Justin Trudeau to remove senators from Liberal caucus

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

You can't answer that question without lying. There were no mass confiscations before ecole poly and you know it. Before 77 guns were classified as hand guns or long guns, and then by their action, e.g. semi auto, full auto, single shot, repeater etc. nothing else. The confiscation agendas came later. Yes I know the conservative parties have been lousy to gun owners, I have no faith in any political party, hence my membership in and financial support of NFA.

Never bothered to check did ya?

I understand that right now it is likely the Liberals will make a move against guns if elected to a majority.
What you need to understand is that it is inevitable that the Torys will do the same thing especially if they keep getting majorities.

Face it... soon all that will be left for them to muck with is gun ownership.

And that is why we need to stop playing the right vrs the left game and get on with electing people whose only loyalty is to their electorate and this country.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Actually what this thread has done, is discussed all kinds of issues. Just because it started off with Trudeau and the senate, it has morphed into a general political thread. Topics bounced all around. What does gun rights have to do with Trudeau and the senate?

If you actually read what I had posted, I was making a direct comparison to how our courts don't follow the constitution, which was in response to the way laws are made and then interpreted by the courts. Just because I compared it to divorce is because I know first hand and can provide direct comparisons where our courts violate the constitution.

If you don't like the fact that the thread has discussed so many different issues, don't open it.

And so far..save for one or two individuals it has remained civil.
Any time that happens... we should ignore the haters and let er roll.

[Wild&Free]

plus rwm can turn any thread into a thread about divorce.

I say we need to elect officials who want to put the brakes on the whole globalization movement and start tackling issues on the home front. so many issues here beyond 'mah guns' it's ridiculous people are basing the next 5+ year's on one issue. lip service seems to be all the majority of canadians need to sway their future.

[rugatika]

=Wild&Free;2306477 lip service seems to be all the majority of canadians need to sway their future.

So very true.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Never bothered to check did ya?
.

And that is why we need to stop playing the right vrs the left game and get on with electing people whose only loyalty is to their electorate and this country.

There is nothing to check, google is easy, you have no argument, there were no mass confiscations or fancy reclassifications of firearms before Ecole Polytechnic. Then justice minister Perrin Beatty when asked by the media what would he do about the shooting stated "We cannot legislate against insanity". Since then all governments have been sticking it to peaceful gun owners as "Proof" they are doing something about crime. This latest incarnation of the Conservative party was the first in a long time to at least turn back a little of the prejudicial treatment we have had to deal with. FWIW CPC didn't come close to fulfilling campaign promises as regards less restrictive gun laws. I am no Harper fan-boy. No other group in Canada has been discriminated against as much as law abiding gun-owners.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by ali#1

I think you are against the constitution and your not exactly sure why.

As previously stated, the constitution has taken away property rights from us common folk and the making of laws has been given to unelected judges and taken away from the people we elect to represent us. The rest is fluff. Clear?

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

As previously stated, the constitution has taken away property rights from us common folk and the making of laws has been given to unelected judges and taken away from the people we elect to represent us. The rest is fluff. Clear?

Property rights are a provincial thing. The constitution had taken different sets of rules from different time periods an put them all in one place. The government has always worked on 2 branches. 1 is the legislative as in the government, 2 is judicial to interpret and enforce, the constitution hasn't changed this fact at all.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

plus rwm can turn any thread into a thread about divorce.

That is a pretty broad stroke, and far from accurate.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

There is nothing to check, google is easy, you have no argument, there were no mass confiscations or fancy reclassifications of firearms before Ecole Polytechnic. Then justice minister Perrin Beatty when asked by the media what would he do about the shooting stated "We cannot legislate against insanity". Since then all governments have been sticking it to peaceful gun owners as "Proof" they are doing something about crime. This latest incarnation of the Conservative party was the first in a long time to at least turn back a little of the prejudicial treatment we have had to deal with. FWIW CPC didn't come close to fulfilling campaign promises as regards less restrictive gun laws. I am no Harper fan-boy. No other group in Canada has been discriminated against as much as law abiding gun-owners.

Its very hard to carry on a discussion of this sort if you refuse to make yourself aware of some salient facts.

While I agree that gun owners have been targeted unfairly... you remain wrong about the confiscation of firearms in Canada and when that discrimination began.

It started well before 1976.

Pre-1892
Justices of the Peace had the authority to impose a six-month jail term on anyone carrying a handgun, if the person did not have reasonable cause to fear assault against life or property.

1913
Carrying a handgun outside the home or place of business without a permit could result in a three-month sentence. It became an offence to transfer a firearm to any person under the age of 16, or for a person under 16 to buy one. The first specific search, seizure and forfeiture powers for firearms and other weapons were created.

1919-1920
A Criminal Code amendment required individuals to obtain a permit to possess a firearm, regardless of where the firearm was kept. These permits were available from a magistrate, a chief of police or the RCMP. British subjects did not need a permit for shotguns or rifles they already owned; they only needed one for newly acquired firearms. Permits were valid for one year within the issuing province. The Criminal Code did not provide for a central registry; records were maintained at the local level.

And there are more....

Again... look up the changes in law over the years and see for yourself that the bad guys have noit always been Liberals.
What is especially telling is the number of Conservatives that supported the Liberal bills that most folks here are focued upon.

[Unregistered user]

We obviously googled the same stuff and you still can't find one example of mass confiscation before 1989, because there were none.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Property rights are a provincial thing. The constitution had taken different sets of rules from different time periods an put them all in one place. The government has always worked on 2 branches. 1 is the legislative as in the government, 2 is judicial to interpret and enforce, the constitution hasn't changed this fact at all.

Come off it.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

We obviously googled the same stuff and you still can't find one example of mass confiscation before 1989, because there were none.

If you say so...

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

If you say so...

He seems to be having a conversation with himself. Just keep repeating the same things does not make it so.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by ali#1

He seems to be having a conversation with himself. Just keep repeating the same things does not make it so.

If you say so...



Well I think everyone is a bit tired of the whole discussion.
It never seems to get anywhere.

Some prefer to hang their faith on people who have time and again proven that they cannot be relied upon... party politicians.
Others are interested in moving forward and evolving our sytem towards what it was always suppose to be in principle anyway.

One group will be forever frustrated and disappointed in thsoe they placed their faith in and the other will likely be forever disappointed in the lack of progress made because others will not do anything to foreward democracy as intended.

The sad part is that we all have the same concerns and the same problems but because the party politicians have been so successful in dividing us... we will likely never be able to come together to solve the problem and the good Lord knows that no Leberal, Dipper or Con is going to do that for us because it would not be in their parties best interst or their own.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

We obviously googled the same stuff and you still can't find one example of mass confiscation before 1989, because there were none.

Not in Canada anyways. Except perhaps select groups, such as Louis Riel and his supporters.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Not in Canada anyways. Except perhaps select groups, such as Louis Riel and his supporters.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/bri...rolincana.html

Confiscations in Canada have typically been disguised by refering to them as being voluntarily surrendered but when the alternative is jail there is nothing voluntary about it.
Its is de facto still the seizing of arms and gentlemen...the reality is that at almost every point where firearms laws have been revised in Canada the result has been that citisens were forced to either surrender arms or their freedom.

Some would argue that both things were surrendered at those points in time but... no matter....its all simantics.

You say that they were not seized.
I say that facing the prospect of jail for not handing in a weapon if you cannot secure the right permissions is a seizure because in practice it was done no different than what happened in the 70's....and the end result is the same

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

If you say so...



Well I think everyone is a bit tired of the whole discussion.
It never seems to get anywhere.

Some prefer to hang their faith on people who have time and again proven that they cannot be relied upon... party politicians.
Others are interested in moving forward and evolving our sytem towards what it was always suppose to be in principle anyway.

One group will be forever frustrated and disappointed in thsoe they placed their faith in and the other will likely be forever disappointed in the lack of progress made because others will not do anything to foreward democracy as intended.

The sad part is that we all have the same concerns and the same problems but because the party politicians have been so successful in dividing us... we will likely never be able to come together to solve the problem and the good Lord knows that no Leberal, Dipper or Con is going to do that for us because it would not be in their parties best interst or their own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKYr...e_gdata_player.

[Zulu9er]

As was said in Warren Kinsella's opinion piece in todays Edmonton Sun

"The most dangerous place on the planet is between a Liberal and a pile of Taxpayers Money"