Unbelievable, RCMP comes into your own home, takes your property, then
demands proof of ownership to get it back.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/more-important-tasks-pmo-says-it-expects-rcmp-to-return-guns-seized-from-evacuated-high-river-homes/
This principle was predicted in Canada years ago, and the Canadian
government has not disappointed their citizens.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featu...n/2081848359001
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:59:53 +0200, Rob Cosman <[email protected]>
>Unbelievable, RCMP comes into your own home, takes your property, then
>demands proof of ownership to get it back.
>http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/more-important-tasks-pmo-says-it-expects-rcmp-to-return-guns-seized-from-evacuated-high-river-homes/
>
>This principle was predicted in Canada years ago, and the Canadian
>government has not disappointed their citizens.
>http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featu...n/2081848359001
What's wrong, not getting enough reaction?
The main motivation for removing the firearms was to prevent them from
being stolen by looters.
While I agree that I wouldn't want law enforcement entering my home to
search for firearms without a valid warrant, I'd much rather have them
do it than have someone come and loot my property.
In the end, the firearms will be returned to the owners. There's no
real story here so climb back into your hole.
In article
<[email protected]>, Hendrik
Varju <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/3/2013 4:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong, not getting enough reaction?
> >
> > The main motivation for removing the firearms was to prevent them from
> > being stolen by looters.
> >
> > While I agree that I wouldn't want law enforcement entering my home to
> > search for firearms without a valid warrant, I'd much rather have them
> > do it than have someone come and loot my property.
> >
> > In the end, the firearms will be returned to the owners. There's no
> > real story here so climb back into your hole.
> >
>
> "There's no real story here", really? And you have the audacity to
> call yourself a Canadian?
>
> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
> stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way
> beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid.
> You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed in on
> itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so
> dense that no intellect can escape, kind of stupid. Singularity
> stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on the warm side of Mercury stupid.
> You emit more stupid in one second than our whole galaxy emits in a
> year. Quasar stupid. Your post has to be a troll. Nothing in our
> universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
> fragment from the original big-bang of stupid. Some pure essence of
> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> physics that we know.
>
> Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your atrophied
> brain and, upon finding it rancid, set you loose to fly briefly before
> spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble
> blood. May you choke on the queasy convulsing nausea of your own
> trite, foolish beliefs.
I'd like to know how many guns were confiscated when the Cumberland
House Cree Nation was evacuated.
Of course, that would result in pissed off Indians, so never happened.
A town of white Albertans, on the other hand.
What the cops did in High River was burglary, plain and simple.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx
On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:26:11 +0200, Hendrik Varju
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your atrophied
>brain and, upon finding it rancid, set you loose to fly briefly before
>spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble
>blood. May you choke on the queasy convulsing nausea of your own
>trite, foolish beliefs.
What is it you're trying to say? Don't hold back, tell me how you
really feel.
You see, my comment about there being no story here was a troll. And,
people like you are ripe for the picking, especially when it comes to
topics like guns.
Suggest you fly over to Alberta and voice your displeasure.
On 7/3/2013 4:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> What's wrong, not getting enough reaction?
>
> The main motivation for removing the firearms was to prevent them from
> being stolen by looters.
>
> While I agree that I wouldn't want law enforcement entering my home to
> search for firearms without a valid warrant, I'd much rather have them
> do it than have someone come and loot my property.
>
> In the end, the firearms will be returned to the owners. There's no
> real story here so climb back into your hole.
>
"There's no real story here", really? And you have the audacity to
call yourself a Canadian?
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way
beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid.
You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed in on
itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so
dense that no intellect can escape, kind of stupid. Singularity
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on the warm side of Mercury stupid.
You emit more stupid in one second than our whole galaxy emits in a
year. Quasar stupid. Your post has to be a troll. Nothing in our
universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big-bang of stupid. Some pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that we know.
Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your atrophied
brain and, upon finding it rancid, set you loose to fly briefly before
spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble
blood. May you choke on the queasy convulsing nausea of your own
trite, foolish beliefs.
On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:26:11 +0200, Hendrik Varju
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
>stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way
>beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid.
>You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed in on
>itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so
>dense that no intellect can escape, kind of stupid. Singularity
>stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on the warm side of Mercury stupid.
>You emit more stupid in one second than our whole galaxy emits in a
>year. Quasar stupid. Your post has to be a troll. Nothing in our
>universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
>fragment from the original big-bang of stupid. Some pure essence of
>stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
>physics that we know.
>
>Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your atrophied
>brain and, upon finding it rancid, set you loose to fly briefly before
>spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble
>blood. May you choke on the queasy convulsing nausea of your own
>trite, foolish beliefs.
>
Does your Mommy know you are playing with her computer?
You might get sent to bed without your supper when she finds out.
On 7/5/2013 10:2 4AM, Tom Veatch wrote:
>
>
>Does your Mommy know you are playing with her computer?
>You might get sent to bed without your supper when she finds out.
You sir are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
abandoned by the puke-drooling giggling beasts that sired you and then
killed themselves in regret for what they had done.
And what meaning do you expect your delusional self-important
statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What
fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the snake to bite?
__
With guns, we are citizens - Without them, we are subjects...
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:31:16 +0200, Hendrik Varju
>With guns, we are citizens - Without them, we are subjects...
Considering the drivel that spouts out of your abscessed mouth, you're
an uncontrolled fool with a gun.
It appears you're *exactly* the type of person who *shouldn't* be
allowed anywhere near a gun.
On 7/6/2013 20:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Considering the drivel that spouts out of your abscessed mouth, you're
>an uncontrolled fool with a gun.
>
>It appears you're *exactly* the type of person who *shouldn't* be
>allowed anywhere near a gun.
http://is.gd/h5RzNN
http://is.gd/xej8N8
__
With guns, we are citizens - Without them, we are subjects...
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:44:16 +0200, Hendrik Varju
>>Considering the drivel that spouts out of your abscessed mouth, you're
>>an uncontrolled fool with a gun.
>>
>>It appears you're *exactly* the type of person who *shouldn't* be
>>allowed anywhere near a gun.
>http://is.gd/h5RzNN
>http://is.gd/xej8N8
No worries. You don't need any guns to protect yourself, people most
assuredly avoid you at costs anyway.
Tell me, what does it feel like to be the local pariah?
On 7/7/2013 06:23 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:44:16 +0200, Hendrik Varju
>>>Considering the drivel that spouts out of your abscessed mouth, you're
>>>an uncontrolled fool with a gun.
>>>
>>>It appears you're *exactly* the type of person who *shouldn't* be
>>>allowed anywhere near a gun.
>
>>http://is.gd/h5RzNN
>>http://is.gd/xej8N8
>
>No worries. You don't need any guns to protect yourself, people most
>assuredly avoid you at costs anyway.
>
>Tell me, what does it feel like to be the local pariah?
Nobody cares about you. You are alone in this world. Your
self-delusions are of almost frightening proportions, and your lunacy
reaches record-setting levels. You are laughed at, mocked, and
despised by many. You have made yourself look like such a fool that
nobody takes you seriously. You have proven your stupidity numerous
times and you have yet to cease in that endeavor. It is as if you are
on a constant quest to see how much ignorance you can come up with
before you slip into the abyss once again.
You are an enigma, a riddle that is unable to be solved. Scholars
ponder over your lack of a clue. History shall record that you were
one of few humans able to function without a fully developed brain.
Nobody believes in you, and even if they did they would think you a
figment of their imagination. The very idea of you as a species of
human is laughable, but to call you a simian would insult apes. Your
sad attempts at looking "cool" only cause you to humiliate yourself
more, and you have put six people into the hospital with punctured
lungs from laughing so hard at your idiocy. The stench of your failure
can be smelled for miles around you, wafting in a circular pattern of
honest inconsistency that would baffle the greatest minds man has ever
known. Weathermen plot their forcasts around the cloud of shame that
constantly hangs over your head. I could wash my hair with the tears
of shame that your relatives and those around you cry each day.
_gm__gz,
,Z\/` 'c\.
/,! '[W
]!] . []
] ] .-==- b]
]i ~ -==== !]-
] ~~ -![
W d`
'b W
i[ 'M
]. ~ 4.
] -'[
d -= b
M! @
@ `-D
]@ -]A
@P , , . '@
M| ~` '` /]@
_._. Y ciP
,g/G/~Vi ![ '-V[
,Z~_/`- b@_ ,[ -` [
_v4Tv/ .m/TGs,2V~-i ] \/.[
,vf ,(f `'iY.A / -[,z --=-__
,gY` v)` \-.@! ,--]Wf =/`,~N
,gY` id / b@[ -/ ]M (b.
vf| - t[ !,i@P! ' ][. /`YZ~V,c.
if, ' , ,(] ]'@` ]b `'/@. `'*W.
K ,)`-'Z _ _ -/i@ i ' @Y |4t ;'
b gz/-Z`'` @ - ] -P] ` , i ,!W ]@ ;'
[ gZ\ ]! * i[ ! Z!d, ]- [W ~ \ ] ;
,[ '7v` A 'i ` - !' ] [@./ , ,] :
] !i- `][ ,] ' e!] i - . m ! "
W s-=` ][ !A /- ] W= "
A -Z- @- -! P ,A, , |
[ '- ,/4. !' Z` [ ."
Y.- ' /[ . ,/ "
Vi'- ' ! ! / |
'e. ] , . v}
Vs. '. .- `
'5c. \ ! , :
\Zs `-. '- \ - "
'\. - . ' ' - ` .-, =
'e. -' - , -` ,/ !vi\ v
Vs -! -- ' v` ,'.-'/ "
'G. ' ! '- / '.c\,` :
!i ` -. ,` ` , `'c +
Yi ' - ! . ,`` - - !` ,zL'`
b i , - - ' - , - - ,Z|!`
Y ` \- , , '- ` , . ,Z7
8 -- . ` -` .'.- -P
] ] -, . - , ,[
]. Y- ' / 8
i| ,' - ` . - ' W
` , - - , , K
__
With guns, we are citizens - Without them, we are subjects...
Hendrik, if this is really you, welcome to the group.
I have not seen you here much before this argument? / Discussion? Street
fight? I just went to your website.
Excellent work.
As far as political stuff.... lets keep it ww..
You are far too good a woodworker to lose you.
Please post ww stuff.
As far as the politics goes, we all post here from time to time our
rants... most of us take some heat for it... So feel free to ignore my
keep it WW... but still stay and post some WW stuff.
For those of you that didn't see his ww stuff...
http://passionforwood.com/woodworking/
or http://passionforwood.com in which he also has a food site..
--
Jeff
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 06:03:57 +0200, Hendrik Varju
>constantly hangs over your head. I could wash my hair with the tears
>of shame that your relatives and those around you cry each day.
Notice how a one or two line reply is enough to send you into a
frenzied, illogical response?
*That's* all the information anybody needs to know about you. You'd be
doing everyone a favour by using one of those guns on yourself.
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 21:58:00 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>For those of you that didn't see his ww stuff...
>http://passionforwood.com/woodworking/
I saw his stuff and it really is excellent work. He appears to be an
all around woodworker.
But, that leads me to question who is *really* posting the gun
rhetoric, him or someone else impersonating him?
Hendrik Varju wrote:
> On 7/3/2013 4:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong, not getting enough reaction?
>>
>> The main motivation for removing the firearms was to prevent them
>> from being stolen by looters.
>>
>> While I agree that I wouldn't want law enforcement entering my home
>> to search for firearms without a valid warrant, I'd much rather have
>> them do it than have someone come and loot my property.
>>
>> In the end, the firearms will be returned to the owners. There's no
>> real story here so climb back into your hole.
>>
>
> "There's no real story here", really? And you have the audacity to
> call yourself a Canadian?
>
> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
> stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way
> beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid.
> You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed in on
> itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so
> dense that no intellect can escape, kind of stupid. Singularity
> stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on the warm side of Mercury stupid.
> You emit more stupid in one second than our whole galaxy emits in a
> year. Quasar stupid. Your post has to be a troll. Nothing in our
> universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
> fragment from the original big-bang of stupid. Some pure essence of
> stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> physics that we know.
>
> Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your atrophied
> brain and, upon finding it rancid, set you loose to fly briefly before
> spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble
> blood. May you choke on the queasy convulsing nausea of your own
> trite, foolish beliefs.
Not sure I understand your point - what is it exactly, that you're trying to
say about Dave?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> I'd like to know how many guns were confiscated when the Cumberland
> House Cree Nation was evacuated.
>
> Of course, that would result in pissed off Indians, so never happened.
> A town of white Albertans, on the other hand.
>
> What the cops did in High River was burglary, plain and simple.
Have not googled that yet Dave, but your point here only serves to
contradict you points earlier - or at least seemingly so. Maybe what is at
work here is a really bad RCMP organization that is only now proving that
point again(?)
I really need to bail out of this though - it's a very interesting thread,
but I get accused of being the perpetrator of these things if I hang out in
threads like this too long - even if I didn't start them, and when the
foretathers of this group inserted their thoughts before I did. I'll be
happy to explore ideas off-line.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:30:07 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Do you actually think that not having fire arms in your home will
>prevent some one from breaking in/looting?
>
>Looters tend to break into anywhere looking for anything that is easy to
>pick up and sell. Cash and jewelery come to mind.
Of course not. However, knowing that my home might be flooded would
prompt me to have smaller articles like jewelry and cash ready to take
with me on a moment's notice.
Firearm owners are legally obligated to have their restricted weapons
(hand guns) secured. (such as a gun safe).
Tell me, were there any comments from gun owners complaining about
police breaking into their gun safes? If not, then the gun owners left
their firearms easily obtainable. If they were handguns not properly
secured, then the homeowners were breaking the law.
If they were rifles not properly secured, then at the very least, the
homeowners were guilty of being negligent. Not a chargeable offense,
but certainly one that the should be admonished for.
Understand, I'm not condoning police breaking into homes without
warrants on any account, but in the case of firearms, I can understand
their thinking. If I was a cop, I'd want as few guns available for
theft as possible.
For all you Americans, understand that this is Canada. We don't have a
second amendment and we don't have the gun culture that you do. We all
didn't grow up with guns available most everywhere and most of us
don't subscribe to the notion that we should all be armed.
Bullets and power are small stuff.
Consider 500 gallon propane bottles or the 30 / 60 gallons on the house...
Consider the wool rug - it gives off cyanide gas.
Plastics vaporize into dangerous chemicals and then deposit in lungs.
Far more to consider.
Martin
On 9/13/2013 12:28 PM, jo4hn wrote:
> On 9/12/2013 11:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> It's not just High River - the same thing happened in Slave Lake when
>> 1/4 of our town burned down.
>>
>> When our town burned, the long gun registry was still in effect - my
>> guns (in a locker under a bed) were untouched. Other people had safes
>> torched open.
>>
>> The registry had been rescinded with the promise that long gun records
>> were "poison fruit" when High River happened.
>>
>> Personally, I would feel better if the RCMP had simply patrolled for
>> looters rather than becoming looters. I would figure those readers in
>> the US would have been all over "illegal search and siezure". FWIW,
>> the two weeks we were gone were spent in our holiday trailer at a
>> campground in Westlock, Alberta - our house unlocked the entire time.
>>
> When our town burned, one of the major problems was ammunition. It may
> be secured from human malefactors but when everything burns at hundreds
> if not thousands of degrees, the danger to firefighters is a BIG problem.
> twitch,
> jo4hn
>
It's not just High River - the same thing happened in Slave Lake when 1/4 o=
f our town burned down.=20
When our town burned, the long gun registry was still in effect - my guns (=
in a locker under a bed) were untouched. Other people had safes torched ope=
n.
The registry had been rescinded with the promise that long gun records were=
"poison fruit" when High River happened. =20
Personally, I would feel better if the RCMP had simply patrolled for looter=
s rather than becoming looters. I would figure those readers in the US woul=
d have been all over "illegal search and siezure". FWIW, the two weeks we w=
ere gone were spent in our holiday trailer at a campground in Westlock, Alb=
erta - our house unlocked the entire time.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not just High River - the same thing happened in Slave Lake when 1/4
> of our town burned down.
>
> When our town burned, the long gun registry was still in effect - my guns
> (in a locker under a bed) were untouched. Other people had safes torched open.
>
> The registry had been rescinded with the promise that long gun records
> were "poison fruit" when High River happened.
>
> Personally, I would feel better if the RCMP had simply patrolled for
> looters rather than becoming looters. I would figure those readers in the
> US would have been all over "illegal search and siezure". FWIW, the two
> weeks we were gone were spent in our holiday trailer at a campground in
> Westlock, Alberta - our house unlocked the entire time.
Were their guns returned to them?
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Were their guns returned to them?
If they were properly secured, they should't have been taken in the first
place.
But still, I would like to know the answer to your question, along with
the reason given as to *why* they were taken in the first place.
Are there any links to any stories about the incident?
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On 7/3/2013 4:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:59:53 +0200, Rob Cosman <[email protected]>
>> Unbelievable, RCMP comes into your own home, takes your property, then
>> demands proof of ownership to get it back.
>> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/more-important-tasks-pmo-says-it-expects-rcmp-to-return-guns-seized-from-evacuated-high-river-homes/
>>
>> This principle was predicted in Canada years ago, and the Canadian
>> government has not disappointed their citizens.
>> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featu...n/2081848359001
>
> What's wrong, not getting enough reaction?
>
> The main motivation for removing the firearms was to prevent them from
> being stolen by looters.
>
> While I agree that I wouldn't want law enforcement entering my home to
> search for firearms without a valid warrant, I'd much rather have them
> do it than have someone come and loot my property.
Do you actually think that not having fire arms in your home will
prevent some one from breaking in/looting?
Looters tend to break into anywhere looking for anything that is easy to
pick up and sell. Cash and jewelery come to mind.
> Funny, I didn't think breaking the door in was such a good idea. I also
> don't think removing the firearms was good either, these people went in
> and treated this like a warranted search..
>
> We must start protecting our rights. The useless goverments have used
> fear to gain more power.
>
> That's what we need to fear.
Agree with you there. Look at the fear government promoted at the
US airports. There is people that believe the airplane they are
getting on would blow up every time if wasn't for the so called airport
security.
Paul T.
On 9/12/2013 11:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> It's not just High River - the same thing happened in Slave Lake when 1/4 of our town burned down.
>
> When our town burned, the long gun registry was still in effect - my guns (in a locker under a bed) were untouched. Other people had safes torched open.
>
> The registry had been rescinded with the promise that long gun records were "poison fruit" when High River happened.
>
> Personally, I would feel better if the RCMP had simply patrolled for looters rather than becoming looters. I would figure those readers in the US would have been all over "illegal search and siezure". FWIW, the two weeks we were gone were spent in our holiday trailer at a campground in Westlock, Alberta - our house unlocked the entire time.
>
When our town burned, one of the major problems was ammunition. It may
be secured from human malefactors but when everything burns at hundreds
if not thousands of degrees, the danger to firefighters is a BIG problem.
twitch,
jo4hn
Were the fire arms returned? As far as we can prove, yes. but many question=
s remain unanswered. Houses left intact are easily explained. Houses destro=
yed - totally or partially - are still an unknown entity - not to mention "=
your stuff goes missing without your permission". Does it really matter if =
the thief is wearing a uniform or not?
If the ammunition is in a house that is burning, the danger is minimal as l=
ong as the round isn't chambered (well over 10 years on our local FD). The =
brass casing with split long before any projectiles become a concern. If th=
e house is fully involved, what are you going to save?
The story we got for confiscation was the "looters stealing guns" malarkey.=
.. After the furball in Slave Lake, I am worried as to why they felt repeat=
ing the exercise in High River was a wise move.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 06:10:48 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>It sees that is true in the metro areas, or maybe in the eastern part of the
>country, but is it the same in the remote regions?
Of course not. Between farmers, hunters, hobbyists and especially
aboriginals, there's plenty who subscribe to the gun culture. However,
I dare say that country wide, those groups very outnumbered.
According to current stats, the amount of guns has increased while the
number of gun owners has dropped. That suggests to me that an
increasing population don't feel that gun ownership is necessary.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/more-guns-in-canada-this-year-but-fewer-owners-rcmp/
"PHT" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Funny, I didn't think breaking the door in was such a good idea. I also
> don't think removing the firearms was good either, these people went in
> and treated this like a warranted search..
>
> We must start protecting our rights. The useless goverments have used
> fear to gain more power.
>
> That's what we need to fear.
Agree with you there. Look at the fear government promoted at the
US airports. There is people that believe the airplane they are
getting on would blow up every time if wasn't for the so called airport
security.
Paul T.
-----
European airports don't seem to have a care in the world! Amsterdam has no
Xrays or lineups. We just know how to give Americans a good time.
BOO!
--
"PHT" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Funny, I didn't think breaking the door in was such a good idea. I also
> don't think removing the firearms was good either, these people went in
> and treated this like a warranted search..
>
> We must start protecting our rights. The useless goverments have used
> fear to gain more power.
>
> That's what we need to fear.
Agree with you there. Look at the fear government promoted at the
US airports. There is people that believe the airplane they are
getting on would blow up every time if wasn't for the so called airport
security.
Paul T.
-----
European airports don't seem to have a care in the world! Amsterdam has no
Xrays or lineups. We just know how to give Americans a good time.
BOO!
--
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>Do you actually think that not having fire arms in your home will
>prevent some one from breaking in/looting?
No, but it would prevent them from stealing the firearms.
The owners were dipshits and criminally negligent to leave
weapons lying about where looters could get them.
This isn't really "confiscating" the guns so much as "securing"
them. Assuming that the owners can get them back -- and it looks
like they can -- the police were helping the gun owners *keep*
their guns, not taking them away.
This begs the question of whether the police had a right to
break into the homes in the first place.
Arguably, keeping the guns out of the hands of looters was a public
safety issue. I dunno if Canadian law allows police to break into
homes for that purpose. I also don't know if this was the reason the
police broke in in the first place, or there was some other reason
and finding the unsecured guns was incidental. I also can't judge
if keeping guns away from looters was a sufficiently clear and present
danger to justify the break-ins.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Understand, I'm not condoning police breaking into homes without
> warrants on any account, but in the case of firearms, I can understand
> their thinking. If I was a cop, I'd want as few guns available for
> theft as possible.
I don't know what Canadian law allows LEO's to do, but here, the "wants" of
a police agency do not constitute probable cause. (Not to say that it
doesn't happen under the cloak of some trumped up reason...). The thought
that has circled around in my mind as this thing has become public is that
if the RCMP was so very concerned for looting, then shouldn't they have
better spent their energies patroling in various ways, to prevent looting of
all sorts, rather than the approach they decided upon?
>
> For all you Americans, understand that this is Canada. We don't have a
> second amendment and we don't have the gun culture that you do. We all
> didn't grow up with guns available most everywhere and most of us
> don't subscribe to the notion that we should all be armed.
It sees that is true in the metro areas, or maybe in the eastern part of the
country, but is it the same in the remote regions?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> Of course not. Between farmers, hunters, hobbyists and especially
> aboriginals, there's plenty who subscribe to the gun culture. However,
> I dare say that country wide, those groups very outnumbered.
>
> According to current stats, the amount of guns has increased while the
> number of gun owners has dropped. That suggests to me that an
> increasing population don't feel that gun ownership is necessary.
>
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/more-guns-in-canada-this-year-but-fewer-owners-rcmp/
Looks like those stats are (at the very least), in dispute from more than
one organization. One always has to wonder when things like this are
published - and by that I mean to wonder about the claims from all sides.
So much of it is speculation. It's easy to draw conclusions that aren't
really reflective of reality. Who knows?
As for being outnumbered - I know so little about the dispersion of
population (beyond the obvious...) in Canada, that it's really lost on me
when it comes to understanding how outnumbered any particular group is. I
would suppose it is safe to assume that in metro areas (just about
anywhere), the population at large considers gun ownership unnecessary, when
compared to the population of the remote areas. Notwithstanding gangs, of
course. Trends fluctuate, and for at least a brief time (don't know if this
trend is still growing), we saw a significant surge in gun ownership, pistol
permit applications, etc. in areas where historically, there was little or
no interest in it. Clearly, in response to some of the incidents that made
headlines over the past couple/few years. Likewise, we had been observing a
general decline in the number of hunters, which over time will generally be
reflected as a decline in gun ownership as attrition plays its hand on a
population. What's all this mean - not a damned thing. Just morning
musings.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
jo4hn wrote:
> When our town burned, one of the major problems was ammunition. It
> may be secured from human malefactors but when everything burns at
> hundreds if not thousands of degrees, the danger to firefighters is a
> BIG problem. twitch,
> jo4hn
Actually, this is more of a misconception than a reality. A lot of tests
have been done and well documented on ammo burning in a fire and the
conclusions are easily found with a google search. It turns out that there
is little risk to fire fighters or other people nearby, from a cache of
sporting ammo in a burning house. The bullet does not go flying out as if
it were shot from a gun, and in fact is typically travels with less velocity
and potential for harm, than the brass shards from the case. Those shards,
do not typically travel with enough velocity to cause significant harm. Not
that you'd want to throw a box of ammo into the next marshmellow fire, but
the real risks of ammo in a fire are well misunderstood by most people.
I was a firefighter for a lot of years, and have attended many house fires
in which the owner stocked guns and ammo. Most people around here do. I
never heard of any injuries related to ammo exploding in a fire. That's the
kind of thing one would at least hear about in fire training if it were a
real threat.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/3/2013 11:05 AM, PHT wrote:
>
>> Funny, I didn't think breaking the door in was such a good idea. I also
>> don't think removing the firearms was good either, these people went in
>> and treated this like a warranted search..
>>
>> We must start protecting our rights. The useless goverments have used
>> fear to gain more power.
>>
>> That's what we need to fear.
>
> Agree with you there. Look at the fear government promoted at the
> US airports. There is people that believe the airplane they are
> getting on would blow up every time if wasn't for the so called airport
> security.
>
> Paul T.
>
Look at this way, if the government employed security people doing a
half ass job were not doing this they would be somewhere else doing a
half ass job or be at home collecting unemployment. This is how the
government makes unemployment numbers look lower than they are.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 03:15:43 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A.
>This begs the question of whether the police had a right to
>break into the homes in the first place.
>
>Arguably, keeping the guns out of the hands of looters was a public
>safety issue. I dunno if Canadian law allows police to break into
>homes for that purpose.
Break in, probably not. But, when I owned several handguns, the police
had a right at any time without a warranty to come and demand to see
my firearms and to ensure that they were properly secured. ~ Not that
it ever happened, but the right of police did exist.
Firearm restrictions have increased since then, so I can see no reason
why those police rights don't still exist. Of course, back then it was
just for handguns. For all I know it's been expanded to include long
guns too.
On 7/3/2013 5:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:59:53 +0200, Rob Cosman <[email protected]>
>> Unbelievable, RCMP comes into your own home, takes your property, then
>> demands proof of ownership to get it back.
>> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/more-important-tasks-pmo-says-it-expects-rcmp-to-return-guns-seized-from-evacuated-high-river-homes/
>>
>> This principle was predicted in Canada years ago, and the Canadian
>> government has not disappointed their citizens.
>> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featu...n/2081848359001
>
> What's wrong, not getting enough reaction?
>
> The main motivation for removing the firearms was to prevent them from
> being stolen by looters.
>
> While I agree that I wouldn't want law enforcement entering my home to
> search for firearms without a valid warrant, I'd much rather have them
> do it than have someone come and loot my property.
>
> In the end, the firearms will be returned to the owners. There's no
> real story here so climb back into your hole.
>
Funny, I didn't think breaking the door in was such a good idea.
I also don't think removing the firearms was good either, these people
went in and treated this like a warranted search..
We must start protecting our rights. The useless goverments have used
fear to gain more power.
That's what we need to fear.
--
Jeff