If the federal government's numbers are right, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are Canada's most heavily armed citizens, but also its least trigger-happy. According to the most recent numbers from the Canada Firearms Centre, the province has 70,977 registered firearms. Statistics Canada's latest numbers estimate the province's population at 508,270. That's one gun for every 7.2 people, the... [Telegram (Newfoundland), via gunpolicy.org ]

More...

Much as I am now for the right to bear arms given the situation in our major cities Steve, this isn't really indicative of a strong argument for it. Both those areas are more rural in nature and have little or no multiculturalism of any significance. .

Its not at all surprising that the gun numbers are higher there. Hunting and fishing are the major industries there. Although that may change soon now that Newfoundland has discovered major oil resources. A wonderful occurrence as they are among the most economically challenged areas of Canada. Newfoundland has probably Canada's most warm and decent people. It couldn't happen to a finer people.

That was my point Betty. Large urban areas and their politicians would make laws for the rest of us. That is why I'm against Federal laws.

Okay! So, then state and local governments should be able to regulate who can own weapons and what kinds of weapons can be owned? So, in the urban areas maybe laws would be more restrictive, while not so restrictive in rural areas? I wonder if that would be constitutional....different laws for different areas within one state? Or are you saying that each state should have the absolute right to make gun laws and the federal gov. should not interfere in any way? I still ask though, why would any person need to own an assault weapon, regardless of where one lives?

As long as the state or local law doesn't run afoul of the 2nd. Amendment. It is why the California assault weapons ban is constitutional, and the DC law wasn't.



It's called the Bill of Rights amy, not the Bill of Needs.

Well, does the right to own an assault weapon supercede my right to be protected from that type of weapon? Or, does it mean I should purchase one so that I can protect myself if threatened by one?

What is it about the weapon that makes it evil and why do you fear it? Do you know that the so-called assault weapon is used in less than 2% of all gun crime? It is why the ban was repealed. It was the solution to a non-existent problem. It was a "feel good" law...typical of the Liberals.

Stop picking on the liberals...they do much good, even if you don't agree with them. It was repealed? That shows how much I follow gun law issues.
Do you have a problem if a state government bans ownership of assault weapons or any type of weapon? Is this just a federal law problem for you or is it also a problem for you if states restrict weapons?

I am a hard-line states rights advocate, Amy. State or local governments can do as they please within the parameters of the Constitution. It is not the job of the federal government to set those standards.

Okay. Fair enough.

Methinks it's doubtful them figures're correct. If I ain't mistaken there's been a hesitancy (based on what happened in Australia as well as the actions of provincial police in western Ontario to go after members of my tribe, the Ojibwe, in violation of existin' treaty provisions) for folks in the western provinces to register their firearms. Exactly the way I feel.

Methinks there're some well intentioned but uninformed folks out there feelin' more restrictions on Second Ammendment rights're in order, whilst screamin' 'bout restrictions (real or perceived) on our other rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Surprisingly they don't/won't admit to the hypocracy in this stance, eh? Bummer!

I'm about to start advocating new regulations on the transport of firearms to be called The Bill of Lading. It won't accomplish anything but it'll be fun to watch the confusion it'll cause every time it's mentioned.