Canadian News Anchor Brian Lilley, host of Byline on the Sun News Network warns Americans that firearm registration will ultimately lead to confiscation.
Lilley used the story of Ian Thomson, who "fired his registered pistol over the heads of attackers" who were "firebombing" his home in Ontario. Unbelievably, Thomson's weapons were seized when the police arrived and he was charged "for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive," as reported by the Toronto Sun. Thomson spoke personally on Lilley's show, saying that the government in Canada does not believe that homeowners should have the ability to defend their lives by having a firearm. Despite good intentions, gun control advocates are not focused on the root of the problem.
Lilley was reporting on Thompson's story when he said, "We are at a state in Canada where they don't want you using firearms for anything. Ever...And as we look at what's happening in the United States, that's what's happening." Lilley was particularly concerned about the development of a national registry of gun owners, which he believes will ultimately lead to the confiscation of firearms. He continued with a warning to America:
"So I've got a warning to my American friends: Registration will lead to confiscation. And if you don't believe me, just look at what's happened here."
Lilley said that even though confiscation concerns were "dismissed" and "ridiculed" in Canada when a national database for gun owners was proposed, that is exactly what happened when their weapons were eventually deemed "illegal."
Law abiding citizens who complied with the registry were forced to surrender their firearms when they were eventually made illegal. Further, Lilley explained that the decision to retrieve firearms was not made by an elected official, but by an unelected bureaucrat. As one Canadian says, "We keep wasting all our resources tracking law abiding citizens. Isn't it about time we tracked violent criminals instead?"
The real problem with violent crime can be found in certain urban areas like Chicago (i.e., the murder capital of America), where gun control laws do not seem to deter violent crime and sadly, the vast majority of crime goes unsolved. Is gun control the answer?
Watch the ominous news report by Brian Lilley here:
Photo Source: Toronto Sun
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 175 ( 1 removed by Renee Nal )
I am doing the best I can but the Borg is always just a "useful idiot" away...
It's terribly inconvenient...and not everyone can do that. But then, Marxist narcissism doesn't allow for compassion.
World Health Organization Ranking; The World’s Health Systems
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 USA
Well that interesting. Fact are facts.
However, in a non-marxist state all of the above would happen...
except that the doctors could charge those taxpayers, not treat them if they are broke.
see, it is so totally different.
As a Taxpayer. Fear Maxism.
And, everyone save for you understands how the "world health organisation" (oxymoron) arrives at their numbers.
Grow up.
Probably because hammers aren't the weapons used in 87 murders per day in the U.S.
Knives or cutting instruments took the lives of 1,694 people. We should have "Cutting instrument violence" advocates.
OK...rough figures...
20,000-suicide
10,000 illegal hand guns (by gang banger punks, druggies and general social misfits)
2000 all others...(rifles, 323)
Bottom line...the VAST MAJORITY of all non suicide deaths by guns were committed by criminals with guns that are ALREADY ILLEGAL...
Newtown is statistically insignificent...
You are exploiting emotionalism for a socialist/totalitarian agenda...
Bottom line... I couldn't care less who legally/illegally is in possession of firearms. My interest lies in the weapons not being available in the first place.
And there was nothing insignificant about what happened in Newtown.
Definitely the most convoluted "thinking," and one of the most IDIOTIC statements of ALL TIME! Of course...he wouldn't understand how..
Haaahahaahahaaaaha!!!!
But then, that's pretty much all you ever offer, laughing boy.
Not that it will ever happen, but yes, that would be the ideal situation. The UK seems to have the most successful gun laws and we should be trying to model ourselves after them. Can anyone give me a good reason as to why we shouldn't?
Not that it will ever happen, but yes, that would be the ideal situation.
Brian Lilley can rest his case.
He can rest his case all he wants, doesn't mean his predictions will come true. Way to cherry-pick my comment, btw.
I said a good reason.
Which supports the old adage, 'It's going to get worse before it gets better'. The point is, the United Kingdom now has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher), which only strengthens the argument for stricter gun laws.
You didn't address my "rabble" argument which, BTW, might account for the difference between American and European gun deaths...
Bottom line...when I go to downtown Atlanta at night, the reason for carrying a hand gun becomes apparent even to someone as logic challenged as you...
ad hominem so no further response is necessary...you forfeit the point...
Protection against the "liberal" created rabble that account for the vast majority of the gun crime in this country is a good reason to carry a handgun...
BTW, I notice you didn't bother to respond to the facts and figures I posted above...
I'll take that point, too...
See, you are logic challenged... you try to evade it instead of responding to it...
Point, set, match...Jo Jo...
You can take all the imaginary points you like, you can even proclaim yourself winner of the game - that I'm not playing. ;)
You have shown no knowledge or appreciation for the legitimate political purpose of the Second Amendment...
You have not answered the undeniable statistical reality that the vast majority of gun violence is committed in this country with guns that are already illegal by criminals that are a direct product of your idiotic democrat social programs and federal educational guide lines...
You quote us statistics from European countries (who, in the last century killed each other with guns to the tune of 200,000,000) which have no demographic similarity with the United States.
And, like all other "liberals" you think you have a right to govern the behavior of other law abiding citizens.
We don't have to justify our beliefs or what we want...you have to justify your need to take it from us...
Your labels are acknowledged and rejected. I can't say I'm concerned at all with your misguided assessments.
"You want a total gun ban"
Wrong. I never said that, and that is not what the UK practices either. Taking those facts into consideration, the rest of your comments in that paragraph are rendered invalid.
"You have shown no knowledge or appreciation for the legitimate political purpose of the Second Amendment..."
Nor do I need to, as that was not the topic at hand. Your statement is as relevant as pointing out that I have also not spoken on the health benefits of red wine consumption.
"You quote us statistics from European countries (who, in the last century killed each other with guns to the tune of 200,000,000) which have no demographic similarity with the United States."
Which also has no relevance to the conversation, because to claim a difference in demographics is to claim there are no bad people in the UK. This is also (conveniently enough for you) not a detail that can be accurately quantified.
The facts are that the US, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about 35-50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns. It ranks number one in firearms per capita. The US also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations.
Number of murders by firearms, US, 2009: 9,146
Number of murders by firearms, Britain, 2008: 39*
Just a drop in the bucket compared to the US. And your defense is that there are more bad people. lol
"And, like all other "liberals" you think you have a right to govern the behavior of other law abiding citizens."
Even though you're attempting to make this as personal as possible, as it's clear that's how you get your kicks, it has nothing at all to do with me. Unlike you, I don't believe my word is law - this is my opinion, and in the end, majority opinion is the factor that will decide this debate.
"PS...you know perefectly well what "rabble" I am talking about...go talk to the cops in Chicago...don't be obtuse...it is annoying..."
I couldn't care less what you're talking about. Like I said, it has no bearing on the conversation. What's annoying is your repeated efforts to deflect from the topic.
"If you like Europe so much, it would be alot easier for all of us if you just moved there..."
And that's the childish statement I was waiting for. No thank you, I love my country and rather than let it remain woefully inadequate compared to other countries, I would enjoy seeing successful laws implemented here so we were just as good or if not better than other countries who have a handle on the problem. But if you can't stand future decisions made by the majority, you're definitely free to move away.
"I for one prefer a little violence in the streets..."
Which perfectly sums up your mentality.
"I for one prefer a little violence in the streets..." Tony partially quotes.
I, for one, love it when he truncates the sentence to make it seem like someone said something he didn't say, and he accuses the other person of a childish mentality to boot. How much nerve does that take?
Tony...you admit both ignorance and apathy of the political purpose of the Second Amendment which disqualifies you from any further discussion on "gun control"...
It is like discussing nuclear physics with a flat earther...
LOL! Yep, you're definitely the winner - of the obfuscation game. xD
"Tony...you admit both ignorance and apathy of the political purpose of the Second Amendment which disqualifies you from any further discussion on "gun control"... "
I admitted nothing of the sort, but I would be agreeable to being disqualified from any further discussion with you. In order for me to be able to honor that disqualification, make sure you no longer address me.
"It is like discussing nuclear physics with a flat earther..."
And one last parting insult as you drag your knuckles through the door. Good riddance.
Remember...the seeds of WWII were sown in Germany in 1934...right about the time Hitler disarmed the German population...
Give me about 250 words on the political purpose for the Second Amendment...then we MIGHT have a basis for disciussion...if you can't...you lose and this discussion is OVER...
PS...It, fortunately, will take more than a flash mob majority of foodstamp democrats to abolish the Second Amendment...
In any case, I am through educating you for the nonce and further blather by you will be ignored...
"...violence in the streets doesn't prevent instability, world war and dictatorship...an armed population does...a value which you seem not to recognize at all."
Your own words.... "I for one prefer a little violence in the streets over instability, dictatorships a world war every couple of decades." Nothing to "misunderstand" there.
"Give me about 250 words on the political purpose for the Second Amendment...then we MIGHT have a basis for disciussion...if you can't...you lose and this discussion is OVER..."
I proved my point with a lot less than 250 words, and I'm under no obligation to give you anything. For someone who keeps declaring the discussion is over, you sure have a problem with continuing to return.
"PS...It, fortunately, will take more than a flash mob majority of foodstamp democrats to abolish the Second Amendment..."
Setting aside your ridiculous labels, no one is trying to "abolish" the 2nd amendment. Your comments just keep getting more and more irrelevant.
So you keep saying.
"you may want to take a minute or two to study my comments so as to improve your own pedantic and somewhat priggish style..."
If I were to print out your comments, they wouldn't even be fitting for a birdcage floor.
"you will be ignored..."
Like I already said, good riddance.
Probably all of them if someone was there to put a cap in his ass.
Of course, the answer to gun violence is more gun violence.
Jo Jo...this was the knockout punch.
You are sooo adorable. Comment of the Year.
And flag myself? What a silly notion.
..the name's Nal...Renee Nal...
LOL
An armed society is a free society, albiet slightly dangerous...
A disarmed society is a captive society...extremely dangerous...
A disarmed society is a captive society...extremely dangerous...
nice
Jo Jo buy all the guns you want went your time is up you can't take none of with you. I never said you shouldn't be armed to the teeth if you want too or live in bunker. When the Zombies come just don't let them bite you.
You..you...you foreign provocateur, you!
I also heard that Fidel Castro's half brothers, college roomates son's first cousins girlfriends fathers boyfriend said the same thing.
And we know these people know exactly what they are talking about...BE AFRAID....VERY AFRAID.
Do you have any facts, figures or logic to refute the intuitive common sense of this proposition???
All molerses are smores.
All molerses are blue.
Intuition may be based upon many things including human experience and history, personal experience, common knowledge, common sense...it is a legitimate source of human concept formation and, usually, the protogenitor of factual knowledge...Einstein, for example, came to an intuitive understanding of relativity before he worked out the empirical details...
Also...the source of self-evident statements is not relevant to their truth...
Also, at the very least, registration leads to the possibility and therefore threat of confiscation which is nearly as bad.
Finally, registration would do little except to appease the ironic need for "liberals" to feel like they are in control of the actions of everyone else...
Do your homework, Girl...
"Go back to the boycott, please. I loved it."
Well, you still have the option of deleting those you don't agree with.
I don't have anything to worry about anyway, it's only the internet. And all I've done is "keep to the topic" while being bombarded by insults from your friends. Where's your condemnation of their insults, Renee?
Well, if you actually point out someone, it would be clear that the insult started with you.... so ----? tick tock
"Definitely the most convoluted "thinking," and one of the most IDIOTIC statements of ALL TIME! Of course...he wouldn't understand how..
Haaahahaahahaaaaha!!!!"
And then there's also your friend, the dog faced whatever....
"When you have developed even a rudimentary understanding of the political reasoning behind the Second Amendment, we'll talk..."
"even to someone as logic challenged as you..."
"See, you are logic challenged..."
"It is like discussing nuclear physics with a flat earther..."
....and all of those insults are Doggy's way of calling me stupid, without coming right out and saying it.
Then there was....
"You see, Tony Snark..."
The yuks just never stop with that guy.
So sorry, Renee - the insults were not started by me. I remained civil while your friends hacked away with their usual insulting, obfuscating ways.
The whole "gun control" agenda is caused by fear mongering...
Yes, the passage you quoted further solidifies the point I made. Thanks for that, I guess?
Rhymes with Toronto?
or Tonto?
(A Canadian as I recall.)
Here, stop stammering. I'll save you the trouble... "Bububububut Chuck, what part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?"
The part that says I can't own an operational Thompson submachine gun... or bazooka... or WWII corvette's anti-aircraft gun with chair and mount... or... So apparently ownership is not infringed when fully automatic weapons and weapons that throw explosive rounds are in the mix. Good to know. Now, perhaps we can make whatever logic got the full autos banned and use it to get the military clones banned as well. Ignoring the unwillingness of our senators and representatives to actually buck the NRA and um-m--m-m... represent us instead... I'll bet we could.
Everything in this comment thread is primarily a focus on two basic premises... to wit: 1) guns, and the number and type of same in private hands has nothing to do with gun violence, and 2) we should do anything to try to eventually significantly reduce the number of dead children teenagers, men, women and the elderly except do something that addresses guns and gun ownership.
As for the second... if we're going to reduce "gun violence," we need to address guns and gun ownership.
Read my comment above...20,000 suicide; 10,000 punks with illegal guns; 2000 all others...323 with rifles...
Suicide is a legitimate use of a gun. Personal choice. Not your place to comment...
Punks do most of the killing with guns that are already illegal and they aren't likely to obey any laws...
An assault rifle ban or clip restriction would prevent, statistically, at most, 323 gun deaths per year...at what cost???
How many deaths occurred in Nazi Germany after gun control???
Riddle me that...try to be intellectually honest...not like your "liberal" pals...Try to think like the scientist you claim to be...
Now why wouldn't anyone want to correspond with someone as mature and respectful as that?
Jo Jo... I am neither. I said 30 K died. So did you. I understand about suicide. My point is, guns have a lot to do with it, and it's just sillydamnonsense to say they don't. My answer to the rest of it is, we have too many dam' guns out here, and the gun population is growing faster than the people population... and there's no good reason for it (your case of assault rifles notwithstanding).
Most of this is all about the logical fallacy of misleading vividness, anyway. When you get right down to it, mass killings are statistically marginal in the scheme of anything. You have almost two and a half times more chance of being hit by lightening, but don't let that stop a good feeding frenzy. Your chances of being killed or injured with a firearm today, is less than at some points in the 1960s, and are at modern historical lows. You also have many more chances of dying because your doctor or nurse forgets to wash their hands in this country, than that you will be shot. While Newton was tragic, one has to remember that around 55 million kids went to school in this country the morning 20 died in that school in CT. The media has been selling a lot of advertising with this, and the resultant debates, but that doesn't make this the most pressing, or even one of the most pressing issues this country faces today, it makes it one of the most emotional.
Suicide is a legitimate use for a gun and the right of the user...
Paternalistic "liberals" think they have the right and need to control everyone's behavior...Jo Jo calls bullshit on that...
The VAST MAJORITY of th rest of the "gun deaths" are caused by amoral criminal punks raised in your Welfare State and educated in your Federally Controlled Public Schools...the guns they are using are ALREADY ILLEGAL IN MULTIPLE VIOLATION OF EXISTING BUT UNENFORCED GUN LAWS...
Since Assault Rifles are the (alleged) reason for all of the latest gun control hoopla, it should be noted that in 2011, (including single shot .22s and Chuck's bolt action .30-06) there were 323 homicides committed with RIFLES...
C'mon, Chuck, you claim to be a scientist...separate yourself from the rest of these handwringing "liberals" and look at the facts...
PS..If Jo Jo decides to shoot himself, he doesn't need the "protection" of the likes of Tony and the rest of your "liberal" henchmen...
The real reason for the "gun control" talk now oozing out from under the "liberal" tent is registration and confiscation...
We are VERY familiar with the old "liberal" salami game...take one thin slice at a time...nothing to worry about...soon...no salami...
If anyone objects, call them paranoid, delusional and a conspiracy nut...
We have seen this movie many times since 1933...
yep.
According to FBI stats less than 50,000 people were killed by firearms between 2006 and 2010 inclusively. If we killed at about the current rate of 10,000 per year for the whole 237 years of this country we will still be less than 1/6 the number killed by the socialist/communist Jozef Stalin in about 7 years. That number of deaths was far smaller than the number killed by the communist Mao Ze-Dong who is responsible for over 49,000,000. That number is larger than the number of children aborted in the US since 1973, which is conservatively estimated at around 40,000,000. We are not as bad as Mao yet, but we should start to surpass him in about 10 years. Yes, abortions performed is 5 times the number of firearm deaths. The number of deaths in this world will not be changed because you ban all firearms, hammers and cars. Fact is that we will all die. The question is, do you want to live free, or oppressed? The constitution is clear, you have a right to own a gun and that shall not be infringed. For if we give up that right, then we should expect to be oppressed and may have to die at the whim of another dictator like Stalin or a Mao. Nothing says that the US form of government will last for ever and the Roman empire is a very good example. They did it to them selves, from the inside, that which no other country could do from the outside.