shoot. I'd like to collect more. If I had the money. I am not looking to kill or hurt anyone. I am not hurting anyone buy owning, shooting, collecting guns. Why is that a problem for you?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have no problem with/am willing to tolerate guns that are impractical for killing people, such as rifles and shotguns. That should be good enough for hunting.

I don't particularly hate guns, I just don't see them as particularly exciting, and on balance not worth the risk having around.

Would you have a problem with me having a stash of weapons-grade plutonium or weaponized small-pox if I had no intention of using them? Do you have any problem with people possessing illicit drugs?


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I have no problem with/am willing to tolerate guns that are impractical for killing people, such as rifles and shotguns. That should be good enough for hunting.
> 
> I don't particularly hate guns, I just don't see them as particularly exciting, and on balance not worth the risk having around.
> 
> Would you have a problem with me having a stash of weapons-grade plutonium or weaponized small-pox if I had no intention of using them? Do you have any problem with people possessing illicit drugs?


You comparing weapons grade plutonium and small pox to a law abiding citizen's handgun is rediculous. I don't know of any other use for weaponized small pox other than to be used as a weapon. 

I like handguns for target practice. Target practice is another use for a handgun, which I will agree can also be used to hurt people. I agree a rifle or shotgun, although certainly affective, may not be practicle for gang bangers to use for murder or whatnot. Please keep in mind that most criminals use illegal handguns when commiting a crime. There will always, always be illegal handguns. I wish that the gov't could prevent bad guys from getting weapons but none have succeeded so far. I'd rather not be punished with laws that prevent me from gun ownership but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting them.

Anyways, target practice with a handgun is fun. Not to mention easier on the joints that a rifle or shotgun recoil. Can be much cheaper as well depending on the caliber. You should try is sometime. It can be a wonderful stress release. 

I think we should agree to disagree. You most likely do not own guns. I do.
You may have not shot guns often or at all. I have. Neither of use is likely to kill anybody with either a legal or illegal weapon. No amount of gov't regulation will change that.


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

I could care less about the registry...redundant legislation.....One still needs a fire arms license to buy a gun anyhow. I've fired many different weapons from muskets to BB's and even a few tank rounds and machine guns and I can say it is quite a thrill and target shooting can be pretty competitive....I however do not own any guns myself. I thnk the fact that a gun is registered would have little to no effect on wether or not someone commits a crime with it and restricted firearms would still be restricted with or without the registry....An example is an SKS is limited to 5 rounds in the mag in Canada.. It just takes drilling the rivet out that stops the 10 round mag from taking in 5 to make it illegal....More people in canada are killed by speeding drivers than guns each year but you don't see cars governed out to the maximum speed on a Canadian highway...which every Canadian transport is (@ 110km/h thats why it takes forever for two trucks to pass eachother). Sometimes the revenues generated seem to be worth more than the public safety......there is no extra cost involved in governing cars these days it's a simple program change inside the computer.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Xander said:


> While I agree with Andrew in that most murders, assults and other crimes are commited with handguns and/or assult rifles, most if not all of these guns were aquired illegally.
> 
> ...


_"Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes."_ - Wikipedia


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> _"Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes."_ - Wikipedia


I agree with that statement. Most long gun owners like my younger brother
who lives in northern Alberta is a avid deer and moose hunter, has FACs
and registered all his guns. He buys tags for the deer and moose that he
kills every year and uses for meat rather than buy beef from the stores.
That's his lifestyle. He also mentioned that when walking around in some
areas, he takes a rifle with him for personal protection against bears
or moose or any wild creature that can threaten his life for that fact.

I don't own a gun, but in my younger days, I was a member of the reserves
(30th Field Artillery) here in Ottawa, and have fired all sorts of guns from
automatic military rifles to machine guns, to the 105mm howitzer at the ranges in Petawawa and so I have developed a lot of respect for guns.

Other than the Mayerthorpe RCMP shooting where the suspect was
provoked by the RCMP (because he was involved with drugs at that
site..marijuana cash crop?), incidents involving long guns are very
rare compared to "saturday night specials" sneaked into Canada by
criminals from the US. 

If they want to be serious about gun control, hand gun smuggling needs
to be addressed first.


----------



## Kim (Jan 10, 2011)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Not my quote, but I agree. Thanks Tories for cleaning that clutter out of the goverment.

We have guns legally here on the ranch. The registry was a waste of time and money in my humble opinion. And I don't really like guns, but there are more important things to look after.

I sometimes have to drive past that quonset where the 4 RCMP were shot on my way to Mayerthorpe, you can see it from the hwy. The crazy guy who lived there was well known to the local RCMP detachement, he had threatened them before, it was common public knowledge that he was into illegal dealings. 

In my opinion the fault lies with the senoir officer at that detachment. The officers killed were all young / new recruits and they had not been properly briefed on the situation before going there - lambs sent to slaughter. That senior officer was transferred after this very sad incident - too bad for the detachment that got him. I think he should have been the one going to jail.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I dunno. I just can't understand how someone could support drug prohibition and support gun legalization. One is harmful to the user over longer periods, the other is a highly effective tool for killing others. Reeks of hypocrisy to me.

Edit: Plutonium might be ridiculous, but what is the difference? Your justification for owning a handgun is 'fun'. Who are you to quibble if I say the idea of owning plutonium is my idea of 'fun'. And sure, maybe it is ridiculous, but where do you draw the line? Can I own SAMs, bazookas, artillery, or is that ridiculous? Can I own grenade launchers, anti-tank mines, petrol bombs, AK-47s? The 'fun' argument could be used for all of them with equal validity. 

Hell, even more mundane things like diesel and ammonium nitrate. The police might frown on my amassing large quantities of both, despite the fact that they have other, legitimate uses.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Canadians have firearms (guns are only firearms with no rifling) mostly for protection from or control of wildlife or for pleasure hunting

Americans mostly have firearms to protect themselves from other people. How do you provide security? Armed guards, armed cops, armed military ect I'm not sure who the Americans are afraid of, and most of them have poor training, but I don't disagree with the concept. If something ever did happen, you'd be damn happy to have an armed neighbour. There is a difference between a firearm that can provide personal security and plutonium

I like Switzerland's setup. Everyone has a rifle and does their annual militia training. Switzerland is surrounded by foreign countries though, we are not.

Personally I think all weapons should be registered, but it's just too late. It's easy to force people to plated cars on public roads, how do you enforce firearm registration? You can't. Waste of money


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Hell, even more mundane things like diesel and ammonium nitrate. The police might frown on my amassing large quantities of both, despite the fact that they have other, legitimate uses.


Any chemicals that can be combined into an makeshift bomb are now scrutinized more after the McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing.

A couple of years ago, there was somebody in the southern Ontario who bought a lot of bags of fertilizer, the kind that could be made into a bomb
prior to the dates of the G8/G20 summit meetings in Muskoka/Toronto.
They traced that purchase right to the guy's door. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/09/fertilizer-search.html


Diesel oil can't be controlled as practically everyone who has a diesel engine
uses it, but any fertilizer purchases in *large* amounts by unknown individuals, such as ammonium nitrate is now more carefully scrutinized when sold by the fertilizer manufacturer. 

Farmers have to be on record with them. Even though fertilizer sales are not restricted (so far), anyone who buys more than a bag and is not considered to be a farmer would be under suspicion and will be (probably) investigated these days. 

I'm sure that the guy at the fertilizer plant that made that sale to the
southern ontario grower, was not aware of recording identity of purchaser at the time and checking against their own internal list. 

With computers these days, the fertilizer plant can check a recent purchase against past purchases of legitimate farmers. 
Anyone that hasn't bought a great amount of ammonium nitrate before and all of a sudden bought lots on a "cash sale" basis would probably be flagged , and police notified for followup.

Andrew..it would be interesting to hear your experience you would have
with the fertilizer manufacturer and police, if you wanted to buy more than 1 small bag of it these days.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I can tell you that I have the means to amass large quantities of ammonium nitrate and diesel without arousing suspicion. I have access to someone with an account at the very business that sold the fertilizer to that gentleman (a farm-supply store, not a fertilizer manufacturer).

At least ammonium nitrate and diesel have practical uses that outweigh their risk to public safety. I don't think the same could be said for many guns, especially hand guns. They are mostly useless (unless you count fun).


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Swimming pools are 10x more likely to cause the death of a child than firearms (Steven David Levitt an American economist)...it is outrageous that these lethal holes in the ground have not been outlawed.


----------



## Xander (Apr 3, 2009)

Eder said:


> Swimming pools are 10x more likely to cause the death of a child than firearms (Steven David Levitt an American economist)...it is outrageous that these lethal holes in the ground have not been outlawed.


Hear Hear!
My neighbour spent over 60 grand on a pool this year. Imagine how many guns that would buy!!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I can tell you that I have the means to amass large quantities of ammonium nitrate and diesel without arousing suspicion. I have access to someone with an account at the very business that sold the fertilizer to that gentleman (a farm-supply store, not a fertilizer manufacturer).


I hate to dis-illusion you Andrew, but as of June 1, 2008, 
Ammonium Nitrate IS a RESTRICTED SUBSTANCE with Natural Resources Canada. 

If your vendor wants to give or sell you a substantial quantity, be assured that the cops may come asking you why you needed so much and you
would probably run the risk of being afoul of the current laws. 

Secondly, if that "business" sells you that much ammonium nitrate, they
could run afoul of the law as well. 

check this link on details of this restricted chemical
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-metals/explosives/components/3735



> At least ammonium nitrate and diesel have practical uses that outweigh their risk to public safety. I don't think the same could be said for many guns, especially hand guns. They are mostly useless (unless you count fun).


It depends on your POV...a gun can kill, injure or maim, if used properly or improperly by the person holding the gun who makes that ultimate decision. 

I remember years ago, when I was in the reserves..my drill instructor would
ask us individually..."soldier, what is the purpose of your rifle?"

I was scratching my head trying to come up with an answer as we only
used it for target practice...

He replied "to kill the enemy soldier! to kill the enemy!..that's what it's for...
remember that!" 

While this may be military doctrine..it really presents the real purpose of guns..and target practice (even if done for fun), is to improve accuracy of shots taken at the bulleye image ...of a silloutte opponent that you are shooting at.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Xander said:


> Hear Hear!
> My neighbour spent over 60 grand on a pool this year. Imagine how many guns that would buy!!


Reinforces the old saying.."Money Pit"!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

carverman said:


> While this may be military doctrine..it really presents the real purpose of guns..and target practice (even if done for fun), is to improve accuracy of shots taken at the bulleye image ...of a silloutte opponent that you are shooting at.


Maybe a few things have changed over the years. We now have concepts such as show of force, escalation of force, warning shots, suppressive fire, indirect fire among other things that firearms accomplish without killing. These are actually military tactics, doctrines are social-political governing principles such as not shooting to kill unless absolutely required. In between is strategy


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> I hate to dis-illusion you Andrew, but as of June 1, 2008,
> Ammonium Nitrate IS a RESTRICTED SUBSTANCE with Natural Resources Canada.
> 
> If your vendor wants to give or sell you a substantial quantity, be assured that the cops may come asking you why you needed so much and you
> ...


Sorry carver, I'm not suggesting that ammonium nitrate is not controlled. My point is that ammonium nitrate is not hard to get for a segment of the population. This is tangential to the point of this thread, at any rate.





About swimming pools killing kids: cars kill more. But pools (and cars) have practical uses that outweigh their risk to society. They are used to teach children how to swim, which I consider a fairly vital safety skill. Even if private pools were banned, there are lakes, ponds and streams that pose the same risk of drowning, so banning pools would not significantly eliminate the risk of drowning. 

Handguns are useful for:
-'fun'
-training how to kill people
-killing people

I suppose that since C4 doesn't kill many children in America, I should be allowed to possess some C4, too? I'll also note that smallpox has killed no children in America in decades, therefore it is safer than pools and guns. I'll drop by the CDC to buy a sample tomorrow.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> About swimming pools killing kids: cars kill more.


A swimming pool will kill more kids than a car....although there should be a registry for both, as well as a car & pool acquisition certificate, as well as requiring proof of both to buy gas or water, along with appropriate numbers of civil servants to administrate it and appropriate budgets.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Handguns are useful for:
> -'fun'
> -training how to kill people
> -killing people


This seems to be a common misunderstanding of firearms and military force. Often, just having it serves the purpose. I cop on patrol with a handgun is a show of force. He may draw his pistol as a warning or take a warning shot. A well trained cop would shoot to subdue the criminal without killing. Ergo they train for a lot more than killing. Any good target practice trains for this as well. Therefore handguns do a lot more than killing and training to kill.. If you ever fired a handgun, you'd know it's more of a negotiation piece than anything. Not like Hollywood hitting moving targets at range


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Maybe a few things have changed over the years. These are actually military tactics, doctrines are social-political governing principles such as not shooting to kill unless absolutely required. In between is strategy


Well maybe..this was reserves doctrine back in the mid-60s. I remember
the captain advising us that we could get called into action if the 
Cuban missile crisis esculated into war. That was a scary thought at only
being 16 at the time!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Sorry carver, I'm not suggesting that ammonium nitrate is not controlled. My point is that ammonium nitrate is not hard to get for a segment of the population. This is tangential to the point of this thread, at any rate.


Well lets say that after the Oklahoma nitrate-diesel fuel bombing, they are
keeping closer tabs on very large purchases of it. 
No doubt if you are a grower/farmer, you can get it, and if you didn't
care about how it would be eventually used, you could sell it to the highest bidder who came to your place and asked if they could get a ton or so..but legally, it is a restricted substance.

In a way it's similar to handguns used for crime, you can get these
"underground" if you have the cash to buy them ..and without any registration. 





> I'll also note that smallpox has killed no children in America in decades, therefore it is safer than pools and guns. I'll drop by the CDC to buy a sample tomorrow.


Hmmm..do you mean anthrax?... the powdered form version that they used
to kill a few people with poisoned letters in the US after 9/11.

This substance is a biological weapon used by the US army in the 60s, and is probably more readily available, or could be made more easily in a homemade lab.

The scary part about any kind of biological substance..is..
if it is released into the drinking water system, it can kill a lot of people or make them extremely sick.
We all know what happened in Walkerton back in the Mike Harris days
when they reduced municipal water inspections to save on costs.
With two local yokels running the municipal water supply, who didn't bother repairing a broken clorinator or with adding any clorination and combined with lots of pig farms/pig manure runoff into the underground acquifers, it resulted in major biological contamination.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

carverman said:


> No doubt if you are a grower/farmer, you can get it, and if you didn't care about how it would be eventually used, you could sell it to the highest bidder who came to your place and asked if they could get a ton or so..but legally, it is a restricted substance.


Anyone can easily become a farmer though. Anders Brevik set up a farm in 2009 so that he could buy large quantities of fertilizer and chemicals without raising any flags.

He also bought a 9mm semi auto pistol legally as a member of a pistol club, and a semi-auto assault rifle with his hunting licence.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

He was also a nice law-abiding citizen (the kind who should be able to own guns with minimal government oversight) until he killed nearly a hundred people.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

In that case we should ban firearms and become a police state. Have the military set up checkpoints and search everyone's house for firearms on short notice


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think that would be constitutional. The police need probable cause to conduct a search.


----------

