Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Zeitgeist

Handguns and Assault Rifles

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rue said:

Terms of sentencing for gun related crimes are now too light. That is because our politicians do not want to raise taxes to finance prison building to house criminals with longer sentences. That is the bottom line. Our existing prisons have no room for criminals so we reduced the sentences for using a gun.

Politicians do not and should not have the power to impose sentences, that is the purview of the judiciary, judges overthrow minimum sentences as being cruel and usual punishment all the time, and rightly so.

You live in fear of the American republic, yet apparently you are keen to abandon the British rule of law in favour of an American style Prison Industrial Complex fueled by vast and egregious over sentencing based on populist outrage whipped up for political gain.

Even the Americans don't want this anymore, they are trying to go in the other direction, as they now fear the PIC because it is sweeping everybody up, not just the blacks.

Even Donald J. Trump himself has jumped on the bandwagon of sentencing reform, the Americans are acknowledging that they let it go too far.

"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else" ~ Winston Churchill

"Striving for a more perfect Union, once about every hundred years or so" ~ Me

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

 My problem is mostly with my own species homo sapiens.

I think one needs to be a misanthrope to be an effective infantryman, that doesn't mean we are not Christian soldiers, we honor all organized surrenders and render aid and comfort to any prisoners who accept the Good News, never the less, it's all about the other, the other imposing their paradigm upon me, in my case it's the enemies of freedom, but all who defend and uphold individual liberty are friend to me.

I don't enjoy hunting wild animals, I'm actually kind of a tree hugger, I like to patrol in harmony with nature. more stealthy that way.

I'm only interested in hunting the human animal, that's a fair fight, him or me, I don't like to pick on the wild animals, I enjoy their company too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Politicians do not and should not have the power to impose sentences, that is the purview of the judiciary, judges overthrow minimum sentences as being cruel and usual punishment all the time, and rightly so.

You live in fear of the American republic, yet apparently you are keen to abandon the British rule of law in favour of an American style Prison Industrial Complex fueled by vast and egregious over sentencing based on populist outrage whipped up for political gain.

First off Judges do not create laws, elected officials do. Judges only interpret and enforce laws, they do not create them.

Secondly actual terms are created by the elected politicians. Judges can only enforce them. On a scale with a low to high level, on the first offence they sentence low, second mid range, third high range. The case law has set that precedent. Judges have very little say in the range of sentences and they can not overthrow minimum sentences on a first offence. So sorry the Judges are not and have never been the issue any more than blaming police is.

Politicians are who we delegate to create and pass our laws. Politicians reflect the constituents in their ridings. Politicians wanting to get re-elected often talk tough on crimes but the very same politicians will not sound as tough when told how much our taxes will go up if we actually build prisons.

The issue has always been very simple-if you do not want many prisons or increasing taxes to build more prisons and maintain them, there is no where to place convicted felons and so they have to be let out early which they are from ANY sentence. The average jail sentence is automatically sliced in half simply because prisoners must be released because of overcrowding.

There is nothing cruel and unusual about a jail sentence for a gun conviction. Guns used in crimes always increase the sentence and that is not cruel and unusual it in fact differentiates the level of danger in the crime to society.

Thanks but I do not fear the American republic nor do I want a police state. Please don't be so quick to assume what I think...but yes I have good reason to understand that guns flow in from the US...its a fact. Also if you want to point a finger accusing someone of fear point it at gun owners who think owning a gun protects them from totalitarianism. That is illogical and based on fear. People buy guns because they fear.

Guns were created to kill.. so let's stop with the bullshit they are anything but a tool to kill.

Prison industrial complex? Come on Spare me the rhetoric Dougie. I am a lawyer who knows the weaknesses and failures of our legal system and no I do not support a police state or stripping people of civil rights but as I said, you can't have it both ways. The same civil liberties and rights that protect the innocent, also can enable those with guns to commit crimes because of search and seizure procedures, warrant requirements, and  how "reasonable cause" is now being construed and a Charter of Rights.

I spoke directly with Prof. Hogg who wrote that Charter. He said neither he nor Trudeau had any idea it would become widely used or interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as it is now. Not a clue.

You want freedom of speech, be my guest. You want the freedom to carry a gun as part of that expression of belief, yah I have a problem and it doesn't make me a fascist or communist, just a shmuck who pays taxes and hates bullets.

I have no political ideology when it comes to guns. I hate all of them and yes I believe in  longer sentencing for gun offences. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rue said:

First off Judges do not create laws, elected officials do. Judges only interpret and enforce laws, they do not create them.

None the less, minimum sentencing is folly, I will defend and uphold the judiciaries role to overrule the politicians where they find the sentences to be cruel and unusual.

Moreover the justices do make the law by interpretation, they make constitutional law on the fly all the time, subject to their precedent setting rulings.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rue said:

You want freedom of speech, be my guest. You want the freedom to carry a gun as part of that expression of belief, yah I have a problem and it doesn't make me a fascist or communist, just a shmuck who pays taxes and hates bullets.

My freedom is endowed by my Creator, Divine Watchmaker, God of the Hebrews, so I don't answer to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I think one needs to be a misanthrope to be an effective infantryman, that doesn't mean we are not Christian soldiers, we honor all organized surrenders and render aid and comfort to any prisoners who accept the Good News, never the less, it's all about the other, the other imposing their paradigm upon me, in my case it's the enemies of freedom, but all who defend and uphold individual liberty are friend to me.

I don't enjoy hunting wild animals, I'm actually kind of a tree hugger, I like to patrol in harmony with nature. more stealthy that way.

I'm only interested in hunting the human animal, that's a fair fight, him or me, I don't like to pick on the wild animals, I enjoy their company too much.

Yes. I also get your strong defense of civil rights and distrust of authority. I respect it don't confuse my hatred of guns with that. 

You know what makes this ironic Dougie? Its people like you we always ask to do the killing and die because we are assholes and can't learn to use reason. I am tired of asking people like you to die for what? The right to carry a gun? Oh phack that. Whether you believe it or not, what you did or served to be more accurate  means many more of us do not die from guns or have to use guns. Its an irony that does not pass me by and you bet I appreciate it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rue said:

Yes. I also get your strong defense of civil rights and distrust of authority. I respect it don't confuse my hatred of guns with that. 

You know what makes this ironic Dougie? Its people like you we always ask to do the killing and die because we are assholes and can't learn to use reason. I am tired of asking people like you to die for what? The right to carry a gun? Oh phack that. Whether you believe it or not, what you did or served to be more accurate  means many more of us do not die from guns or have to use guns. Its an irony that does not pass me by and you bet I appreciate it.

I will kill and die for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 without any hesitation nor regrets, I will go over the top for Queen Elizabeth II, whether you want me to or not, there is no public rule in Canada, Canada is a monarchy, I do not answer to you as the keeper of my rights, nor do I answer to you as the lawful chain of command in British North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

None the less, minimum sentencing is folly, I will defend and uphold the judiciaries role to overrule the politicians where they find the sentences to be cruel and unusual.

Moreover the justices do make the law by interpretation, they make constitutional law on the fly all the time, subject to their precedent setting rulings.

Yes they interpret laws  and yes especially  on the second part using the Charter to define "cruel and unusual" but so far its only been used to allow people who commit serious crimes in other countries who flee to Canada not to be deported back to their countries where they committed the crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I will kill and die for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 without any hesitation nor regrets, I will go over the top for Queen Elizabeth II, whether you want me to or not, there is no public rule in Canada, Canada is a monarchy, I do not answer to you as the keeper of my rights, nor do I answer to you as the lawful chain of command in British North America.

Yah so you  die  from a gun so I can live in a nation where I do not have to have a gun. You see my problem. Its hard to thank you when you are dead Dougie. So I do it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rue said:

Yes they interpret laws  and yes especially  on the second part using the Charter to define "cruel and unusual" but so far its only been used to allow people who commit serious crimes in other countries who flee to Canada not to be deported back to their countries where they committed the crimes.

Depends where we are deporting them back to, the Nazis accused the Jews of many crimes, and Canada refused to take them, I for one will not send families back to face a death squad, like I said, I'm a Christian soldier, British North American, we are merciful to those who seek the protection of the British Crown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rue said:

Yah so you  die  from a gun so I can live in a nation where I do not have to have a gun. You see my problem. Its hard to thank you when you are dead Dougie. So I do it now.

We will all see each other again, across the river beneath the shade of the trees, the God of the Hebrews is with you, always.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was indeed the War of Independence for we White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

But it was the founding of the modern liberal state therein.

What we White Anglo Saxon Protestants came to realize, is that extending our rights and prerogatives and rule of law to all, was just damn good for business.

And so we became wealthy beyond our wildest dreams, and came to rule the world.

We rule the world to make men free, we will free all the slaves everywhere, or die trying, so help us God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like my neighbors are Russians.   Raised in the Soviet Union.   The men of the family were both officers in the Soviet Army, the patriarch of the family was a Major, military intelligence, then he went on to be a diplomat for the Soviets in Ottawa.

Now they are British North Americans, the patriarch of the family is a hardcore Loyalist just like me, God save the Queen says he, Her Majesty his defender.

Once we were sworn enemies, now we free hold on the land of the Queen, no longer facing each other over the trace, now we are armed only in collective and individual self defense, possession and occupation of property,  and to protect life, within the allowance of the law,  in defence of the Queen's Peace.

Happy ending. I never actually had a personal grudge against Ivan, I called him Mr. Ivan because I respected him, it was simply a dispute over the Potsdam Agreement at the Inner German Border, so long as they didn't cross the trace, it was live and let live, so I get along great with these Russians here, who managed to escape the Iron Curtain.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 3:20 PM, Dougie93 said:

Canadian gun laws, like all other laws in Canada, are essentially elitist.

The purpose of Canadian gun control, since its inception in 1885, was to disarm the Indians and give the Mounties a mandate to hunt down and kill Louis Riel.

None the less, these racist apartheid laws, unjust as they may be,  do not actually impede world class elite North German Protestant shooters like me, Orange privilege unchecked,  FTW.

 

 

It is rather disturbing to think that somebody who wrote that has access to guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It is rather disturbing to think that somebody who wrote that has access to guns. 

Was HM Government of Canada itself, which trained and indoctrinated me to be a world class North German Protestant shooter for the Queen. VRI - Pro Patria.

Only Her Majesty's enemies and those who would attack the Queen's Peace, have anything to fear from the soldiers of the Crown.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also point out that, in addition to being a responsible tax paying land owner, my police record is utterly clean, I have passed all background checks with flying colours, and I passed the background check to acquire Secret level security clearance in the armed forces.

The only charge ever brought against me by the Crown, was under Section One Two Nine of the Queen's Regulations & Orders; Conduct Prejudiced to the Good Order and Discipline, for brawling with other soldiers down at the bar.   To which I pleaded guilty as charged, as was sentenced to Administrative Punishment at summary trial by my Officer Commanding.

This did not however preclude me from being decorated for my service in the end, and I additionally received the personal thanks and commendations of the Chief of the Defence Staff and Minister for National Defence, in writing, still mounted here on the wall in my office.

I've been a Loyalist all along, even when I was growing up with the gangsters in the hood, I did not engage in criminal activity, because I knew that would prevent me from serving in HM thin red line when I came of age at 17.  

Which even the gangsters respected, whenever they offered me work, I thanked them but declined, and told them why, and they said "good man, be a soldier, respect".

You'd be surprised how patriotic the Yardies are, they too look up to the soldiers of the Crown, which of course the Jamaican Defence Forces are as well.

JDF is hardcore, they are iron men, also elite shooters for the Queen.  The CF and the JDF have a close working relationship, and those Yardies for the Crown are consummate professionals, plus they are all ripped, built like professional wrestlers, ain't no Milk Bags in the JDF.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Depends where we are deporting them back to, the Nazis accused the Jews of many crimes, and Canada refused to take them, I for one will not send families back to face a death squad, like I said, I'm a Christian soldier, British North American, we are merciful to those who seek the protection of the British Crown.

Would depend on the situation ?. I think Canada has a nation had already made there mind up about the NAZI regime, and saw through the whole accusation they made...  BUT again Canada still was very racist towards Jews and decided to show the ugly side of our nature...They also knew or had a good idea that these people would not live to see the next year....

Many things that Canada has done in the past are not worth celebrating... This is one of them .. and is proof that not all of governments decisions are truly the best for the country...

Let me put this out there, what do we do when we can not prove that those that traveled to engage in terrorism have broken any laws.....we assume they did but could not prove it in a Canadian court of law....  in this case those that traveled to Iraq and Syria , Do we refuse to let them back into the nation, as we have done ....using some liberal made up excuse "to dangerous to pick them up "     knowing  that those that hold them captive really do not have a good human rights record, by any standards...and sooner or later they will be forced to deal with them in their way... most likely they will face death. Are we putting ourselves in another we need to apologize event ? ....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Would depend on the situation ?. I think Canada has a nation had already made there mind up about the NAZI regime, and saw through the whole accusation they made...  BUT again Canada still was very racist towards Jews and decided to show the ugly side of our nature...They also knew or had a good idea that these people would not live to see the next year....

Many things that Canada has done in the past are not worth celebrating... This is one of them .. and is proof that not all of governments decisions are truly the best for the country...

Let me put this out there, what do we do when we can not prove that those that traveled to engage in terrorism have broken any laws.....we assume they did but could not prove it in a Canadian court of law....  in this case those that traveled to Iraq and Syria , Do we refuse to let them back into the nation, as we have done ....using some liberal made up excuse "to dangerous to pick them up "     knowing  that those that hold them captive really do not have a good human rights record, by any standards...and sooner or later they will be forced to deal with them in their way... most likely they will face death. Are we putting ourselves in another we need to apologize event ? ....

Five Eyes is on it, Canada is under constant warrantless surveillance from the most powerful security alliance in the world, how much more force protection do you want, other than the Orwellian Panopticon you already live in?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mistake my question , for any sympathy for these dick heads, .. it was meant to see how far your Christian values go , we both know these are Canadian citizens , who are subjected to Canadian law, in both cases our government has made choices because thats what the people wanted not is it right or wrong...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Don't mistake my question , for any sympathy for these dick heads, .. it was meant to see how far your Christian values go , we both know these are Canadian citizens , who are subjected to Canadian law, in both cases our government has made choices because thats what the people wanted not is it right or wrong...

I may or may not have sympathy for "terrorists", depends what their cause is, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The Chinese Communists are calling the freedom fighters in Hong Kong "terrorists", I don't pee my pants and indict a ham sandwich,  just because some government screeches "terrorist!"  Ain't no government on this earth; which is not completely and totally full of shit.

The Canadian government is one of the worst, loyal to HM as I may be, I despise the Canadian government with a passion and trust nothing they ever say. Would not surprise me at all, if people who fled from Hong Kong to Canada, were branded "terrorists" by the Chinese Communists, the Government of Canada would extradite them back to the mainland at the behest of the Government of Canada's overlords in Beijing.

The Government of Canada was arming and training the Peshmerga, which Turkey considers to be "terrorists", one NATO country generating "terrorists" against another NATO country, "terrorist" is all relative.

The Government of Canada has rendered innocent people to Egypt and Syria to be tortured by those monstrous regimes, if the Government of Canada wants to gain any credibility back with me, it will only be when the public officials responsible for that are tried for treason against the Crown, torturing Canadians is surely in violation of their oaths.

The Government of Canada had an Indian in jail, solitary confinement, for over a year, that's deprivation torture, months on end, that's not Syria, that is going on here, the evidence against the guy is pretty damning, in that it does appear that he committed murder, and yet the Judge let him walk, because the judge said that the conduct of the government was so egregious, that only staying the charge could make things right.  The Governments seeming need to torture its own people, results in murderers walking free?  That is chaos, the government incites chaos, isn't that what terrorists do?

Same Government of Canada which had Vice Admiral Norman brought up on false charges to make him a political prisoner.  That was the last straw for me, there is no coming back from that for Ottawa.  If they can do that to the VCDS, they can do anything, that is banana f*cking republic shit right there, total lawlessness. The RCMP apparently didn't even do an investigation, keystone cops, and these are the clowns who are telling us who the "terrorists" are?

If the Government of Canada tells me somebody is a "terrorist", my first assumption is that it is a trumped up charge on behalf of one of the entrenched interests who run this Company Town which is out to sell us all down the river the Communist Chinese, I put zero stock in the pronouncements of the Government of Canada, particularly as it pertains to national security, these Communists in Ottawa are going to tell me who the terrorists are?  Yeah, whatever, and Admiral Norman is a criminal too, it's bizarro world up in here with this Orwellian government.

Next they will be telling me that protestors are "terrorists", lawful gun owners will be "terrorists", anybody who disagrees with them is a "White Supremacist" and/or a "Nazi", so anybody who disagrees with them will be a "terrorist" in the end, the biggest fearmongering terrorists I'm seeing in Canada, is the government itself, racist apartheid police state with its boot heels on the necks of the Indians and slowly but surely everybody else as well. 

Gun confiscation against the Indians since 1885, gun confiscation for everybody next, why anyone would trust the Government of Canada with all the guns, is beyond me, they are totally delusional about the nature of  this government apparently.   This blatantly criminal government is going to round up the guns of the law abiding?  When do we round Ottawa's guns up, so we can put this government in jail?

If Jesus Herald Christ himself came to Canada to bring the wrath of God down upon the moneylenders, pretty sure the Government of Canada would brand him a "terrorist"

Not even pretty sure, I'm 100% sure they would brand the Lord himself as a "terrorist".

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol not to get off subject but yah Dougie if one reads the Bible particularly the Old Testament literally it presents the concept of a divine source in a manner I believe reflects the prevalent human psyche at that time.

I would like to think to find the definition of the source of all sources the closest one gets is a glimpse if they listen to Janis Joplin. I also think once Boy George started wearing his hat the way he did, it ruined it for Hasidic Jews forever. 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rue said:

Lol not to get off subject but yah Dougie if one reads the Bible particularly the Old Testament literally it presents the concept of a divine source in a manner I believe reflects the prevalent human psyche at that time.

The gospels in the Bible are simply the ones which were approved by the Roman Imperator Constantine, there are many more gospels which have been lost to history.

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...