• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,530
Points
1,260
You could argue that not participating in the confiscation plan now when a new PP government will abolish it is just being proactive and avoiding problems down the road. :)

You're getting ahead of yourself. First PP has to win a majority national election. Thats a tall order.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,175
Points
1,010
I favor optimism and initiative over pessimism and being reactive.
 

Booter

Sr. Member
Reaction score
885
Points
810

God bless Americ... I mean Alberta. :)
Weapons teams in Alberta are integrated with municipal investigators, unless they are ordering municipal agencies (I’ve seen nothing to say they are) to do the same you’re observing theatre,
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,175
Points
1,010
Weapons teams in Alberta are integrated with municipal investigators, unless they are ordering municipal agencies (I’ve seen nothing to say they are) to do the same you’re observing theatre,
I'd like to think of it as a preview.
 

Booter

Sr. Member
Reaction score
885
Points
810
about two years ago- the firearm officers in Alberta became provincial employees moving away from the federal employees. Their program already isn’t ordering anyone to confiscate guns.

I also note he is inflating the number he says Alberta is paying for the RCMP- to be closer to the potential Alberta provincial police number that came out.

It’s dishonest. But I guess it’s working.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,175
Points
1,010
I know this doesn't mean a whole helluva lot, but reading through the comments to the articles on this Alberta not participating, there sure is a lot of support for Alberta even on the CBC comments shockingly.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
I know this doesn't mean a whole helluva lot, but reading through the comments to the articles on this Alberta not participating, there sure is a lot of support for Alberta even on the CBC comments shockingly.
Yes and if you went to Ottawa last January you'd think the entire country was REALLY mad about COVID health measures and ready to fight the government to the bitter end about it.

Turns out, 70% of Canadians weren't that mad.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,175
Points
1,010
Yes and if you went to Ottawa last January you'd think the entire country was REALLY mad about COVID health measures and ready to fight the government to the bitter end about it.

Turns out, 70% of Canadians weren't that mad.
Don’t be so sure. The silent majority that don’t want to be called a racist for no reason act in other ways. Like moving money out of banks, voting, etc. Do you think it’s just a coincidence “Skippy”, to use your words, won decisively on the first ballot? How could a right wing maga lite like PP have any support at all in predominantly liberal Canada?

The mandates were too far, the EA was too far, what’s next? Oh right, censorship and property confiscation. You good with all that?
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,886
Points
1,110
I recall the AG - Lametti - saying if your politics don't agree with ours we'll freeze your bank account. Or words to that effect.
Now I am not sure if this was an off the cuff remark but it sure does hit home.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,175
Points
1,010
I recall the AG - Lametti - saying if your politics don't agree with ours we'll freeze your bank account. Or words to that effect.
Now I am not sure if this was an off the cuff remark but it sure does hit home.
That was them just saying the quiet part out loud. I can't believe that in 2022 a democratically elected government is saying and doing things like that... in Canada! And half the country seems ok with it. I'm holding out a little hope that there will be a reckoning at the next federal election but I've been accustomed to disappointment now.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
Don’t be so sure. The silent majority that don’t want to be called a racist for no reason act in other ways. Like moving money out of banks, voting, etc. Do you think it’s just a coincidence “Skippy”, to use your words, won decisively on the first ballot? How could a right wing maga lite like PP have any support at all in predominantly liberal Canada?

The mandates were too far, the EA was too far, what’s next? Oh right, censorship and property confiscation. You good with all that?
The mandates did not go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.

Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,175
Points
1,010
If you think the EA and the mandates were both ok given what we now know, then we are indeed at opposite spectrums and will never convince one another. Given that, chances are also exceedingly high we won't agree on censorship or private property confiscation, so no point in any further discussion.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
The mandates did not go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety.
Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.

The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.
The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock. It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.
Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.
When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
If you think the EA and the mandates were both ok given what we now know, then we are indeed at opposite spectrums and will never convince one another. Given that, chances are also exceedingly high we won't agree on censorship or private property confiscation, so no point in any further discussion.
1. Legit question: what exactly is it "we now know"? I haven't learned anything new about these topics, so perhaps you can change my mind?

2. It's never pointless to debate and discuss. Even if you don't convince someone of your position, the mere act of brining your perspective can temper the actions of the other side, or help achieve a middle-ground/compromise. I, for example, may not change my mind and say that I disagree with the use of the EA, but I may, after hearing your side, may agree that the actual implantation of the EA went to far, and that further checks be put in place to safeguard abuse during future use.

3. I said I was against censorship, so I'm not sure why you brought that up again, but I'm not sure why you're fighting so hard against the idea property confiscation. Let's take what-should-be-legal guns out of the equation. Let's say a person was caught numerous times driving an unregistered vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Would you be against the government confiscating their vehicle? What about a business that was found to be a front for human trafficking? Would you appose the government seizing that property? What if bank records proved beyond a doubt that a mosque was using funds donated my members of the mosque under the guise of being for charity and/or mosque operations were instead being fueled to ISIS and ISIS affiliated in both Canada and the ME? Would you be against seizing those bank accounts?
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,549
Points
1,090
The mandates did not go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.

Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.
Care to share some of those scenarios, and clarify what you mean about the government has reasonable grounds to confiscate someone’s private property?

(I’m not trolling, I’m just trying to clearly understand your side of the debate)


EDIT - Nevermind, you clarified my question while I was writing it
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,159
Points
1,010
Outrageous cases are easy. Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat. People are weak. The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.
It seems on this point you agree that at some point the health science warranted our COVID measures. So we agree on that. Where we disagree is on how drastic those measures should have been and how long those measures should have been in place. That's a matter of risk tolerance. It's a policy decision, and that's why we have elections. We don't need to have massive convoy protest over it. We're not going to agree on this one, though if you feel like being more specific in just how we went long past the point of sanity, I'm willing to listen. You probably won't convince me on mask and vaccine mandates, but wrt boarder crossing protocols and the ArriveCan app, I'm probably already on your side.

The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock. It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.
You're right; LE should have been able to solve this problem long before the EA was needed, but in the end the EA was needed (at least that's my opinion). As to whether Canada was made to be a laughing stock as a result? I've not seen any indication of that.

When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?
Since @QV was not quantifying his stance on "property seizure", I was assuming he is taking the extreme view that "absolutely no property seizure should be allowed" (similar to how some gun right activists believe that there should be absolutely no regulations what oever on guns). Maybe he doesn't actually believe in that extreme view, so I await his rebuttle.

And yes, Eminent Domaining my house would f****** suck.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
Outrageous cases are easy. Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat. People are weak. The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."
None of the cases I made up above were outrageous, and if we're still talking about the statement made by Lamentti, as far as I'm aware no one but convoy organizers had their bank accounts frozen (so it was specific and targeted to an actual "threat") and there accounts were unfrozen not long after (so, the measures were temporary). Do you think we shouldn't have an emergencies act? If you think we need one, what sort of things should be added that aren't already there?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,942
Points
1,160
Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.


The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock. It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.

When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?
Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.
It was clearly airborne long before the CDC etc admitted it.
Frankly the PPE issue was worldwide. Frankly I belief the first line workers in healthcare needed it vastly more than anyone else. But also it’s a virus, the easiest solution would have been a 1 week warning followed by a utter lock down for two weeks.

But as we as a species are too selfish that wasn’t done, and the dominos fell.
 
Top