Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
AYanker76

Border Security & Gun Control (from an American)

Recommended Posts

Hello, nice to meet you all.  I have been executing a plan to obtain my Canadian permanent residency and flee the states.  Recent events in the U.S. have accelerated these plans dramatically.  I am pressed to leave for the following reasons:

My goal is to get to a more democratic society and to sever myself from the jurisdiction of the U.S. government entirely, which I believe to be violent, unjust and decadent, at large.  It has always been in the back of my mind that Canada may not be far enough, as the U.S. has always been a latent military threat to Canada.  More importantly, the American populace is so large and so armed, that I question whether Canadian authorities would be able to control spillover from any destabilizing geopolitical events in the U.S.  Were such a thing to happen, you can be sure that the volatility that plagues American society would be shortly in tow.

While I commend you all for taking action to make your society safer & less prone to the mass shootings that are normalized, weekly events here,  I think banning assault weapons will also exacerbate this imbalance.  While reading a history article about U.S. military contingencies to invade Canada during WWII, I saw that American military officials did note and respect that the well-armed Canadian populace could put up a spirited resistance. 

Do Canadians take such a scenario seriously, and are contingencies for securing the Canadian border regularly updated? 

 

 

Edited by AYanker76
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American authorities have demonstrated that their weaponry will always be leagues ahead of their citizens’ and that they will put out any perceived threats from the citizens in short order.  The Canadian military cannot compete with the American one, nor should it try.  Canada can, however, screen threats along the border more carefully and provide a smart, high tech military deterrent to invasion, and not just through NATO.  I think Canada should have deployable nukes on Canadian soil, as was possible decades ago.

Canada is a growing country that will soon have a larger economy than Italy’s.  The ability to nuke multiple cities at all ranges is plenty deterrent.  We need the best gear to patrol our coasts in sea and air.  Trudeau is asleep at the wheel in that regard.  We had one of the strongest militaries by the end of WW2, probably the strongest on a per capita basis.  We let those assets go in exchange for the security of NATO, but that organization has been undermined while China and Russia escalate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

You do know we have a dictator....right?

He can be censured or defeated by Parliament, or dismissed if he over-steps. That is not the position of a dictator. The government is in a minority position and a non-confidence motion will force an election. As it stands now, the new firearms regulations will likely have the support of the NDP, the BQ and the Greens, so in what way is he a dictator? Ownership of a firearm is a privelege granted by the Crown. It is not a right.

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using an O in C for something as large and controversial as this is, while refusing to convene Parliament to debate the issue, is dictatorial, so yeah, he acting like a dictator right now.

 

Confiscating tens of millions of dollars of private property with the stroke of a pen, without going to Parliament in the middle of a public-health emergency while only a minority gov't is not only dictatorial but sneaky and conniving among other things

 

Edited by scribblet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2020 at 11:47 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

He can be censured or defeated by Parliament, or dismissed if he over-steps. That is not the position of a dictator. The government is in a minority position and a non-confidence motion will force an election. As it stands now, the new firearms regulations will likely have the support of the NDP, the BQ and the Greens, so in what way is he a dictator? Ownership of a firearm is a privelege granted by the Crown. It is not a right.

The original poster seems concerned with a reduction of freedoms.  Canada is way farther down that road than the US and has way fewer mechanisms to prevent government overreach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

The original poster seems concerned with a reduction of freedoms.  Canada is way farther down that road than the US and has way fewer mechanisms to prevent government overreach.

 

Canada is a freer country than the US.  The criminal justice system in the US is harsher, as are the police, especially on the poor. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is a freer country than the US.  The criminal justice system in the US is harsher, as are the police, especially on the poor. 

 

Well...yeah...if letting criminals run free means freer...Canada wins by a mile.   #Hug-A-Thug®

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Well...yeah...if letting criminals run free means freer...Canada wins by a mile.   #Hug-A-Thug®

Want to compare violent crimes in both countries?  Don't go there girlfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is a freer country than the US.  The criminal justice system in the US is harsher, as are the police, especially on the poor. 

That's not true.  Not even close.  We don't actually have the right to free speech, as Queenmandy said, we don't have a right to firearms...or to defend ourselves.  We don't vote on any actual policy issues like the US does.  We don't actually vote on our Prime Minister.  Trudeau has much greater control over the populous that the President does over his people.  If you're thinking that Canadians have more rights and say in their gov't than americans, you're truly delusional.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2020 at 3:47 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

He can be censured or defeated by Parliament, or dismissed if he over-steps. That is not the position of a dictator. The government is in a minority position and a non-confidence motion will force an election. As it stands now, the new firearms regulations will likely have the support of the NDP, the BQ and the Greens, so in what way is he a dictator? Ownership of a firearm is a privelege granted by the Crown. It is not a right.

Most things are a privilege's, driving, fishing, hunting, flying, the list is long. but we do live in a democracy at least I think we do, and yet the government baned numerous firearms with out research, consultation, or debate in parliament....and in a such a rush to push this out, nobody even proof read their own papers... banning things like toy guns, shot guns, bolt action rifles, and then there is anti tank missiles and launchers because they come in handy when out duck hunting, land mines, to keep the damn neighbors off my grass, scary stuff....lets not even mention almost every fact they use to ban these firearms are false...but what do we expect from the liberals, they have lied , cheated, Canadians for way to long....and liberals love it....

Edited by Army Guy

Share this post


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

Most things are a privilege's, driving, fishing, hunting, flying, the list is long. but we do live in a democracy at least I think we do, and yet the government baned numerous firearms with out research, consultation, or debate in parliament....and in a such a rush to push this out, nobody even proof read their own papers... banning things like toy guns, shot guns, bolt action rifles, and then there is anti tank missiles and launchers because they come in handy when out duck hunting, land mines, to keep the damn neighbors off my grass, scary stuff....lets not even mention almost every fact they use to ban these firearms are false...but what do we expect from the liberals, they have lied , cheated, Canadians for way to long....and liberals love it....

So, what do you think is in this for the Liberals? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. Do you think the Liberals did this to lose?

You can hardly say they lied about this. This was part of their platform in the last election.  The other opposition parties support it except the CPC, so, they do have a mandate.

They do have an advantage because the only opposition party that will object is the CPC / Socialist Credit which has a history of actually conficating private property. They are about to elect Peter Judas MacKay as leader, so you can put money on a Trudeau majority in a couple of years. I'm a gun owner. Nothing in these regulations affects me. The 20mm bore prohibition was not intended for shotguns. It was an unintended consequence that they will likely correct. They have a lot on their plate these days.

As an illustration of how vital gunrights are in this country, look at what the first question the CPC asked in Question Period yesterday. The gun ban? No, it was the supply of PPE. 

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not about to elect MacKay,  internal polls are showing differently.  We don't have a social credit party running federally, so not sure what that means.    

IMO a lot of people are in favour of banning these guns but not in the manner in which it was done, it would have a lot more credibility if they had gone through debate and Parliament.  Trudeau does have a good chance of winning again because opposition has to be careful about attacking Trudeau during an emergency, no matter what they say and do it will be spun in a more negative light, and the media is in Trudeau's pocket.   His morning pressers where CBC is given more questions and media are hand picked, are not a substitution for Parliamentry debate.

Why do you think Trudeau doesn't want Parliament to convene, he's better off not in the light avoiding accountability, the last time it met he wasn't there anyway, even though at least one media outlet showed a picture of him. 

On 5/4/2020 at 2:47 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

He can be censured or defeated by Parliament, or dismissed if he over-steps. That is not the position of a dictator. The government is in a minority position and a non-confidence motion will force an election. As it stands now, the new firearms regulations will likely have the support of the NDP, the BQ and the Greens, so in what way is he a dictator? Ownership of a firearm is a privelege granted by the Crown. It is not a right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, scribblet said:

They are not about to elect MacKay,  internal polls are showing differently.  We don't have a social credit party running federally, so not sure what that means.

God, I hope you are right. Mr. O'Toole would be better but not exactly inspiring. The CPC is  reform under another name and Manning was an old time Socialist Creditor. They were the commie bastards that confiscated the privately owned, very profitable, BC Electric Company that provided good service at low cost to consumers, and turned it into the bloated money pit of a state owned nightmare that is BC Hydro. They paid pennies on the dollar to the shareholders. They basically stole it. If I had more time I would tell you what I really think about Socialist Credit. :D

Why oh why could we not have Rona Ambrose or Lisa Raitt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, scribblet said:

IMO a lot of people are in favour of banning these guns but not in the manner in which it was done, it would have a lot more credibility if they had gone through debate and Parliament.

Under normal times, I would agree but OTOH, they were elected with the promise to do this and they did get a mandate. Why didn't Mr. Sheer address this in Parliament yesterday?  I fear the CPC has a long rough road ahead without a decent leader. Occassionally, after a crisis has been successfully resolved, the leader is tossed out. Churchill and Thatcher come to mind, but then this is Canada and we hang on to our leaders until we have to run then stuffed, like Louis St. Laurent.

Why oh why could we not have Rona Ambrose or Lisa Raitt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Under normal times, I would agree but OTOH, they were elected with the promise to do this and they did get a mandate. Why didn't Mr. Sheer address this in Parliament yesterday?  I fear the CPC has a long rough road ahead without a decent leader. Occassionally, after a crisis has been successfully resolved, the leader is tossed out. Churchill and Thatcher come to mind, but then this is Canada and we hang on to our leaders until we have to run then stuffed, like Louis St. Laurent.

Why oh why could we not have Rona Ambrose or Lisa Raitt? 

No, they did not get a mandate as it is ony a minority gov't, the CPC got more votes than the Liberals, but yes, I'm hoping with another leader there will be some decent opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

God, I hope you are right. Mr. O'Toole would be better but not exactly inspiring. The CPC is  reform under another name and Manning was an old time Socialist Creditor. They were the commie bastards that confiscated the privately owned, very profitable, BC Electric Company that provided good service at low cost to consumers, and turned it into the bloated money pit of a state owned nightmare that is BC Hydro. They paid pennies on the dollar to the shareholders. They basically stole it. If I had more time I would tell you what I really think about Socialist Credit. :D

Why oh why could we not have Rona Ambrose or Lisa Raitt? 

CPC is far from Reform or even the Alliance, and Manning is obviously not a commie.   The social credit party is no longer around and I believe it was only B.C. so really is irrelevant to this debate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the two year grace period, there is time to bring down the Grits and have an election before these firearms need to be turned in or de-commisioned. If the CPC wins, they will have the chance to recind the regs. Why couldn't the CPC come up with better leadership candidates? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2020 at 10:24 AM, AYanker76 said:

Hello, nice to meet you all.  I have been executing a plan to obtain my Canadian permanent residency and flee the states.  Recent events in the U.S. have accelerated these plans dramatically.  I am pressed to leave for the following reasons:

My goal is to get to a more democratic society and to sever myself from the jurisdiction of the U.S. government entirely, which I believe to be violent, unjust and decadent, at large.  It has always been in the back of my mind that Canada may not be far enough, as the U.S. has always been a latent military threat to Canada.  More importantly, the American populace is so large and so armed, that I question whether Canadian authorities would be able to control spillover from any destabilizing geopolitical events in the U.S.  Were such a thing to happen, you can be sure that the volatility that plagues American society would be shortly in tow.

While I commend you all for taking action to make your society safer & less prone to the mass shootings that are normalized, weekly events here,  I think banning assault weapons will also exacerbate this imbalance.  While reading a history article about U.S. military contingencies to invade Canada during WWII, I saw that American military officials did note and respect that the well-armed Canadian populace could put up a spirited resistance. 

Do Canadians take such a scenario seriously, and are contingencies for securing the Canadian border regularly updated? 

 

 

I call you out as a fake clumsy spam script. At this point  you, Godzilla, Tdot, whatever new names you want to place on the forum, they are tiresome. You want to inundate this forum with anti American rhetoric. This is a Canadian political web site.

By the way the last time you tried the bullshit approach reminding everyone you were American and I called you out you disappeared within 3 posts. Tell me,  how long you intend to stay. Just enough to pose for some anti American monkey crap to be passed?

Let me spell it out you are about as American as I am. You use a translator. You have no clue how Immigration law works in Canada and are so phacking lazy, you couldn't be bothered to find out before you spewed the spam you did.

You want to dump on America have the balls to admit you are not American and are from the same troll site as Tdot and Godzilla and Pacifica 77 et al.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, what do you think is in this for the Liberals? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. Do you think the Liberals did this to lose?

You can hardly say they lied about this. This was part of their platform in the last election.  The other opposition parties support it except the CPC, so, they do have a mandate.

They do have an advantage because the only opposition party that will object is the CPC / Socialist Credit which has a history of actually conficating private property. They are about to elect Peter Judas MacKay as leader, so you can put money on a Trudeau majority in a couple of years. I'm a gun owner. Nothing in these regulations affects me. The 20mm bore prohibition was not intended for shotguns. It was an unintended consequence that they will likely correct. They have a lot on their plate these days.

As an illustration of how vital gunrights are in this country, look at what the first question the CPC asked in Question Period yesterday. The gun ban? No, it was the supply of PPE. 

If the have a lot on their plate, then why was this their top priority?  No, they took advantage of the situation...and we'll see what they say about shotguns, because I believe they did that with intent.  I think the gun issue has to be settled once and for all in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

If the have a lot on their plate, then why was this their top priority?  No, they took advantage of the situation...and we'll see what they say about shotguns, because I believe they did that with intent.  I think the gun issue has to be settled once and for all in court.

But why did they do it? Will it get them re-elected? I think the gun issue will be settled on the hustings because as it stands now, the Cabinet has the legal authority to do this. The CPC is the only party interested in repealing these regualtions so, geto out and start campaigning for your CPC candidate. Canvas hard, identify the support, and get out the vote on election day. Don't let anyone split the vote by voting for another right leaning party like the CHP or the PPC. Don't waste money on going to court. Put that money into the CPC where it has a chance of being more effective. Despite my reservations with most of the leadership candidates, I've worked on Conservative campaigns since Diefenbaker was leader. That doesn't make me any kind of expert but the lesson I've learned is identify the vote and get out every supporter to vote. You cannot take any riding for granted and you cannot afford to write off any riding. Bob Stanfield lost in 1972 by less than 100 votes across the country. If you want to reverse the regs, that is how you do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, what do you think is in this for the Liberals? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. Do you think the Liberals did this to lose?

You can hardly say they lied about this. This was part of their platform in the last election.  The other opposition parties support it except the CPC, so, they do have a mandate.

They do have an advantage because the only opposition party that will object is the CPC / Socialist Credit which has a history of actually conficating private property. They are about to elect Peter Judas MacKay as leader, so you can put money on a Trudeau majority in a couple of years. I'm a gun owner. Nothing in these regulations affects me. The 20mm bore prohibition was not intended for shotguns. It was an unintended consequence that they will likely correct. They have a lot on their plate these days.

As an illustration of how vital gunrights are in this country, look at what the first question the CPC asked in Question Period yesterday. The gun ban? No, it was the supply of PPE. 

I'm not sure what is in this for the liberals, they expressed what they're goals where , taking firearms out of criminal hands and yet this ban will not even accomplish that, sure it will take a few guns of the street, but those will quickly be replaced by guns coming from the US...I'm surprised you can't see that , so over all what is going to happen is the law abiding gun owners are being punished because of some shody thought out plan, which will cost billions and accomplish very little, (mean while hand guns which are responsible for more deaths than these banned rifles combined are left out...). well not as much as if those billions were used to actually combat those guns coming across the borders through investing that funding into borders and customs and RCMP task forces. Or perhaps your right I,m RTFO of it and my suggestion does not make sense at all...

And yes they did lie all though this process, by calling them assault rifles, which are already illegal in Canada, bill blair a once police officer should already know this, and did know that but he lied to convince the people that these wpns were evil and need to be destroyed...using statements like they were designed to kill the most people in the shortest time....These wpns are designed to be used by Civilians, NOT for Military use....they knew this going in.. Fire arms laws already restrict Magazine capacity to 5 rds...so no matter how fast the fire, you can only fire 5 rounds...  Again if you are caught with magazines over 5 rounds you risk loosing it all, guns, the ability to own or use guns for life, possible you car if you used your car in the offense... And if that one person decided screw it I'm using it anyways they would join the 29 people in the last 30 years to use a legal owned fire arm in a homicide...

As for peter, I not convinced he is the next leader....CPC has not decided just yet and his popularity is not what it use to be...

I'm sure that most 12 gauges were not the intended target of the ban , nor was dozens of bolt action hunting rifles, nor was the air soft gun, or anti tank missiles, and launchers... but their inclusion goes to show you just how rushed all of this was, nobody bother to vet their own paper, if I had turned in a paper for university like this one , if have received an f for to many mistakes, but hey these guys only run the Country, I mean it's not like they can afford to hire someone to vet them right.... It also shows that nobody that really knows firearms even looked at the paper, I mean do we really need to include anti tank missiles, and launchers, now they are military grade, and i'm almost positive they are prohibited ..

I do have a 12 gauge shot gun, but other than that none of it effects me either, but if our government has taught me anything is this ban is not over by any means there is much more to come...that much has already hinted at... As a gun owner how would you feel if your firearms where to make a list...and become banned ?...

Show me how this ban is going to make a difference in Canadian gun violence. something with a source , ""not just I think it will''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 9:15 PM, Hal 9000 said:

That's not true.  Not even close.  We don't actually have the right to free speech, as Queenmandy said, we don't have a right to firearms...or to defend ourselves.  We don't vote on any actual policy issues like the US does.  We don't actually vote on our Prime Minister.  Trudeau has much greater control over the populous that the President does over his people.  If you're thinking that Canadians have more rights and say in their gov't than americans, you're truly delusional.

Tell that to the thousands of poor blacks who are forced to plea bargain and in some cases plea guilty to crimes they didn’t commit.

Tell it to the thousands of victims of gun homicides.

The Prime Minister has one vote.  It’s true that he can whip a vote of support from the members of his party, but that can be quite a gamble at future leadership votes.  Also, if the PM acts against the public interest, he or she can be removed through dissolution of Parliament by the Governor General.

Federal US laws restricting weed mean that your property can be confiscated.  If you have more than a certain amount of money on you, it can be confiscated.

Law enforcement is generally more brutal and incarceration rates much higher, yet so are crime rates.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Prime Minister has one vote.

 

So what other lost liberties and privileges would you gladly accept at the whim of one prime minister and his party ?

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

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...