# Your right to defend yourself and property.



## kps (May 4, 2003)

There's been a few high profile cases recently where individuals protecting themselves, their property or both, ended up being charged unfairly by the state. How do you feel about these basic rights and are they being quashed by the state?

Here's a great article by George Jonas that inspired this post and says it better than I ever could:



> George Jonas: The state’s protection racket
> 
> George Jonas Feb 7, 2012 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM ET
> 
> ...


George Jonas: The state’s protection racket | Full Comment | National Post

*Always Remember: When seconds count, the police are minutes away.*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps: Sadly, many Canadians are perfectly willing to let the police be their sole protection, and because of that want to refuse others the right to defend themselves. By eliminating possible examples of others defending themselves successfully, they lower the bar on what might be expected of them to defend their families and property. They'd rather cluck at the cops and allow a spouse or child to be harmed, then countenance the possession of a firearm.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It's worse than that. Even the use of pepper spray (Bear spray, dog spray) when used in self defence is illegal and charges will be laid. Civilian versions of Tazers for defence? Not a chance. Severe criminal charges if you're caught with one of those devices. 

Yet the cops can use all those indiscriminately, go figure. Citizens OTOH are neutered when it comes to defending themselves should the need arise.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> By eliminating possible examples of others defending themselves successfully, they lower the bar on what might be expected of them to defend their families and property. They'd rather cluck at the cops and allow a spouse or child to be harmed, then countenance the possession of a firearm.


The fly in the ointment of that superficial analysis is that for every example of a citizen successfully protecting themselves by using a gun, there are 10 accidental shootings, suicides, or examples of domestic violence using those guns.

While everyone thinks they're the exception, and _they_ wouldn't shoot themselves accidentally while cleaning the damn thing (or on purpose while in a depressive drunken fit over something that, in the sober light of dawn, isn't such a big deal), it turns out that these tragedies are far more common outcomes of private gun ownership than the heroic individualist successfully protecting himself and his property.

Thus, from the point of view of public policy, the fewer guns we have in society the better.


----------



## chrisburke (May 11, 2010)

You think that's bad.. How about the cases where crook breaks your window to get in the house, cuts himself on said glass, sues home owner because it's their glass.. AND WINS!!

My dad Left the RCMP 10 years ago after 26 years, because he was tired of how corrupt and pathetic our legal system has become


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

When the first reaction is to grab something as common as a baseball bat to investigate "a noise" it signals an offensive "state of mind."

The law in Canada is written based upon the notion of meeting escalating danger with escalating force.

Seems there is a concerted effort to import the notion, from the Excited States, of the rugged frontier man's notion of aggressively attacking a situation with pre-emptive strikes. This is, in my opinion, simple minded and an over the top proposition.

I should imagine, the maximum protection of stuff, resonates with the materialistic amongst us.

I will not wish you any luck with this campaign of importing foreign ideas.


----------



## chrisburke (May 11, 2010)

I have to agree with BigDL.. But i was never one for violence.. And I'll be the first to admit, of someone broke into my house, I'd be scared ****less (and I'm 6'5 320lbs).. Yes, I'd want to keep my family safe, but I'd do it by hiding us all in the attic


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I will not wish you any luck with this campaign of importing foreign ideas.


Good grief, man has been protecting himself, his family, his companions and his possessions, from predators (including other humans), since he appeared on this earth. He has always used weapons of one kind or another, be it clubs or spears or arrows or firearms to do that as technology improved.

There is nothing 'imported' about it, least of all from your pathetic paranoia with the U.S.A.'s version of allowing citizens to protect themselves, guaranteed under law.

A pre-emptive attack has long served man as a survival of the fittest, like it or not.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Just so those who who don't know you should read the firearms act and learn what are the laws in terms of own a gun and how it is stored in house. Just so you know if someone breaks into a house you would never have enough time to go get a gun it would be too late.

hear noise
go get hidden keys (you might have to pass criminal on the way there)
go unlock safe
unlock gun
unlock ammo safe (you cannot by law keep gun and ammo locked together)
then load gun 

already to late.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

chrisburke said:


> I have to agree with BigDL.. But i was never one for violence.. And I'll be the first to admit, of someone broke into my house, I'd be scared ****less (and I'm 6'5 320lbs).. Yes, I'd want to keep my family safe, but I'd do it by hiding us all in the attic


is that you in your avatar. and I agree with you


----------



## chrisburke (May 11, 2010)

Yes, it's me


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not 6 foot 5. I might hide my family members in the attic. But not me.

If someone is firebombing my house, I don't suddenly look for materials to make a firebomb so I can meet their escalating force.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

chrisburke said:


> Yes, it's me


Wow you don't look like 320lbs. Yikes.


----------



## chrisburke (May 11, 2010)

I know.. I don't know where the weight hides.. But that's what the scale says!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Just knew this one was going to be lively.

Generally I fall into the live and let live category but a direct threat to myself or family is going to be met head-on. If my life is threatened, I will at least leave my mark on the piece of 5#!t that did it and will use whatever weapons I can find to accomplish that.

Does get me to thinking. With modern Police forces increasingly resorting to SWAT teams for what are truly misdemeanor infractions, would homeowners be justified in having cannons loaded with grapeshot as part of their arsenal? <insert sarcasm emoticon here>


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

This is how it should be!

OPP won?t lay charges in fatal stabbing during Arnprior home break-in | Ontario News24:Ontario Latest News

This idiot broke into a house, and in self defense was killed by the dad and son. No charges would be laid. Thanks you! If someone breaks into my house they better hope I do not get to them first because I would have no problem standing up to them... well, if they had a gun that would be different...then again, if I got behind him and he didn't notice me...hmmm....I will have to go out and buy a few bats to leave around the house. 80)


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> This is how it should be!
> 
> OPP won?t lay charges in fatal stabbing during Arnprior home break-in | Ontario News24:Ontario Latest News
> 
> This idiot broke into a house, and in self defense was killed by the dad and son. No charges would be laid. Thanks you! If someone breaks into my house they better hope I do not get to them first because I would have no problem standing up to them... well, if they had a gun that would be different...then again, if I got behind him and he didn't notice me...hmmm....I will have to go out and buy a few bats to leave around the house. 80)


I have golf clubs. Everyone always asks me why there is a golf club in the corner.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> George Jonas: The state’s protection racket | Full Comment | National Post


the article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. besides the 2 high profile cases i don't think it's really a rampant problem plaguing our court system.

the case against the chinatown shop owner was silly, and the judge said as much. the case against ian thomson is a bit different. from the article:



> He fired in the air





> The householder, a licensed gun owner and firearms instructor, *broke no law*.


i'm not sure about canada's specific firearm laws, but i know in many countries it's illegal to fire a gun in the air because of the danger of falling bullets. now on sparsely populated farm land it might not be a problem, but imagine a home owner in toronto did what he did? that could be very dangerous.

still, in the specific case of ian thomson i wish the crown would drop the case as it doesn't serve the public interest to prosecute him.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Good grief, man has been protecting himself, his family, his companions and his possessions, from predators (including other humans), since he appeared on this earth. He has always used weapons of one kind or another, be it clubs or spears or arrows or firearms to do that as technology improved.
> 
> There is nothing 'imported' about it, least of all from your pathetic paranoia with the U.S.A.'s version of allowing citizens to protect themselves, guaranteed under law.
> 
> A pre-emptive attack has long served man as a survival of the fittest, like it or not.


*WOW! How'da'thunk it!* Sinc doesn't believe in the rule of law and is...is...is an anarchist at heart?

It is foreign it is a Excited States doctrine. I'm not the only one saying it's foreign, Blogging Tories (last link) talk about the concept not being Canadian and they want it to be Canadian.

The Castle Doctrine is not guaranteed in the Constitution like the gun ownership amendment, but in order to use the guns each state has to enact the Castle Doctrine law to make the gun use lawful and thereby gun ownership useful.

American Castle Doctrine

Oklahoma mom kills home invader: Why the law was on her side - CSMonitor.com

Self Defense in Your Home - The Castle Doctrine | Experienced Criminal Lawyers

Missouri authorities navigate castle doctrine

Oregon Castle Doctrine :: Common Sense for Oregon

See Bogging Tories want to bring it to Canada


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The right to self-defense is not exclusively tied to the Castle Doctrine as you link it. It is a much broader right.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The right to self-defense is not exclusively tied to the Castle Doctrine as you link it. It is a much broader right.


Right...it's only been there 900 years as English common law which our system is based on. Don't recall ever giving that up.

Give yer self a shake there, DL.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

It was a good article until the last 4 paragraphs. The last 4 paragraphs seem to go overboard into the paranoia of a goverment conspiracy theorist. He sounds scaringly like one of those ******* US militia groups.

I frankly think that today's police and citizens forget that citizens CAN protect themselves. People have just become so dependant on others doing things for them. After all, the perfect example of a citizen playing the role of a cop are security guards. They can citizen arrest someone and detain them until the cops arrive. Security guards are just normal citizens, though.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> the article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. besides the 2 high profile cases i don't think it's really a rampant problem plaguing our court system.
> 
> the case against the chinatown shop owner was silly, and the judge said as much. the case against ian thomson is a bit different. from the article:
> 
> ...


Point I'm making is that Jonas is right even though he made a mistake about the "shooting in the air bit". Thomson actually fired one into the grownd and two into a tree.

Fact remains the state continues to prosecute those that rightfully defend themselves and their property. Even if they win in court, it costs them thousands in legal fees and the's no guarantee that some overzealous crown attorney will not use our tax dollars to continuously appeal the verdicts.

"not plaguing our system"? What has that got to do with it and how do you know that? Not all these cases make it into the national news, but there was a slew of these just this past 12 months reported in local and national media. Cases in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba... I could spend a few hours and google all the cases for you, but I won't and you'll just have to take my word for it. Obviously many of these didn't involve firearms, but showed the law enforcement's determination to maintain the security monopoly at a high cost to law abiding citizens.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Kosh said:


> It was a good article until the last 4 paragraphs. The last 4 paragraphs seem to go overboard into the paranoia of a goverment conspiracy theorist. He sounds scaringly like one of those ******* US militia groups.
> 
> I frankly think that today's police and citizens forget that citizens CAN protect themselves. People have just become so dependant on others doing things for them. After all, the perfect example of a citizen playing the role of a cop are security guards. They can citizen arrest someone and detain them until the cops arrive. Security guards are just normal citizens, though.


Security guards run at the sight of any armed criminals, because they are not allowed to carry, but even if they were, most would run or die. 

Don't kid yourself, the cops have a vested interest in all this and that includes maintaining their security monopoly. Why else would they attempt to dissuade the public from protecting themselves by laying unwarranted charges?

Keep this in mind: The supreme court has ruled that the police are under no duty to protect you. The vinyl graphics on the side of their cars is nothing but a lie.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> The fly in the ointment of that superficial analysis is that for every example of a citizen successfully protecting themselves by using a gun, there are 10 accidental shootings, suicides, or examples of domestic violence using those guns.
> 
> While everyone thinks they're the exception, and _they_ wouldn't shoot themselves accidentally while cleaning the damn thing (or on purpose while in a depressive drunken fit over something that, in the sober light of dawn, isn't such a big deal), it turns out that these tragedies are far more common outcomes of private gun ownership than the heroic individualist successfully protecting himself and his property.
> 
> Thus, from the point of view of public policy, the fewer guns we have in society the better.


You have facts...data...or you just making thing up? Besides, we're not discussing suicides or accidents or domestic violence. Defence of self and property does not necessarily have to involve firearms. I recall a member here being very concerned with the welfare of his girlfriend at university. I din't have the heart to tell him that if she warded off a rapist's attack with bear spray she'd end up in court fending off criminal charges. I rather have her safe and take her chances with the jury.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> *It is foreign it is a Excited States doctrine. I'm not the only one saying it's foreign, Blogging Tories (last link) talk about the concept not being Canadian and they want it to be Canadian.
> 
> The Castle Doctrine is not guaranteed in the Constitution like the gun ownership amendment, but in order to use the guns each state has to enact the Castle Doctrine law to make the gun use lawful and thereby gun ownership useful.*


*


Since things seem to be a little thick in here, I repeat that the instinct for man to protect his family and home is a base instinct developed when we still wore animal skins. There was no USA, nor Castle doctrine when that instinct evolved.

You can forget the USA and its armament doctrines as meaningless. That is but one spin-off of the basic behaviour that followed many centuries later.

History for thousands of years before formal countries even existed, demonstrates this trait in mankind's behaviour.*


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The right to self-defense is not exclusively tied to the Castle Doctrine as you link it. It is a much broader right.





kps said:


> Right...it's only been there 900 years as English common law which our system is based on. Don't recall ever giving that up.
> 
> Give yer self a shake there, DL.


As I was stirred to reply, I am sorry to disappoint but shaking is not now required.

I do understand the law and how it works. Sinc chastised me because he apparently does not like Canadians laws that are currently enforced.

Two of you say I don't understand the law, yet I say, today's law provides plenty of protection for citizens as things stand presently, we don't need to enhance property or personal safety laws as in some Excited States that have changed legislation to the enhanced Castle Doctrine.

A little over two years ago an eighty year old Moncton area woman defended herself with a pitchfork and drove an intruder away. I understand the elements of her use of force and why they are lawful. The story is here.

Recently a thread was started on the topic of a study that in essence said conservatives like simple (minded no that can't be correct) policies, as complex policies are too difficult for them to comprehend.

I believe the laws as are currently in force are sufficient. 

Bullets in guns are only for hunting or target practice. Hunting humans or using them for target practice, in my estimation should remain illegal in all cases.

Because someone believes they are morally superior isn't sufficient justification to use a loaded gun as a response to "I hear a noise."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I do understand the law and how it works. Sinc chastised me because he apparently does not like Canadians laws that are currently enforced.
> 
> Two of you say I don't understand the law, yet I say, today's law provides plenty of protection for citizens as things stand presently, we don't need to enhance property or personal safety laws as in some Excited States that have changed legislation to the enhanced Castle Doctrine.
> 
> ...


You do understand that I do not like current Canadian law as it pertains to self defence. Good for you.

Now all you need to understand that in spite of your opinion, many would like to see Canadians freed from unfair prosecution for doing so, no matter the weapon.

The law is wrong and criminalizes ordinary Canadians who defend themselves. That is what needs to be changed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I believe the laws as are currently in force are sufficient.


Who is suggesting they change? The laws have been misapplied in this case and they should not set a bad precedent.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> Bullets in guns are only for hunting or target practice. Hunting humans or using them for target practice, in my estimation should remain illegal in all cases.
> 
> Because someone believes they are morally superior isn't sufficient justification to use a loaded gun as a response to "I hear a noise."


No one here has said anything about hunting humans. Where in this thread has a member said such? Stay on topic please.
And no one on here said they were morally superior. Again stay on topic. 

It is about the right to protect ones property and life.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> A little over two years ago an eighty year old Moncton area woman defended herself with a pitchfork and drove an intruder away. I understand the elements of her use of force and why they are lawful. The story is here.
> 
> Recently a thread was started on the topic of a study that in essence said conservatives like simple (minded no that can't be correct) policies, as complex policies are too difficult for them to comprehend.
> 
> ...


Geez, I'm so glad you agree that grams should have the right to her pitchfork and not get charged for defending herself.

However, I have to disagree with your assertion that the laws are sufficient. There is no "Castle Doctrine" that is not obfuscated and hidden in muddied waters and grey areas. I want to see it brought to the forefront of that section of the law where necessary and properly clarified. 

The self defence law is equally vague and mired in grey. 

So instead of a gun, is it morally superior to use an ax, a pitchfork? Tell that to the poor bastard who came home to find a strange car in his driveway and a couple of thieves running out of the house. The ax he grabbed got him a fast trip to the court house.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> "not plaguing our system"? What has that got to do with it and how do you know that?


it has everything to do with it. I don't think canadians should get worked up over a few isolated cases. 



kps said:


> I could spend a few hours and google all the cases for you, but I won't and you'll just have to take my word for it.


so you say this to me, and then you say this to bryanc :



kps said:


> You have facts...data...or you just making thing up?


So you'll forgive me if i ask for evidence that this is actually a substantial problem to be concerned about. 



SINC said:


> The law is wrong and criminalizes ordinary Canadians who defend themselves. That is what needs to be changed.


has any canadian actually been convicted & imprisoned for self defence? I'm not being facetious, I actually don't know.

I'm all for standing up for canadians rights to protect themselves, but that right certainly doesn't give them carte blanche when dealing with the matter. lethal force should only be used as a last resort, and they certainly shouldn't use more force than necessary. I don't have a problem if the odd person gets charged as long as there is evidence that they stepped beyond that reasonable force or broke the law in another way. things aren't always black & white and sometimes a court has to rule on the grey areas.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Who is suggesting they change? The laws have been misapplied in this case and they should not set a bad precedent.


Sinc for one. 

The law is being applied as it always has, witness the story of the elderly woman, for some thats not good enough apparently. 



Joker Eh said:


> No one here has said anything about hunting humans. Where in this thread has a member said such? Stay on topic please.
> And no one on here said they were morally superior. Again stay on topic.
> 
> It is about the right to protect ones property and life.


When you go out of the house with a loaded gun what lawful purpose do you have? Hunting and target practice as far as I know, perhaps you could provide an instance where loaded guns for everyday citizen have another lawful purpose. This thread started at that proposition of, Mr. Thomas leaving the house with a loaded gun, so not so much off topic. The "Castle Doctrine" has the legal hunting of humans at the heart of its premiss.



SINC said:


> You do understand that I do not like current Canadian law as it pertains to self defence. Good for you.
> 
> Now all you need to understand that in spite of your opinion, many would like to see Canadians freed from unfair prosecution for doing so, no matter the weapon.
> 
> The law is wrong and criminalizes ordinary Canadians who defend themselves. That is what needs to be changed.


Apparently the use of reasonable force is not palatable for some folks. They want to have the right to use unreasonable force at will, I guess?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> it has everything to do with it. I don't think canadians should get worked up over a few isolated cases.


I disagree, I think Canadians should get worked up even if it's just one case. Are you saying that you're ok with innocent people being charged as long as it doesn't plague the legal system...I hope a situation never arrises where you have to defend yourself your family or your property. 



i-rui said:


> So you'll forgive me if i ask for evidence that this is actually a substantial problem to be concerned about.


bryanc likes data... I called him on the 10x to one business. As far as your statement, well Rui I'm just surprised at your nonchalance with respect to people being dragged through the courts and the expense of it when they protect themselves and their homes. As I already said, I don't care how many incidents...even one is too much. 




i-rui said:


> has any canadian actually been convicted & imprisoned for self defence? I'm not being facetious, I actually don't know.


Good question and I don't know either. We'd have to search every provincial court record, I doubt there is a national statistic on this.



i-rui said:


> I'm all for standing up for canadians rights to protect themselves, but that right certainly doesn't give them carte blanche when dealing with the matter. lethal force should only be used as a last resort, and they certainly shouldn't use more force than necessary. I don't have a problem if the odd person gets charged as long as there is evidence that they stepped beyond that reasonable force or broke the law in another way. things aren't always black & white and sometimes a court has to rule on the grey areas.


For the most part, I'd agree with that, but the law should always err on the side of the victim and not the other way around. I don't see that being the case today with self defence or castle laws.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> When you go out of the house with a loaded gun what lawful purpose do you have? Hunting and target practice as far as I know, perhaps you could provide an instance where loaded guns for everyday citizen have another lawful purpose. This thread started at that proposition of, Mr. Thomas leaving the house with a loaded gun, so not so much off topic. The "Castle Doctrine" has the legal hunting of humans at the heart of its premiss.


he was under attack with people fire bombing his house. did you decide to ignore that fact? Have you watched the video of what happened? You know there is video right?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> When you go out of the house with a loaded gun what lawful purpose do you have? Hunting and target practice as far as I know, perhaps you could provide an instance where loaded guns for everyday citizen have another lawful purpose. This thread started at that proposition of, Mr. Thomas leaving the house with a loaded gun, so not so much off topic. The "Castle Doctrine" has the legal hunting of humans at the heart of its premiss.


Mr.Thomas did indeed grab his revolver and fire at the three individuals trying to burn him alive in his own house...and the police did not charge him with that because he was within his rights to go outside and "hunt" those trying to murder him. 



BigDL said:


> Apparently the use of reasonable force is not palatable for some these folks. They want to have the right to use unreasonable force at will, I guess?


That depends on who makes the judgement as to what is reasonable...I'd never want you to make that judgement DL, not in a million years.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> he was under attack with people fire bombing his house. did you decide to ignore that fact? Have you watched the video of what happened? You know there is video right?


Would Mr. Thomas have a safe exit from his home? Was his life in immanent danger if he left in a direction opposite to the fire bombers location? 

Didn't Mr. Thomas go towards the persons intruding into his yard and attempting to fire bomb his house? Wasn't Mr. Thomas attacking or hunting the arsonists?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Are you saying that you're ok with innocent people being charged as long as it doesn't plague the legal system...I hope a situation never arrises where you have to defend yourself your family or your property.


i'm not "ok" with it, but the truth is innocent people are charged within our legal system every day. The criminal conviction rate is around 60%, so there are obviously 1000's and 1000's of innocent people charged every year. That's why we have a court system, to (ideally) give them a fair trial.

It's not a perfect system, but i don't think we have any alternative.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Mr.Thomas did indeed grab his revolver and fire at the three individuals trying to burn him alive in his own house...and the police did not charge him with that because he was within his rights to go outside and "hunt" those trying to murder him.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on who makes the judgement as to what is reasonable...I'd never want you to make that judgement DL, not in a million years.


That's good because I wouldn't want to be in the positions of making that judgement call. I will leave that to people,who dress in black robes and who sit in a building with a green roof, in Ottawa.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> Would Mr. Thomas have a safe exit from his home? Was his life in immanent danger if he left in a direction opposite to the fire bombers location?
> 
> Didn't Mr. Thomas go towards the persons intruding into his yard and attempting to fire bomb his house? Wasn't Mr. Thomas attacking or hunting the arsonists?


head shaking, head shaking, head shaking, head shaking

So it is ok for them to torch everything he has? And he should just walk away with the shirt on his back because what the hell someone else has decided he shouldn't have what he has or they don't like him as a neighbour? It is ok for these criminals to get away with it because if the house had been torched there would be no video evidence. Your way no one stands up and fights back. 

Yep your way is the way to go!!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i'm not "ok" with it, but the truth is innocent people are charged within our legal system every day. The criminal conviction rate is around 60%, so there are obviously 1000's and 1000's of innocent people charged every year. That's why we have a court system, to (ideally) give them a fair trial.
> 
> It's not a perfect system, but i don't think we have any alternative.


And we should just accept that? Defending yourself in court cost money and plenty of it. Many innocent people end up convicted because they just don't have the money to continue fighting. 

*So how fair is a system the average Joe can't afford?
*
The funny thing is that the Crown uses yours and mine tax dollars and they can use as much as they want...no limit, no maximum, no minimum and appeal every verdict till Armageddon. LOL


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

well IMO if you're that troubled by the above you should start up a movement to tighten up the standards for which the crown uses to bring all criminal cases to trial. Hell, i'd sign a petition for that if you do.

you do realize that this would run counter to the whole "tough on crime" BS that Harper and co. ran on?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> That's good because I wouldn't want to be in the positions of making that judgement call. I will leave that to people,who dress in black robes and who sit in a building with a green roof, in Ottawa.


I wouldn't trust most of them either, that's why it should be legislated and spelled out in a clear and concise manner.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> well IMO if you're that troubled by the above you should start up a movement to tighten up the standards for which the crown uses to bring all criminal cases to trial. Hell, i'd sign a petition for that if you do.
> 
> you do realize that this would run counter to the whole "tough on crime" BS that Harper and co. ran on?


I seriously believe that some of these Crown attorneys and even some police are way too overzealous. Perhaps there should be a movement to rein them in a little. 

Not sure how "counter" it would really be, we're only talking right to self defence and castle laws. I think Harper is sympathetic to that.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Not sure how "counter" it would really be,* we're only talking right to self defence and castle laws.* I think Harper is sympathetic to that.


well no, *YOU'RE* only talking about that. That's the problem IMO. You're getting all upset about the possibility that innocent people are being charged while defending their home, but you seem willing to ignore the other canadians who are also charged for crimes they didn't commit (of which there is surely a great deal more).


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> head shaking, head shaking, head shaking, head shaking
> 
> So it is ok for them to torch everything he has? And he should just walk away with the shirt on his back because what the hell someone else has decided he shouldn't have what he has or they don't like him as a neighbour? It is ok for these criminals to get away with it because if the house had been torched there would be no video evidence. Your way no one stands up and fights back.
> 
> Yep your way is the way to go!!


No! 
Who said that? 

Did I not provide a story of a legal way to fight back intruders? Have I ever said you should not protect yourself?

I have said the current laws are sufficient to protect yourself, if you follow the law.

If you are not knowledgeable, or if you are so head strong and decide to take the law into your own hands then you shall reap the consequences of your actions or ignorance. 

My father told me when I was 18 years old, "you can go anywhere or do anything you feel like, in this old world but when you burn your own arse, be prepared to sit quietly on the blisters and don't whine and complain, because people don't want to hear it, just try and learn your lesson for the next time. 

I guess not everyone's dad gave them such good advice.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> well no, *YOU'RE* only talking about that. That's the problem IMO. You're getting all upset about the possibility that innocent people are being charged while defending their home, but you seem willing to ignore the other canadians who are also charged for crimes they didn't commit (of which there is surely a great deal more).


No, you're misinterpreting the reference. That comment only applied to your mention of Harper and the Crime Bill. 

No ignoring of other innocent individuals being charged.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> No!
> Who said that?
> 
> Did I not provide a story of a legal way to fight back intruders? Have I ever said you should not protect yourself?
> ...


Okay, I have no idea what your blistered arse has to do with any of this, but some of us here disagree with your contention that the current laws are adequate. 

Some of us disagree because those that do protect themselves, their families, and/or their property, seem to disproportionately end up in court where it costs them thousands of dollars fending off bullsh*t charges.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

kps said:


> Security guards run at the sight of any armed criminals, because they are not allowed to carry, but even if they were, most would run or die.
> 
> Don't kid yourself, the cops have a vested interest in all this and that includes maintaining their security monopoly. Why else would they attempt to dissuade the public from protecting themselves by laying unwarranted charges?


To dissuade people from becoming vigilantes. 

To uphold the law, by taking the person to court where it will be decided lawfully, whether he/she committed a crime. Police are not judges. Laying charges, does not mean you are guilty.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> Would Mr. Thomas have a safe exit from his home? Was his life in immanent danger if he left in a direction opposite to the fire bombers location?
> 
> Didn't Mr. Thomas go towards the persons intruding into his yard and attempting to fire bomb his house? Wasn't Mr. Thomas attacking or hunting the arsonists?


This is what you said.



BigDL said:


> No!
> Who said that?
> 
> Did I not provide a story of a legal way to fight back intruders? Have I ever said you should not protect yourself?
> ...


It is too late you see. How did or would the law stop the criminals from fire bombing his house? This is the not first time those 3 idiots targeted him. It was his last straw. The law was not sufficient in protecting Mr. Thomas. And yet he didn't try and kill anyone he just let them know that he was fighting back. :clap:

*So again I ask you*, is it ok for them to torch everything he has? He should just walk away with the shirt on his back because what the hell someone else has decided he shouldn't have what he has or they don't like him as a neighbour? It is ok for these criminals to get away with it because if the house had been torched there would be no video evidence. Your way no one stands up and fights back.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Kosh said:


> To dissuade people from becoming vigilantes.
> 
> To uphold the law, by taking the person to court where it will be decided lawfully, whether he/she committed a crime. Police are not judges. Laying charges, does not mean you are guilty.


Protecting ones life, the lives of others or ones property can hardly be called vigilantism.

Right, the cops are not judges, but by charging you they're assuming that you are guilty. To prove your innocence will require lots of cash and even if found not guilty may preclude you from traveling by you ending up on every no fly list and turning up on every CPIC search forever.

There are serious repercussions involved here.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

kps said:


> *Protecting ones life, the lives of others or ones property can hardly be called vigilantism.*
> 
> Right, the cops are not judges, but by charging you they're assuming that you are guilty. To prove your innocence will require lots of cash and even if found not guilty may preclude you from traveling by you ending up on every no fly list and turning up on every CPIC search forever.
> 
> There are serious repercussions involved here.


100% agree.

Mr. Thomas didn't leave his property and go after anyone he was at home being attacked.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Protecting ones life, the lives of others or ones property can hardly be called vigilantism.
> 
> Right, the cops are not judges, but by charging you they're assuming that you are guilty. To prove your innocence will require lots of cash and even if found not guilty may preclude you from traveling by you ending up on every no fly list and turning up on every CPIC search forever.
> 
> There are serious repercussions involved here.


Bingo. 

As to those that believe the cops are not sometimes overly zealous, A swat team raid over a commonly used phrase in an eMail!

I wonder if this thread would have seen zero response had the victim been Jewish.
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/99169-fear-monger-thread.html


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Personally, I found Jonas' piece in the Post rather jaded and obtuse. He takes these two distinct, sensational incidents and attempts to manipulate them into a piece that both bashes the justice system and advocates arming citizens. The only thing this circus needed was a couple of clowns and a dancing bear.

Maybe Mr. Jonas had spent the weekend watching the Die Hard series and found himself caught up in the action. Perhaps that's why he forgot to mention that other statistic --the one that shows far more Americans are injured or killed with their own guns than ever manage to get the bad guy. Maybe he forgot about the young Canadian student in Texas who got lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions but got a chest full of lead instead because he was "foreign looking".

I'm quite happy to live in a civilized country where citizens who take the law into their own hands are held up to vigorous scrutiny.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Okay, I have no idea what your blistered arse has to do with any of this, but some of us here disagree with your contention that the current laws are adequate.
> 
> Some of us disagree because those that do protect themselves, their families, and/or their property, seem to disproportionately end up in court where it costs them thousands of dollars fending off bullsh*t charges.


The reference to blisters on burnt arses is a metaphor for taking responsibility for your actions as an adult.

Now what I am hearing is, I want to do any action I feel justified in taking and I do not want to be responsible any consequences flowing from my actions.

Lawful, reasonable be damned, because I want to do what I want to do, when I want to do it. That might be an acceptable position for a three year old, in some households.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> This is what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My comments regarding Mr. Thomas's safety was not in peril. His property was in peril and yes Mr. Thomas should have protected his property.

Did Mr. Thomas run outside with an extinguisher or run to get a hose to deal with the immediate danger of fire and the possible damage to his property. No Mr. Thomas ran outside with firearm. How do you fight fires with a firearm?

It is my general impression that this was not a recent dispute, as I understand that this dispute was of long standing. DId Mr. Thomas de-escalate this situation along the way? Did Mr. Thomas escalate this dispute with a series of tit-for-tat actions that culminated on the video?

Did the arsonists "get away with it" or was there sufficient evidence from the recorded videos to arrest and convict the perpetrators of the fire bombing? This information seems to be missing from the bigger story. 

Does anyone know, were the firebombers arrested and convicted? 

What laws should be enacted, in your estimation, to take away the freedom of every citizens to prevent all fire bombings or is your answer, issue everyone with firearms and dispense with law and order?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

So Joker and krs believe all cases of protection of yourself and your property are cut and dry and that police should be judge, jury and executioner of sentence. 

Man, tell what city you live in cause I don't want to get anywhere near you!

You also know that it's a judge, not a police officer that issues an arrest warrant. Police do not make the decision to arrest someone.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

BigDL said:


> My comments regarding Mr. Thomas's safety was not in peril. His property was in peril and yes Mr. Thomas should have protected his property.
> 
> Did Mr. Thomas run outside with an extinguisher or run to get a hose to deal with the immediate danger of fire and the possible damage to his property. No Mr. Thomas ran outside with firearm. How do you fight fires with a firearm?
> 
> ...



Oh krs and Joker don't care about questions, they shoot and ask questions later. So they killed an innocent guy. They don't care.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The reference to blisters on burnt arses is a metaphor for taking responsibility for your actions as an adult.


I knew that, but couldn't resist.



BigDL said:


> Now what I am hearing is, I want to do any action I feel justified in taking and I do not want to be responsible any consequences flowing from my actions.
> 
> Lawful, reasonable be damned, because I want to do what I want to do, when I want to do it. That might be an acceptable position for a three year old, in some households.


I think you've been a teamster for too long, brother DL...you're imagining things now? You're hearing wrong and thinking wrong, no one is advocating a free for all or some indiscriminate killing sprees and certainly, no one is advocating vigilanteism.

I'm all for lawful and I'm also for reasonable...but when it is at the discretion of those who perhaps are far from lawful and reasonable themselves, then it's a problem. It has been quite clear that cops and Crown attorneys can have their own agendas and bend rules to get convictions when they should perhaps step back and not blame the victim.

You seem to like blaming the victims. Do you know how you'd react in a life and death situation, a situation where your wife and children may be in grave danger? Can you be certain that you'd be 100% --to use your words..._reasonable_?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Oh krs and Joker don't care about questions, they shoot and ask questions later. So they killed an innocent guy. They don't care.


+1 where's that dang like button again? 

I am also happy to be living in a community away from the shooters (what they're shooting I'm not sure) and and in an area where even little old grannies can properly wield a pitchfork lawfully.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> My comments regarding Mr. Thomas's safety was not in peril. His property was in peril and yes Mr. Thomas should have protected his property.
> 
> Did Mr. Thomas run outside with an extinguisher or run to get a hose to deal with the immediate danger of fire and the possible damage to his property. No Mr. Thomas ran outside with firearm. How do you fight fires with a firearm?
> 
> ...


His life was not in danger? Are you serious? You did see the video where the house is on fire, they threaten to kill him and they firebombed his fenced dogs, right? Since you don't give a crap about people, perhaps you might have pity on the dogs.

Mr. Thomas ran outside in his underwear and a firearm to eliminate the threat first and foremost, then he extinguished some of the fire before the police and firetrucks arrived. Eliminating the threat is what every fire department would do, what paramedics do ---they have the cops eliminate any threat that may exist before they do their job and guess what cops have guns.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Oh krs and Joker don't care about questions, they shoot and ask questions later. So they killed an innocent guy. They don't care.


Oh man, you're grasping at straws...and its kPs.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> Personally, I found Jonas' piece in the Post rather jaded and obtuse. He takes these two distinct, sensational incidents and attempts to manipulate them into a piece that both bashes the justice system and advocates arming citizens. The only thing this circus needed was a couple of clowns and a dancing bear.
> 
> Maybe Mr. Jonas had spent the weekend watching the Die Hard series and found himself caught up in the action. Perhaps that's why he forgot to mention that other statistic --the one that shows far more Americans are injured or killed with their own guns than ever manage to get the bad guy. Maybe he forgot about the young Canadian student in Texas who got lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions but got a chest full of lead instead because he was "foreign looking".
> 
> I'm quite happy to live in a civilized country where citizens who take the law into their own hands are held up to vigorous scrutiny.


Well put.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mythtaken said:


> personally, i found jonas' piece in the post rather jaded and obtuse. He takes these two distinct, sensational incidents and attempts to manipulate them into a piece that both bashes the justice system and advocates arming citizens. The only thing this circus needed was a couple of clowns and a dancing bear.
> 
> Maybe mr. Jonas had spent the weekend watching the die hard series and found himself caught up in the action. Perhaps that's why he forgot to mention that other statistic --the one that shows far more americans are injured or killed with their own guns than ever manage to get the bad guy. Maybe he forgot about the young canadian student in texas who got lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions but got a chest full of lead instead because he was "foreign looking".
> 
> I'm quite happy to live in a civilized country where citizens who take the law into their own hands are held up to vigorous scrutiny.


+1


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

IMO, there's only one way to look at this:

The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.

If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> +1


-1

Size matters, Groove.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

john clay said:


> imo, there's only one way to look at this:
> 
> The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.
> 
> If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.


+1000


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> IMO, there's only one way to look at this:
> 
> The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.
> 
> If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.


+1,000! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

kps said:


> +1000


To add on to my earlier post...

Your home is your castle. It's the one place in the world you should feel absolutely secure, and safe from all threats.

There is no way in current society to punish someone enough for violating that sanctity.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

John Clay said:


> To add on to my earlier post...
> 
> Your home is your castle. It's the one place in the world you should feel absolutely secure, and safe from all threats.
> 
> There is no way in current society to punish someone enough for violating that sanctity.


Absolutely, unfortunately some people here think that we're advocating indiscriminate killing of anyone and everyone that happens to knock at our door. When fantastic extremes are the only argument your opponent has left, then there's no point in listening any longer and common sense prevails.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Section 348 of the Criminal Code establishes the main modern prohibitions against burglary. It creates 3 indictable offences: a) breaking and entering a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; b) breaking and entering a place and committing an indictable offence therein; and c) breaking out of a place after committing an indictable offence therein or after entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein. If the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling-house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; otherwise, the maximum sentence is 14 years.

The Criminal Code establishes offences for activities related to burglary. Anyone who, without lawful excuse, entered or was in a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence, is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. Other offences include possession of break-in instruments, wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and the unauthorized sale, purchase or possession of automobile master keys (including lock picks).

Perhaps we need only enforce the laws already in place. My source was Burglary - The Canadian Encyclopedia


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

DR Hannon said:


> Section 348 of the Criminal Code establishes the main modern prohibitions against burglary. It creates 3 indictable offences: a) breaking and entering a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; b) breaking and entering a place and committing an indictable offence therein; and c) breaking out of a place after committing an indictable offence therein or after entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein. If the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling-house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; otherwise, the maximum sentence is 14 years.
> 
> The Criminal Code establishes offences for activities related to burglary. Anyone who, without lawful excuse, entered or was in a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence, is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. Other offences include possession of break-in instruments, wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and the unauthorized sale, purchase or possession of automobile master keys (including lock picks).
> 
> Perhaps we need only enforce the laws already in place. My source was Burglary - The Canadian Encyclopedia


I'm sorry, but 10 or 14 years doesn't cut it. A shorter sentence is far more likely, given the pathetic sentences our justices hand out. Reform my ass - bring back the gallows.

If anything, a mandatory minimum of life in prison without chance of parole would be an acceptable compromise. As a citizen and tax payer, I would still prefer to have a home invader dealt with by the homeowner than pay for a trial and the subsequent imprisonment.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

(I hate that i can't make this all caps without typing before it...)

USA USA USA!!!!!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

My guess is, with all due respect to my fellow ehMacers, that despite all the tough (internet forum) talk, when confronted with a situation like this, most would be quivering under the bed fumbling with the phone to dial 911.

It is cathartic to fantasize about what _should be done_ in an unfair and unjust world and it is quite another thing to act upon it. 

Whether you like to admit it or not, we have evolved as a society. In doing this, lawless, knee jerk vigilantism went the way of the dodo. No right wing fear mongering government is going to bring it back.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> My guess is, with all due respect to my fellow ehMacers, that despite all the tough (internet forum) talk, when confronted with a situation like this, most would be quivering under the bed fumbling with the phone to dial 911.
> 
> It is cathartic to fantasize about what _should be done_ in an unfair and unjust world and it is quite another thing to act upon it.
> 
> Whether you like to admit it or not, we have evolved as a society. In doing this, lawless, knee jerk vigilantism went the way of the dodo. No right wing fear mongering government is going to bring it back.


Even if that is the case for some here, that doesn't negate the fact that it should be a homeowner's right to defend them and theirs.

An Ontario court recently (September 2011) rejected a guilty verdict, with the presiding judge saying " I conclude that the trial judge erred in one respect: by permitting the jury to consider the appellant's failure to retreat from his home in assessing the reasonableness of the appellant's response to the threat he perceived from McNabb. That error was fatal in my view, and thus a new trial is required."

The police will still arrest first, and you'll have to prove your actions were in self defense, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Full ruling here:
R. v. Forde, 2011 ONCA 592


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

John Clay said:


> I'm sorry, but 10 or 14 years doesn't cut it. A shorter sentence is far more likely, given the pathetic sentences our justices hand out. Reform my ass - bring back the gallows.
> 
> You may want to re read that. A dwelling is a maximum life imprisonment. And we are able to use reasonable force to protect ourselves.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> My guess is, with all due respect to my fellow ehMacers, that despite all the tough (internet forum) talk, when confronted with a situation like this, most would be quivering under the bed fumbling with the phone to dial 911.
> 
> It is cathartic to fantasize about what _should be done_ in an unfair and unjust world and it is quite another thing to act upon it.
> 
> *Whether you like to admit it or not, we have evolved as a society. In doing this, lawless, knee jerk vigilantism went the way of the dodo. *No right wing fear mongering government is going to bring it back.


Too bad the criminals and home invaders didn't go the way of the Dodo or join this unattainable Nirvana of a "civilized society". LOL

Criminals know that few are armed or will not fight back and therefore will take advantage of those if targeted. What people choose to do under those circumstances is their business, but those that choose to defend deserve and are entitled to that choice.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

DR Hannon said:


> John Clay said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but 10 or 14 years doesn't cut it. A shorter sentence is far more likely, given the pathetic sentences our justices hand out. Reform my ass - bring back the gallows.
> ...


From what I've read over the years, judges here rarely impose maximum sentences for non-lethal crimes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

John Clay said:


> IMO, there's only one way to look at this:
> 
> The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.
> 
> If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.





kps said:


> +1000





SINC said:


> +1,000! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


What makes your stuff so valuable that it worth more than a human life? How little is human life worth in your realms?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

BigDL said:


> What makes your stuff so valuable that it worth more than a human life? How little is human life worth in your realms?


A burglar's life isn't worth the gunk on the bottom of my shoes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> A burglar's life isn't worth the gunk on the bottom of my shoes.


Agreed. Low life scum who deserve more than they ever get. If they got 20 years for their first simple break-in they might, just might learn to leave others people homes and possessions alone.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

you guys need to watch this film :


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I remember that movie...never saw it tho, you know us conservatives, eh...we can't read the subtitles 'cause they go by so fast.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Never got past the first five minutes of any sub-titled movie. If they can't be bothered making an english copy, I can't be bothered watching.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)




----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

John Clay said:


> IMO, there's only one way to look at this:
> 
> The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.
> 
> If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.


+ 1,000,000



John Clay said:


> Even if that is the case for some here, that doesn't negate the fact that it should be a homeowner's right to defend them and theirs.
> 
> An Ontario court recently (September 2011) rejected a guilty verdict, with the presiding judge saying " I conclude that the trial judge erred in one respect: by permitting the jury to consider the appellant's failure to retreat from his home in assessing the reasonableness of the appellant's response to the threat he perceived from McNabb. That error was fatal in my view, and thus a new trial is required."
> 
> ...


+ 1,000,001



John Clay said:


> A burglar's life isn't worth the gunk on the bottom of my shoes.


+ 1,000,002



SINC said:


> Agreed. Low life scum who deserve more than they ever get. If they got 20 years for their first simple break-in they might, just might learn to leave others people homes and possessions alone.


+ 1,000,003



kps said:


> I remember that movie...never saw it tho, you know us conservatives, eh...we can't read the subtitles 'cause they go by so fast.


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

John Clay said:


> A burglar's life isn't worth the gunk on the bottom of my shoes.


Many people share this sentiment --at least until it's your kid sneaking into his girlfriend's house who gets blown away as a burglar.

As someone has already pointed out, the law does allow citizens under imminent threat to take appropriate measures to protect themselves. That doesn't include premeditated use of deadly force.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mythtaken said:


> Many people share this sentiment --at least until it's your kid sneaking into his girlfriend's house who gets blown away as a burglar.
> 
> As someone has already pointed out, the law does allow citizens under imminent threat to take appropriate measures to protect themselves. That doesn't include premeditated use of deadly force.


No one is asking for the right to 'premeditated use of deadly force'. What is sought is relief from trumped up charges against them when they actually try to defend themselves with even just bear spray or a golf club or bat, by overzealous crown attorneys.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> No one is asking for the right to 'premeditated use of deadly force'.


really? it kind of looks like you guys are.



John Clay said:


> The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life.





kps said:


> +1000





SINC said:


> +1,000! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:





Joker Eh said:


> + 1,000,000


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

As the OP, SINC is correct. However we did veer off and went on several tangents, I wonder why that was? Inevitability of the thread taking on a somewhat philosophical nature notwithstanding.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

i-rui said:


> really? it kind of looks like you guys are.


really? someone breaking into your house and you defending is 'premeditated' on the person who is defending himself? wow that is one convoluted thought.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

...because some want to get away murder under the guise of "oh wait *I'm the victim here."*

Of course these folks always believe they have the moral high ground. To insure that they dehumanize people they don't approve, stereotype them and then scape goat them. Gee, now where did that happen before? Every genocide maybe?

For people like this they want a clear pass. These folks don't want to take any responsibility. These folks insist no one may challenge them and definitely they have no desire to be found wanting and have court prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to their liabilities. They prefer to wallow in victimization and oh yeah have a clear pass.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> really? someone breaking into your house and you defending is 'premeditated' on the person who is defending himself? wow that is one convoluted thought.


you're right, "premeditated" does have a specific meaning which might not be met, but you guys are advocating that simply by breaking into someone's house the burglar deserves to be killed. there is no scale of appropriate response to the threat shown with that kind of rhetoric.

if a burglar actually comes at a homeowner and threatens his well being then i don't have a problem with the home owner using whatever means necessary to protect himself - but that is miles away from killing a burglar who tries to flee once he realizes he's been detected. force should only be used where appropriate. it's not carte blanche.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> ...because some want to get away murder under the guise of "oh wait *I'm the victim here."*
> 
> Of course these folks always believe they have the moral high ground. To insure that they dehumanize people they don't approve, stereotype them and then scape goat them. Gee, now where did that happen before? Every genocide maybe?
> 
> For people like this they want a clear pass. These folks don't want to take any responsibility. These folks insist no one may challenge them and definitely they have no desire to be found wanting and have court prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to their liabilities. They prefer to wallow in victimization and oh yeah have a clear pass.


With that kind of convoluted logic, I suppose the next time you see a car threatening to run you down in the street, you'll stand still and get hit, since we all should just idly stand by and let it happen without taking any evasive action to defend or protect ourselves.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> ...because some want to get away murder under the guise of "oh wait *I'm the victim here."*
> 
> Of course these folks always believe they have the moral high ground. To insure that they dehumanize people they don't approve, stereotype them and then scape goat them. Gee, now where did that happen before? Every genocide maybe?
> 
> For people like this they want a clear pass. These folks don't want to take any responsibility. These folks insist no one may challenge them and definitely they have no desire to be found wanting and have court prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to their liabilities. They prefer to wallow in victimization and oh yeah have a clear pass.


How did we get to genocide now...?

My only comment on this post is:


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> ...because some want to get away murder under the guise of "oh wait *I'm the victim here."*
> 
> Of course these folks always believe they have the moral high ground. To insure that they dehumanize people they don't approve, stereotype them and then scape goat them. Gee, now where did that happen before? Every genocide maybe?
> 
> For people like this they want a clear pass. These folks don't want to take any responsibility. These folks insist no one may challenge them and definitely they have no desire to be found wanting and have court prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to their liabilities. They prefer to wallow in victimization and oh yeah have a clear pass.


Let me make this clear. No one here wants to get away with murder or dehumanize anyone. Let me be clear, life is precious and I want everyone to live a long and happy life. 

But if some person comes and tries to harm you in your house I am sorry you have every right to protect your family, yourself and your property. What happens to that person who attacked you has lost his right and should have thought about the consequences before his actions.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

i-rui said:


> you're right, "premeditated" does have a specific meaning which might not be met, but you guys are advocating that simply by breaking into someone's house the burglar deserves to be killed. there is no scale of appropriate response to the threat shown with that kind of rhetoric.
> 
> if a burglar actually comes at a homeowner and threatens his well being then i don't have a problem with the home owner using whatever means necessary to protect himself - *but that is miles away from killing a burglar who tries to flee once he realizes he's been detected*. force should only be used where appropriate. it's not carte blanche.


I would agree with you there. But the 3 idiots who attacked Mr. Thomas were out to do serious harm. A burglar is different from someone fire bombing your house. Would you agree?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i've already said that i wish the prosecution would drop the charges against Ian Thomsom as i don't see it serving the public good. (unless the public doesn't know all the facts of the case, which is entirely possible).

but at the same time i think his case is an exception, and not indicative of any serious problem in our legal system or laws.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i've already said that i wish the prosecution would drop the charges against Ian Thomsom as i don't see it serving the public good. (unless the public doesn't know all the facts of the case, which is entirely possible).
> 
> but at the same time i think his case is an exception, and not indicative of any serious problem in our legal system or laws.


Prosecutors and/or policemen who suffer from God Syndrome are indeed a very serious problem and a method for rooting them out and terminating their mis-services needs to be implemented. Asking their victims to pay to be abused is absolutely obscene. 

The fact that it is not a common problem does not mean a remedy is not required.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Let me make this clear. No one here wants to get away with murder or dehumanize anyone. Let me be clear, life is precious and I want everyone to live a long and happy life...


Sorry but the dehumanizing has already begun. This is why I was responded in the manner I did.



John Clay said:


> *A burglar's life isn't worth the gunk on the bottom of my shoes.*






SINC said:


> *Agreed. Low life scum who deserve more than they ever get. If they got 20 years for their first simple break-in they might, just might learn to leave others people homes and possessions alone*





Joker Eh;1167435[B said:


> ...But if some person comes and tries to harm you in your house I am sorry you have every right to protect your family, yourself and your property. What happens to that person who attacked you has lost his right and should have thought about the consequences before his actions[/B]


"Gunk on the bottom my shoe" and "Low life scum" sounds very dehumanizing to me and should to many others. 

Perhaps it escaped your notice because it's "everyday usage of language." Draw it to someone's attention and the good ol' political correctness complaint is raised.

When a human life is no longer human life, it becomes a lot easier to destroy it and destroying becomes more justifiable to the perpetrator. 

As the laws are enacted today you may kill people who mean you harm. Your stuff not so much. Your actions and your mindset will be scrutinized and approved or not. 

Sounds like to me some people want the laws changed so there is no scrutiny and folks have carte blance to hunt down and murder human beings given a set of well defined parameters. Then wallow in "I'm a victim, I'm a victim I'm justified." After all I was only getting rid of the "gunk on the bottom of my shoe" or "low life scum."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Sounds like to me some people want the laws changed so there is no scrutiny and folks have carte blance to hunt down and murder human beings given a set of well defined parameters. Then wallow in "I'm a victim, I'm a victim I'm justified." After all I was only getting rid of the "gunk on the bottom of my shoe" or "low life scum."


So just what do YOU call a person who is a home invader, holds people hostage in their own home, sexually assaults the women, then steals your vehicle and takes your kids hostage?

Oh, I see, you say, excuse me kind sir, but I wish you wouldn't do things like that, it's not politcally correct?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Prosecutors and/or policemen who suffer from God Syndrome are indeed a very serious problem and a method for rooting them out and terminating their mis-services needs to be implemented. Asking their victims to pay to be abused is absolutely obscene.
> 
> The fact that it is not a common problem does not mean a remedy is not required.


sure, but that issue is not *specific* to the issue of home owners getting charged with defending their home.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> Sounds like to me some people want the laws changed so there is no scrutiny and folks have carte blance to hunt down and murder human beings given a set of well defined parameters. Then wallow in "I'm a victim, I'm a victim I'm justified." After all I was only getting rid of the "gunk on the bottom of my shoe" or "low life scum."


No one said hunt down. You are stretching it here.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Prosecutors and/or policemen who suffer from God Syndrome are indeed a very serious problem and a method for rooting them out and terminating their mis-services needs to be implemented. Asking their victims to pay to be abused is absolutely obscene.
> 
> The fact that it is not a common problem does not mean a remedy is not required.





i-rui said:


> sure, but that issue is not *specific* to the issue of home owners getting charged with defending their home.


It does indeed relate. It is abuse of power to use the legal system to harass homeowners who defend their homes and families. 

The abusers need to be permanently separated from their power to abuse. Beyond losing their jobs, penalties should be every bit as severe as say for a hockey coach that uses his position of authority to sexually assault some of his players.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i didn't say it doesn't relate, simply that it's not specific.

abuse of authority is a problem where ever it happens, whether it's at a traffic stop, jailhouse, back alley or a court room.

it's a larger issue than the one being discussed here.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> So just what do YOU call a person who is a home invader, holds people hostage in their own home, sexually assaults the women, then steals your vehicle and takes your kids hostage?
> 
> Oh, I see, you say, excuse me kind sir, but I wish you wouldn't do things like that, it's not politcally correct?


Vigilante, lawless, rapist, kidnapper and thief? Are these words not sufficiently pejorative?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Vigilante, lawless, rapist, kidnapper and thief? Are these words not sufficiently pejorative?


Sure, but what do you say or do to him when he invades your private space? Please don't do that sir? Or do you smack him with a bat?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i didn't say it doesn't relate, simply that it's not specific.
> 
> abuse of authority is a problem where ever it happens, whether it's at a traffic stop, jailhouse, back alley or a court room.
> 
> it's a larger issue than the one being discussed here.


It is the very heart of what is being discussed here. Every case discussed involved that abuse of power arrayed against individuals who defended their property or in some cases the lives of themselves and their families against common criminals.

The legal system protecting criminals by attacking those who were being victimized by the criminals defies all logic.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> The legal system protecting criminals by attacking those who were being victimized by the criminals defies all logic.


the legal system is not protecting criminals. in both cases the criminals were charged with offences.

if your point is that the prosecutors in the David Chen case overstepped their bounds then i agree with you. In the Ian Thomson case we don't yet know all the details, but given what we know I'd say it should be dropped as well. 

But those are specific cases and we shouldn't form laws on specific cases. I don't have a problem with charges being laid in cases where a home owner *does* overstep what could be considered reasonable force against a burglar. just because someone breaks into your house it doesn't mean they forfeit their life as others have suggested. The courts are there to rule on incidents on where that might be the case. It's an imperfect system, but i don't see an alternative. The world is a complicated place.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Please define "overstep". That is key to the discussion.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

i-rui said:


> The world is a complicated place.


As has been discussed earlier in this thread, complexity is the realm of liberalism and intellectual elitists.

For conservatives, it's simple black-and-white.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Joker Eh said:


> really? someone breaking into your house and you defending is 'premeditated' on the person who is defending himself? wow that is one convoluted thought.


If someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, you have every right to defend yourself by hitting him with a chair or throwing something at him in an effort to either chase him away or give you a chance to escape. Keeping a 9mm or a 12gauge by your bed in case someone breaks into your house and threatens you is indeed premeditated.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> As has been discussed earlier in this thread, complexity is the realm of liberalism and intellectual elitists.
> 
> For conservatives, it's simple black-and-white.


...don't forget right and *wronged*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mythtaken said:


> If someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, you have every right to defend yourself by hitting him with a chair or throwing something at him in an effort to either chase him away or give you a chance to escape. Keeping a 9mm or a 12gauge by your bed in case someone breaks into your house and threatens you is indeed premeditated.


So, picking up a chair to use as a weapon isn't premeditated? Or throwing a glass vase at him? How silly. Your theory is dead in the water. Once you pick up something with intent to scare him or indeed even do minor harm, it becomes premeditated. That also includes a bat, golf club or a firearm. It's ALL premeditated. And that should be any citizen's right to do so without fear of prosecution by some overzealous crown attorney trying to make a name for himself. It then becomes retaliation by law.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It's ALL premeditated. And that should be any citizen's right to do so without fear of prosecution by some overzealous crown attorney trying to make a name for himself. It then becomes retaliation by law.


The law clearly recognizes the difference between responding to a threat with an improvised weapon (either reasonably or unreasonably) and going through the process of getting a licence for a gun, going and buying a gun, going and buying ammunition, storing the gun and ammunition in a way that facilitates your begin able to put the two together in a matter of minutes or seconds, and shooting at someone.

Don't try to confuse the issue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm not confused in any way, but you seem to be. The law is confusing. You can indeed be charged with assault with a deadly weapon for using a bat or a golf club if you strike an intruder in your own home. Ditto for a kitchen knife. Forget guns, most people don't have them, nor use them. The issue is about self defence, not firearms.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

A criminal who commits a crime of violence against another person retaining any rights what so ever, biggest ****ing joke going. 

Not one single rational or reasonable argument can be made as to why I should not be allowed to kill your stupid ass if you break into my house with the intent to harm people inside and commit a crime. None, period. 

Reasonable and equal force, go **** yourself. People who make that statement and use that rationale have never been in a fight with someone wielding a deadly weapon. Try it sometime, see how _reasonable_ you are.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> a criminal who commits a crime of violence against another person retaining any rights what so ever, biggest ****ing joke going.
> 
> Not one single rational or reasonable argument can be made as to why i should not be allowed to kill your stupid ass if you break into my house with the intent to harm people inside and commit a crime. None, period.
> 
> Reasonable and equal force, go **** yourself. People who make that statement and use that rationale have never been in a fight with someone wielding a deadly weapon. Try it sometime, see how _reasonable_ you are.


+1...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Lots of fail in this thread...

Do cops throw chairs? Do cops shoot to scare? Do cops shoot to wound? Do cops disarm threats by shooting knives or guns out of someone's hands? 

NO!

Those kind of tactics were proven to be stupid, dangerous and not to work, long, long time ago. When cops defend or neutralize a threat which requires deadly force, they do just that...use deadly force by shooting the central mass. End of story.

As a citizen defending your family and home, you have just as much right to neutralize a threat as the police and by whatever means available to you. If it's a firearm, so be it. 

All you wannabe intellectual elites and philosophers can continue to side with the criminals over law abiding citizens. Just hope that you're never in a situation where you need to put your harebrained theories and political correctness to the test.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Earlier in this thread I linked to a story from 2 years ago in which an 80 year old woman stabbed a man who was not even in her house, but attempting to break in.

This woman stabbed the man repeatedly with a *Pitch Fork.* 

This woman not only had the intent to seriously harm the man but followed through with the action of stabbing the intruder with a *Pitch Fork.*

This incident was investigated by the police and the woman was cleared of any malfeasance of wielding a *Pitch Fork* in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada.

She committed this act of self defence under the current law covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. The intruder was charged and convicted under the same criminal code.

Now when she went to the door she did not have a *Pitch Fork* in her hand. When she realised the person at the door was breaking in, she picked up the weapon (did I mention her weapon of choice was) a *Pitch Fork* and stabbed the man.

Under the Criminal Code you have to satisfy two conditions to have violated the law. A guilty act and a guilty mind.

When you set out with a weapon, say a bat or golf club, you are going down the road of having a guilty mind. Why would you have a weapon in your hand if weren't planning on use it?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> When you set out with a weapon, say a bat or golf club, you are going down the road of having a guilty mind. Why would you have a weapon in your hand if weren't planning on use it?


I guess you've never been a boy scout...it's called being prepared, and you're right...you shouldn't have a weapon in your hand if you're not prepared to use it. 

"guilty mind"...wtf?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I guess feeble arguments require large type. It reminds me of people who shout in all caps. It accomplishes nothing and makes them look foolish.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

John Clay said:


> From what I've read over the years, judges here rarely impose maximum sentences for non-lethal crimes.



Was only pointing out that we have laws in place that should be enforced. I was not trying to steal anyone's thunder. It would just be nice if there was an actual message sent out this was not tolerable.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> When you set out with a weapon, say a bat or golf club, you are going down the road of having a guilty mind. Why would you have a weapon in your hand if weren't planning on use it?


Christ, hope you're not a lawyer. lol


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> When you set out with a weapon, say a bat or golf club, you are going down the road of having a guilty mind. Why would you have a weapon in your hand if weren't planning on use it?


A guilty mind? LOL! What a dumb statement! When one picks up a weapon, one takes a possible advantage over an intruder of having an alternative to a threat upon his or her own body. If that threat proves to be real and the weapon is used, there is zero guilt in defending oneself. That kind of thinking is utter bull chit.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Christ, hope you're not a lawyer. lol


No, I'm not a lawyer and I have never played one on TV. 



SINC said:


> A guilty mind? LOL! What a dumb statement! When one picks up a weapon, one takes a possible advantage over an intruder of having an alternative to a threat upon his or her own body. If that threat proves to be real and the weapon is used, there is zero guilt in defending oneself. That kind of thinking is utter bull chit.


If it were a dumb statement then I wouldn't have uttered it. Silly!

The actual legal term in Latin is "Mens Rea" which translates as guilty mind or state of mind. Definition of Mens Rea

For more info on Mens Rea .... and Canadian Criminal Code including Mens Rea

Who knew


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> No, I'm not a lawyer and I have never played one on TV.
> 
> If it were a dumb statement then I wouldn't have uttered it. Silly!
> 
> ...


Mens Rea has nothing to do with defending oneself. Defining the term in Latin does not make it applicable to this question.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Mens Rea has nothing to do with defending oneself. Defining it here serves no purpose.


 :clap: Brilliant 

I now see why this discussion has gone on as long as it has, I now see why the conservatives want simple laws. Need them right/wrong, off/on, 0/1 black/white answers.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

bigdl said:


> :clap: Brilliant
> 
> i now see why this discussion has gone on as long as it has, i now see why the conservatives want simple laws. Need them right/wrong, off/on, 0/1 black/white answers.


+1


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> I now see why this discussion has gone on as long as it has, I now see why the conservatives want simple laws. Need them right/wrong, off/on, 0/1 black/white answers.


Ah, the truth comes out, this is a "us vs. them" issue....is that correct? Are you trying to polarize the participants here by somehow making it a partisan issue?

Your warped sense of ideals would have us believe that anyone defending their life, family and home must be an evil conservative with murderous intent. The old "guilty mind"...mens rea...whatever...lol

Amazing all that coming from a guy that used to recruit for one of the most violent, mob controlled and criminally corrupt unions that ever existed. How much bloodshed was spilled in their name? Do you know where Jimmy is, per chance?

Not surprised you side with the criminals against the law abiding citizen...or is it quilt
and remorse driving you?


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> If it were a dumb statement then I wouldn't have uttered it. Silly!


Jesus man, rly? 

Threads kinda run it's course what with, well.... ya..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> :clap: Brilliant
> 
> I now see why this discussion has gone on as long as it has, I now see why the conservatives want simple laws. Need them right/wrong, off/on, 0/1 black/white answers.


.

Which has exactly WHAT to do with attempting to apply mens rea to to this discussion? Establishing the definition of the term does not establish the guilt of someone defending him/herself--this is the type of simple ON/OFF logic you decry.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Not surprised you side with the criminals against the law abiding citizen.


Very interesting . . .


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

bryanc said:


> The law clearly recognizes the difference between responding to a threat with an improvised weapon (either reasonably or unreasonably) and going through the process of getting a licence for a gun, going and buying a gun, going and buying ammunition, storing the gun and ammunition in a way that facilitates* your begin able to put the two together in a matter of minutes or seconds, and shooting at someone*.
> 
> Don't try to confuse the issue.


You can't. you don't have minutes in the situation you describe. And you wouldn't be able to unlock two safes, the gun, and load it in time. Not many people would be able to in the heat of the moment do all that.

But you would see a difference in taking my golf club beside my bed and sneaking up behind some intruder and going for the long drive competition on his head?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> Earlier in this thread I linked to a story from 2 years ago in which an 80 year old woman stabbed a man who was not even in her house, but attempting to break in.
> 
> This woman stabbed the man repeatedly with a *Pitch Fork.*
> 
> ...


You don't have a weapon in hand when someone breaks into your house. You acted on the criminal action. 

Someone breaks into your house, tries to harm you in any way, in my book has lost all rights afforded to him.

The VICTIM(s) should not have to defend his/her actions for protecting his/her life which was peaceful until the criminal decided to disregard the law.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I tend to lean to the left on a lot of issues.

On this one though... if it's well after dark, my kids and wife are sleeping, and someone _breaks_ into my house (Smashes window or door)... all bets are off. I'm taking that person out 100 different ways, improvised or not. Any law on the books be damned. 

I know a lot of issues aren't black and white and they are not simple, but my families safety *IS* an on/off, black/white issue. Not a single person in the world has *any* business _breaking_ into my house in the wee hours of the morning. Anyone may still knock on my door, give me a call. A teenage boyfriend throwing pebbles at the window is one thing, but breaking into my house? Nuh-uh. No way. 

My house is setup that if one of my kids were out late, they'd have a key to get back in, or would be free to knock on the door and call on the phone. Door would be opened and no questions asked. If a window or door quietly slides open, I'd give a verbal.."Is that you", but if I hear a window smashed etc.. I'm asking questions later... if the the person breaking in can still hear the question after I'm done.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

ehMax said:


> I tend to lean to the left on a lot of issues.
> 
> On this one though... if it's well after dark, my kids and wife are sleeping, and someone _breaks_ into my house (Smashes window or door)... all bets are off. I'm taking that person out 100 different ways, improvised or not. Any law on the books be damned.
> 
> ...


Can I get an Alleluia!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Add one more please. :clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Can I get an Alleluia!


Alleluia!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think that classical liberalism is an admirable doctrine, but on issues like this, outliers in the liberal sphere give that philosophy a bad name by advocating on the side of criminals, thieves and hooligans. 

If even this is an area too grey to weigh in on clearly, then what hope do such people have of addressing any issue meaningfully?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think that classical liberalism is an admirable doctrine, but on issues like this, outliers in the liberal sphere give that philosophy a bad name by advocating on the side of criminals, thieves and hooligans.
> 
> If even this is an area too grey to weigh in on clearly, then what hope do such people have of addressing any issue meaningfully?


Well put MF.

Interesting that these are the same people who scream loudest at the police and state for civil rights abuses during the G8/G20 fiasco, but are just fine with citizens being charged with ridiculous and unwarranted "paper" crimes just because they defended themselves from a violent attack by criminals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> All you wannabe intellectual elites and philosophers can continue to side with the criminals over law abiding citizens.


I guess all that 'gray matter' clouds the issue for them kps.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

did Spike TV run a Death Wish marathon last week or something?

who knew ehmac was so blood thirsty?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess all that 'gray matter' clouds the issue for them kps.


...or the lack of.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> did Spike TV run a Death Wish marathon last week or something?
> 
> who knew ehmac was so blood thirsty?


Nah, I think it stems from the abortion debate in the political thread.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

i-rui said:


> did Spike TV run a Death Wish marathon last week or something?
> 
> who knew ehmac was so* blood thirsty*?


why is it those who defends themselves are considered blood thirsty?


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

ehMax said:


> I tend to lean to the left on a lot of issues.
> 
> On this one though... if it's well after dark, my kids and wife are sleeping, and someone _breaks_ into my house (Smashes window or door)... all bets are off. I'm taking that person out 100 different ways, improvised or not. Any law on the books be damned.


Well said. This gets to the very heart of the debate. I doubt that anyone here would disagree with the sentiment of your post (certainly not I). However, in putting that sentiment into action, you admit that you may be acting contrary to the law. There are consequences for that, whether you agree with them or not. 

It is a fairly black and white issue. There are things you may do to defend yourself that are within the limits of the law and there are things you could do which are beyond the limits of the law. If you choose the latter, you must be prepared to accept both the responsibility and the consequences.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mythtaken said:


> It is a fairly black and white issue. There are things you may do to defend yourself that are within the limits of the law and there are things you could do which are beyond the limits of the law. If you choose the latter, you must be prepared to accept both the responsibility and the consequences.


Isn't that the whole point of the discussion? The law is wrong and needs to be updated to decriminalize self defence.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Well put MF.
> 
> Interesting that these are the same people who scream loudest at the police and state for civil rights abuses during the G8/G20 fiasco, but are just fine with citizens being charged with ridiculous and unwarranted "paper" crimes just because they defended themselves from a violent attack by criminals.


The "right wing" way of thinking has worked wonders stateside however. I'll take our 50+ murders a year here in Toronto next to some of their cities hitting over 500 a year any day.

This is a tough issue to figure out. And labelling those perceived 'left' of the issue as siding with the criminals just shows a lack of any real foundation for your position. When in doubt, pull the hitler card, or, say we love terrorists, "taliban jack' (only to discover it being used by the same arses that screamed about it...) whatever abel you can heap to bolster your own position.

To any of the ones that yearn for the society that encourages property owners to arm themselves to protect their property should educate themselves about the vast number of incidents where, it doesn't go well. WHile I would want to be able to protect my family and house against violent intruders, there's a fine balance here. It sounds great to mouth off that you wanna go down with a shotgun to meet that SOB breaking into your house, but it just isn't that simple. I personally know more than one person who is dead because of it.

I don't know the details of the cases in the OP. I can't comment on it. But the day I go to someone's door to have a gun shoved in my face is the day I pack my bags for a saner country.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ehMax said:


> I tend to lean to the left on a lot of issues.
> 
> On this one though... if it's well after dark, my kids and wife are sleeping, and someone _breaks_ into my house (Smashes window or door)... all bets are off. I'm taking that person out 100 different ways, improvised or not. Any law on the books be damned.
> 
> ...


 
I'd hate to be your daughter's boyfriend (assuming your daughter was a teen and I was teen), who sneaks in at night then...

Nothing is ever black and white and that is why our laws allow for the grey in between.

I know I've read too many articles where Mr. X was approaching the house of Mrs. Y and she was supposedly scare for her life and killed Mr. X dead, just for approaching her house. Or Mr. Reposession man gets shot for repossessing Mr. Z's car. 

Nothing is EVER black and white.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Kosh said:


> I'd hate to be your daughter's boyfriend (assuming your daughter was a teen and I was teen), who sneaks in at night then...
> 
> Nothing is ever black and white and that is why our laws allow for the grey in between.


As I said, it's a tough one. I'm agreement with ehmax in that I'd do whatever is possible to stop an intruder. 

ut you're right oo, and this is where the problem exists. Too many people just have a simplistic approach that has been shown to be disastrous in many ways.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Kosh said:


> *I'd hate to be your daughter's boyfriend, who sneaks in at night then...*
> 
> Nothing is ever black and white and that is why our laws allow for the grey in between.


Then you should get a bat to the head. What balls does a person have to sneak into someones house? Who do you think you are in doing so? it is black and white to me, don't *enter* someone's house without their permission, it is so simple.

That's the problem some people don't think of the consequences of one's actions.

Think before you say or do.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> The "right wing" way of thinking has worked wonders stateside however. I'll take our 50+ murders a year here in Toronto next to some of their cities hitting over 500 a year any day.
> 
> This is a tough issue to figure out. And labelling those perceived 'left' of the issue as siding with the criminals just shows a lack of any real foundation for your position. When in doubt, pull the hitler card, or, say we love terrorists, "taliban jack' (only to discover it being used by the same arses that screamed about it...) whatever abel you can heap to bolster your own position.
> 
> ...


You can be such a drama queen at times...

It wasn't me or even MF who polarized the debate, re-read the thread, then get back to me.

I would have been very happy if the left/right issue was left out of it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> As I said, it's a tough one. I'm agreement with ehmax in that I'd do whatever is possible to stop an intruder.


See, I wouldn't risk my own safety stopping an intruder. I'd try to get the hell AWAY from the intruder.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> See, I wouldn't risk my own safety stopping an intruder. I'd try to get the hell AWAY from the intruder.


...and if he's between you and your kids...what then?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mythtaken said:


> It is a fairly black and white issue. There are things you may do to defend yourself that are within the limits of the law and there are things you could do which are beyond the limits of the law. If you choose the latter, you must be prepared to accept both the responsibility and the consequences.


No. The problem is that the law is being misapplied, not that the defender is acting against the law in defending him/herself.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sonal said:


> See, I wouldn't risk my own safety stopping an intruder. I'd try to get the hell AWAY from the intruder.


I really don't think blanket statements are possible. My home allows for several possible quick exits but if my wifes safety was threatened, I would do whatever I could to protect her. Even if the criminal was seriously or even permanently inconvenienced in the process.

I am pretty sure that the more passive members, would find explaining to their wives or children why they stood by and did nothing, would be an exercise in futility.

Something else to consider is that rural residents have to rely on their own resources. When I lived 10 miles from the nearest law enforcement and half of that was gravel roads, my phone call would have been to my red-neck neighbour. He would probably have called the Sheriff but in the meantime would have shown up less than minute later armed for bear.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> ...and if he's between you and your kids...what then?


Hide until such time that I can grab the kids and get them the hell away from him.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> I really don't think blanket statements are possible. My home allows for several possible quick exits but if my wifes safety was threatened, I would do whatever I could to protect her. Even if the criminal was seriously or even permanently inconvenienced in the process.
> 
> I am pretty sure that the more passive members, would find explaining to their wives or children why they stood by and did nothing, to be an exercise in futility.


You all seem to assume that by confronting the intruder, you'd be able to do him some kind of harm.

I assume the opposite.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> You all seem to assume that by confronting the intruder, you'd be able to do him some kind of harm.
> 
> I assume the opposite.


Smart. It seems a lot of people have seen too many Rambo movies and automatically assume they can go down and point a gun and blow the intruder away. Quite often the very opposite occurs, and wouldn't have occurred if they didn't play cowboy.

It was said you can't blanket a situation with one school of thought, I agree with that. In the US, for every successful intruder confrontation, there's far more not so successful ones that's for sure.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> You can be such a drama queen at times...
> 
> It wasn't me or even MF who polarized the debate, re-read the thread, then get back to me.
> 
> I would have been very happy if the left/right issue was left out of it.


drama queen? Look who's talkin bub 

I don't have time to figure out who said what, but you guys sure liked playing ball regardless.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> I really don't think blanket statements are possible. My home allows for several possible quick exits but if my wifes safety was threatened, I would do whatever I could to protect her. Even if the criminal was seriously or even permanently inconvenienced in the process.
> 
> I am pretty sure that the more passive members, would find explaining to their wives or children why they stood by and did nothing, would be an exercise in futility.
> 
> Something else to consider is that rural residents have to rely on their own resources. When I lived 10 miles from the nearest law enforcement and half of that was gravel roads, my phone call would have been to my red-neck neighbour. He would probably have called the Sheriff but in the meantime would have shown up less than minute later armed for bear.


Yeah, bear defence...always worthwhile. <insert thumb up smily>


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Hide until such time that I can grab the kids and get them the hell away from him.


You're awakened by the cries of your children, the intruder is standing in the doorway of your bedroom and his partner is in the kids room down the hall....what then?

The above scenario may be extreme, but it does happen.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> drama queen? Look who's talkin bub
> 
> I don't have time to figure out who said what, but you guys sure liked playing ball regardless.


Okay, then concentrate on the ball, keep your eyes on it and you may get a home run instead of making unfounded statements based on a single post.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> why is it those who defends themselves are considered blood thirsty?


they aren't. they're fine under the law. i'm talking about everyone in this thread that thinks that a burglar forfeits their life if they enter your home. we are a civilized society and we have laws. 



Mythtaken said:


> Well said. This gets to the very heart of the debate. I doubt that anyone here would disagree with the sentiment of your post (certainly not I). However, in putting that sentiment into action, you admit that you may be acting contrary to the law. There are consequences for that, whether you agree with them or not.
> 
> It is a fairly black and white issue. There are things you may do to defend yourself that are within the limits of the law and there are things you could do which are beyond the limits of the law. If you choose the latter, you must be prepared to accept both the responsibility and the consequences.


^^this.

in fact here's a good summary :

Intruder shot dead during break-in



> Canadian law permits citizens to use force if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or serious injury. The law places limits on the amount of force a person can use, however, by saying it must only be enough to repel the danger.


and here's a couple of examples of how the law is applied :



> The issue of self-defence in a homicide came up in 2008, when two men broke into the Langdon-area home of Dan Olineck while he slept.
> 
> Lance Norton and Christopher Hanson broke in and beat up Olineck for breaking up with Norton's pregnant sister.
> 
> ...


*there is no problem with the law as it currently stands!* even a burglar deserves the right of trial to determine his guilt. that's how it works in a civilized society. force can only be used if there is a threat.

the national post article originally posted takes an isolated incident that is still before the court and tries to ruffle up conservative feathers with fear mongering. there is no rampant problem.



groovetube said:


> Smart. It seems a lot of people have seen too many Rambo movies and automatically assume they can go down and point a gun and blow the intruder away. Quite often the very opposite occurs, and wouldn't have occurred if they didn't play cowboy.
> 
> It was said you can't blanket a situation with one school of thought, I agree with that. In the US, for every successful intruder confrontation, there's far more not so successful ones that's for sure.


not just in the US. how about Mr. Mike Dockrill from Nova Scotia, who accidentally killed his own son while attempting to repel a break in.

Man killed during break-in gone bad | Canada | News | Toronto Sun


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Okay, then concentrate on the ball, keep your eyes on it and you may get a home run instead of making unfounded statements based on a single post.


easy now pardner. I'd say it's pretty safe to say I've seen the right resort far quicker to the 'taliban lovin criminal huggin' crap faster than I've seen the left. That may be my perspective, but in particular with this 'new government' I've seen a lot more divisive name calling stuff happening. That's not to say the left isn't guilty either.

But this issue needs to have a little more sanity and less chest thumping on how we wanna blow the intruder away. In real life I bet half of you would run away like scared girlies. In fact a few girlies I've seen were more brave than some of the tough talkin cowboys. Ever have a gun pointed at your head?

Anyway, regardless of how many 12 gauges you've shot, there is that fine balance that needs to be struck between being able to go the distance 'if it warranted it', and preventing the sort of carnage that happens south of the border. For any any of you that object to this observation clearly you've never spent any serious time down there. It ain't pretty.

I'm all for discussion and a sane policy, the idea an attacker can go after you, after trying to commit a crime is absurd. First off. We all want to be the hero and protect our loved ones, but sitting around here talkin like cowboys and what we'd do is nothing in the real world.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

It's pretty amazing what people can do when faced with a crisis. Have also read about a woman who saved her husband by whacking a grizzly on the snout.

Do read this story about an 85 year old 97 pound woman from Willow Alaska.



> An agitated moose ran down and stomped a well-known Bush pilot from Willow, but he was saved when his wife grabbed a shovel from their pickup truck and whacked the big animal until it backed off.
> 
> George Murphy, 82, and his wife, Dorothea Taylor, 85, told the story of their recent moose encounter Sunday afternoon from Murphy's hospital room in Anchorage, where he is recovering from gashes to his head and left leg as well as seven broken ribs.


Entire story here and it is worth reading:
85-year-old woman wields shovel to stop moose stomping: Mat-Su | Alaska news at adn.com


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Sonal said:


> Hide until such time that I can grab the kids and get them the hell away from him.


I know of no parent that would do this. I would think 100% would do the exact opposite.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> You're awakened by the cries of your children, the intruder is standing in the doorway of your bedroom and his partner is in the kids room down the hall....what then?
> 
> The above scenario may be extreme, but it does happen.


Where, the Wild West? 

As I said in another post, I assume that my directly confronting an intruder is a lot more likely to result in my being injured or killed than the opposite. Especially if there's 2 of them.

I'm of no use to my children if I'm dead.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Hide until such time that I can grab the kids and get them the hell away from him.


WTF??? 

THAT might just be the saddest ****in statement I've ever heard. Unless you're crippled or in someway incapable of moving under your own power, are you ****in kidding? Hide! Just ****in' WOW!!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I sense that I am the only woman in a sea of testosterone here.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Where, the Wild West?
> 
> .


Sure...here, learn from Jessie and the Wild West...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> easy now pardner. I'd say it's pretty safe to say I've seen the right resort far quicker to the 'taliban lovin criminal huggin' crap faster than I've seen the left. That may be my perspective, but in particular with this 'new government' I've seen a lot more divisive name calling stuff happening. That's not to say the left isn't guilty either.
> 
> But this issue needs to have a little more sanity and less chest thumping on how we wanna blow the intruder away. In real life I bet half of you would run away like scared girlies. In fact a few girlies I've seen were more brave than some of the tough talkin cowboys. Ever have a gun pointed at your head?
> 
> ...


This thread started out about the unfair prosecution of a firearms owner who defended against a violent attack on himself, his dogs and his property. Unfortunately we veered off in several directions, but that is to be expected. Next time we have a beer together I'll tell you a story about what happened to me in Jersey City many years ago. It's something I won't go into on a public forum.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Well, my work here is done....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> WTF???
> 
> THAT might just be the saddest ****in statement I've ever heard. Unless you're crippled or in someway incapable of moving under your own power, are you ****in kidding? Hide! Just ****in' WOW!!


I'm kind of shocked by some of the supposed men here who are already second-guessing what they would do if their families were in danger--"you don't know what you'd do in a real crisis, yadda, yadda, yadda..." If you think there's even the remotest chance that you won't have the balls to step up to the plate to defend your kids, do them a favour and give them up for adoption NOW.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> This thread started out about the unfair prosecution of a firearms owner who defended against a violent attack on himself, his dogs and his property. Unfortunately we veered off in several directions, but that is to be expected. Next time we have a beer together I'll tell you a story about what happened to me in Jersey City many years ago. It's something I won't go into on a public forum.


ah jersey city. I too had a few experiences in jersey city, but I think anyone who has spent any real time in that cesspool generally does. It makes NYC look like a quaint town. Never, have I ever seen that much razor wire in my life. 

Funny thing about new jersey as a state, just about everyone I know there, knows someone who was shot.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm kind of shocked by some of the supposed men here who are already second-guessing what they would do if their families were in danger--"you don't know what you'd do in a real crisis, yadda, yadda, yadda..." If you think there's even the remotest chance that you won't have the balls to step up to the plate to defend your kids, do them a favour and give them up for adoption NOW.





Sonal said:


> I sense that I am the only woman in a sea of testosterone here.


ha ha yeah. Just looove sitting around yakking about what der gonna do if someone der gits in der house.

Running around like scardy cats they would. Or get their heads blown off.

I shoulda, woulda I'ma gonna!

Clink! Burp.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> ha ha yeah. Just looove sitting around yakking about what der gonna do if someone der gits in der house.
> 
> Running around like scardy cats they would. Or get their heads blown off.
> 
> ...


Everyone is John Wayne is cyberspace GT.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

SINC said:


> Isn't that the whole point of the discussion? The law is wrong and needs to be updated to decriminalize self defence.


Where does it say that self defence is criminal? As I said, we have the right to protect ourselves and our families. What we don't have is the right to needlessly harm or kill another human being just because he (or she, to be fair) commits a criminal act. If what you're really looking for is the freedom to kill someone for daring to enter your domain, there's a place for you just a few hours drive to the south.



Macfury said:


> No. The problem is that the law is being misapplied, not that the defender is acting against the law in defending him/herself.


How is the law misapplied?


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Sonal said:


> I sense that I am the only woman in a sea of testosterone here.


You're also one of the few making any real world sense.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> ah jersey city. I too had a few experiences in jersey city, but I think anyone who has spent any real time in that cesspool generally does. It makes NYC look like a quaint town. Never, have I ever seen that much razor wire in my life.
> 
> Funny thing about new jersey as a state, just about everyone I know there, knows someone who was shot.


It's a sh*t hole...first and last time I attempted to sleep at the Jersey City Truck stop on 1&9..I was safer sleeping in front of Hunt's Point Market in the Bronx and Red Hook Marine terminal in Brooklyn. The only trouble I ever had in Red Hook were "the ladies" knocking on your bunk at 3 am looking for company.LOL


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Mythtaken said:


> You're also one of the few making any real world sense.


Indeed. While it's hard to anticipate how one would react to such a situation, it's also clear that if these macho men actually _did_ physically confront armed intruders, it is far more likely that they (or the children in this scenario) would get shot.

If someone has broken into your house with the intent of robbing you, do what you can to obtain evidence of their identity, and try to avoid anyone getting hurt.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Kosh said:


> I'd hate to be your daughter's boyfriend (assuming your daughter was a teen and I was teen), who sneaks in at night then...
> 
> Nothing is ever black and white and that is why our laws allow for the grey in between.
> 
> ...


From my post, there is a distinction between sneaking in and breaking in. As I said, if someone *breaks* in the house, I'm going to assume the person has ill-intent and will do what I have to and use the element of surprise to attack. For someone breaking in my house at night (Smashing a window, crow-barring a door open etc..) The issue becomes quickly black and white to me and I'll ask questions later. 

If it isn't a clear break-in, but a matter of I hear someone coming in / possibly sneaking in, I'd give a verbal warning to identify. If it was a daughters boyfriend sneaking in, I'd still hate to be them although they'd certainly live to tell the tale of her ex-girlfriends 6'7" 270 lb. father. :heybaby:

I'm going to assume that some not understanding this notion of protection simply don't have kids, and don't have the built-in instinct or whatever you want to call it. I have been in some sticky situations, and the sense to protect is absolutely overwhelming. I'd easily forfeit my life to protect without a second thought.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> WTF???
> 
> THAT might just be the saddest ****in statement I've ever heard. Unless you're crippled or in someway incapable of moving under your own power, are you ****in kidding? Hide! Just ****in' WOW!!


Please take it down just a notch or three.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Sonal said:


> Where, the Wild West?
> 
> As I said in another post, I assume that my directly confronting an intruder is a lot more likely to result in my being injured or killed than the opposite. Especially if there's 2 of them.
> 
> I'm of no use to my children if I'm dead.


I think it depends on layout of a house. If I was in a house with distinct up stairs with one flight of stairs, where my whole family slept, I would call 911 and stay upstairs with them. I wouldn't go downstairs looking for intruders. 

Some houses are differently laid out though. I'm not staying in my room if there's the possibility of an intruder going in another room. 

This happened to friends of ours, they were all upstairs and someone smashed a window. They were terrified, and called police, and the intruders left on their own. 

One of the most important rules in self defence is avoiding a dangerous situation, so it makes perfect sense to try to avoid the confrontation.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> I think it depends on layout of a house. If I was in a house with distinct up stairs with one flight of stairs, where my whole family slept, I would call 911 and stay upstairs with them. I wouldn't go downstairs looking for intruders.
> 
> Some houses are differently laid out though. I'm not staying in my room if there's the possibility of an intruder going in another room.
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree with this.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> Where does it say that self defence is criminal? As I said, we have the right to protect ourselves and our families. What we don't have is the right to needlessly harm or kill another human being just because he (or she, to be fair) commits a criminal act. If what you're really looking for is the freedom to kill someone for daring to enter your domain, there's a place for you just a few hours drive to the south.
> 
> 
> How is the law misapplied?


+1 :clap:
To remind some and to simplify for others, by the time you left middle school (or Jr. High for those of a certain age) Parents, Teachers, Principals and others instructed you *"two wrongs doesn't make it (a) right."*

As Maythtaken correctly points out, an intruder doing wrong does not make it right for the householder to do wrong.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

BigDL said:


> an intruder doing wrong does not make it right for the householder to do wrong.


I contend that a householder "doing wrong" and _preventing_ an intruder from *doing wrong* may not be "right" according to some external force, but I will personally always reserve my own right to do so. 

Anyways, I've had my fill of hypothetical intruders.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

ehMax said:


> I contend that a householder "doing wrong" and _preventing_ an intruder from *doing wrong* may not be "right" according to some external force, but I will personally always reserve my own right to do so. ...


Fill your boots, Mr. Mayor (and anyone else), if your of a mind to do so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mythtaken said:


> How is the law misapplied?


Because prosecutors maliciously attempting to prosecute the homeowner for a supposed storage violations, when the real intent is to prosecute him for defending himself.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Because prosecutors maliciously attempting to prosecute the homeowner for a supposed storage violations, when the real intent is to prosecute him for defending himself.


if there are *legitimate* concerns about how they store their guns why shouldn't they be charged for that offence?

there are reasons that those precautions are in place for gun safety and they should be enforced.

i agree that if there is no evidence that they improperly stored their weapons then, of course, there should be no charges, but how do you know thats the case?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's a knee jerk reaction by people who pine for the days of answering your door with a shotgun. Canadians, who wish they were Americans. They can have it.

I agree with you, the law is the law, and if they were found in violation, then well, I guess the only solution is either obey the law, or change the law and allow loaded weapons unlocked in the house.

That should end well...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Look where the Conservative want to go Surprise, Surprise*

Look where the Conservative Justice Minister wants to go with firing guns at thieves. Oh! Some conservatives complained this situation is being politicized, imagine the nerve of some people. 

Shooting warning shots OK...Maybe



CBCNews said:


> Justice Minister Rob Nicholson defended himself in the House of Commons Thursday after he said it's reasonable under some circumstances to fire warning shots at trespassers.
> 
> Testifying Tuesday at the House Justice committee about his bill on citizen's arrests, Nicholson said firing a warning shot is okay in some cases.
> 
> ...



What'cha thinking about your boy's politicization of the use firearms?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Conservatives Minister Politicized Use of FireArms During Robberies*

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> it's a knee jerk reaction by people who pine for the days of answering your door with a shotgun. Canadians, who wish they were Americans. They can have it.
> 
> I agree with you, the law is the law, and if they were found in violation, then well, I guess the only solution is either obey the law, or change the law and allow loaded weapons unlocked in the house.
> 
> That should end well...


Off on a tangent...once again. Social engineering for the past 12 or so years has attached a stigma to firearms ownership. This unfortunately has brought a slew of unwarranted charges against many firearms owners by the well used "catch all" charge of "unsafe storage".

Lets recap a little... Mr. Thomson was sleeping and minding his own business when three attackers started firebombing his home with HIM in it...yeah, sure... he was pining to be an American when he went to his safe and grabbed his revolver. Riiiiight. 

The prosecution contends that he did not have sufficient time to do this and therefore the firearm must have been improperly stored. Bullcr*p!

Here are the regulations, have a good look. I highlighted the pertinent parts:



> As per the Regulations:
> 
> (Section 6.) An individual may store a restricted firearm only if
> 
> ...


As you can see, there was no issue with storing the handgun, without a trigger lock and including the ammo in the safe. Had he a plain steel cabinet, not designated as a safe, then he'd have to store the handgun with a trigger lock or rendered inoperative by some other means.

As a firearms owner for many years, I've gone over this time and time again so I don't end up in such a mess facing these charges.. There is no regulation that prohibits you from storing let's say a semi-auto pistol with a charged magazine in the same safe...it just has to be a safe as per the manufacturer. There are no official requirements under the Firearms Act what determines a safe. If the manufacturer calls it a safe then it is accepted under the regulations as a safe.

As Mr. Thomson had a "safe", the prosecution can never prove that Mr. Thomson did not have sufficient time to retrieve the firearm from safe storage and load it. They were not there.

The bogus "catch all" charge is no different then when demonstrators get charged with another "catch all" charge commonly known as "disturbing the peace" many of whom didn't do anything...sound familiar?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Look where the Conservative Justice Minister wants to go with firing guns at thieves. Oh! Some conservatives complained this situation is being politicized, imagine the nerve of some people.
> 
> Shooting warning shots OK...Maybe
> 
> ...


:clap: NOW we're getting somewhere!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Look where the Conservative Justice Minister wants to go with firing guns at thieves. Oh! Some conservatives complained this situation is being politicized, imagine the nerve of some people.
> 
> 
> 
> What'cha thinking about your boy's politicization of the use firearms?


What do I think? I think he's an idiot for ever suggesting such a thing...there is no such thing as a warning shot...they *do not exist* except on the high seas when fired across the bow from a ship's canon.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Off on a tangent...once again. Social engineering for the past 12 or so years has attached a stigma to firearms ownership. This unfortunately has brought a slew of unwarranted charges against many firearms owners by the well used "catch all" charge of "unsafe storage".
> 
> Lets recap a little... Mr. Thomson was sleeping and minding his own business when three attackers started firebombing his home with HIM in it...yeah, sure... he was pining to be an American when he went to his safe and grabbed his revolver. Riiiiight.
> 
> ...


I don't think they're the same thing at all. You're really over reaching on that one.

As for the actual case, I have no comment, I don't know anything about it. If it's a bogus charge, then hopefully that'll be seen soon enough.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I don't think they're the same thing at all. You're really over reaching on that one.
> 
> As for the actual case, I have no comment, I don't know anything about it. If it's a bogus charge, then hopefully that'll be seen soon enough.


Yeah you're right, they're not the same ...disturbing the peace will get you a slap on the wrist, while unsafe storage or unsafe transport will get you 3 years in the penitentiary.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a slap on the wrist, and good luck shopping in buffalo, or taking the family to disney world.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> a slap on the wrist, and good luck shopping in buffalo, or taking the family to disney world.


Already mentioned (by yours truly) in post #51...thank you very much.

Continue to read the thread....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

big difference between, allegedly disturbing the peace, and being charged with a firearms offence. Though not much to a customs officer who asks you if you've ever been arrested or fingerprinted for anything, anything at all...

Keeping in mind, I know nothing about the current case.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

groovetube said:


> big difference between, allegedly disturbing the peace, and being charged with a firearms offence. Though not much to a customs officer who asks you if you've ever been arrested or fingerprinted for anything, anything at all...
> 
> Keeping in mind, I know nothing about the current case.


I've never been asked if I've been arrested or charged when crossing the US/Canada border, and I don't recall being asked when crossing other borders either.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Yeah you're right, they're not the same ...disturbing the peace will get you a slap on the wrist, while unsafe storage or unsafe transport will get you 3 years in the penitentiary.


i read that it's 2 years max for a 1st offence (not that anyone would ever serve that).

as for the rest of your defence of ian thomson, what are you basing your information on? have you seen the crown's case against him, or or you just going on what you've read in newspapers? i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that you might only be hearing one side of the story.

also when i read the STORAGE OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS i have a different interpretation than you do. I read it as you can only store the ammo in a safe if it's in a separate locked container.

although i do admit it is confusing and i could be wrong.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

John Clay said:


> I've never been asked if I've been arrested or charged when crossing the US/Canada border, and I don't recall being asked when crossing other borders either.


I have crossed many, many, many times as I've toured the US extensively for many years with J1, P2/P1s, and as any veteran of US border crossings will tell you, that question is a true, classic. I was asked the very same the last time at the detroit tunnel. (one I particularly dislike)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Keeping in mind, I know nothing about the current case.


Let me enlighten you:

Thread from a while ago:
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/92599-man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-masked-attackers.html

From the man's surveillance videos, what would you do Groove?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i read that it's 2 years max for a 1st offence (not that anyone would ever serve that).
> 
> as for the rest of your defence of ian thomson, what are you basing your information on? have you seen the crown's case against him, or or you just going on what you've read in newspapers? i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that you might only be hearing one side of the story.
> 
> ...


Exactly the point and why the trial has been remanded till May. The regs are confusing, period. Most of us in the firearms community have been very close to the trial.

As a licensed owner of restricted firearms and a member of the shooting community, you have to trust me on this. We went over and over this with all the powers that be and I'm accurate in what I've said. Follow only the highlighted sections and don't miss the "or". but yes very vague and confusing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

John Clay said:


> I've never been asked if I've been arrested or charged when crossing the US/Canada border, and I don't recall being asked when crossing other borders either.


I've been asked many times...but then my name is already in CPIC to which US border patrol and customs has access to.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Macfury said:


> Because prosecutors maliciously attempting to prosecute the homeowner for a supposed storage violations, when the real intent is to prosecute him for defending himself.


How exactly do you establish the Crown's intent?

I believe they charged Ian Thomson with unsafe use of a firearm. What is the problem with this? He came out of his house and fired a restricted weapon. That is against the law, plain and simple. It's up to the court to decide if the circumstances mitigated his actions.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> How exactly do you establish the Crown's intent?
> 
> I believe they charged Ian Thomson with unsafe use of a firearm. What is the problem with this? He came out of his house and fired a restricted weapon. That is against the law, plain and simple. It's up to the court to decide if the circumstances mitigated his actions.


You believe wrong...Mr. Thomson is charged with "improper storage", all other firearms related charges were dropped because the man was defending his life, the life of his dogs and his property...to which he's entitled to under the law.

Yet it's clear that the intent is to punish him further for no other reason than that he used a firearm. A firearm that he was licences to own and use.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Mythtaken said:


> How exactly do you establish the Crown's intent?
> 
> I believe they charged Ian Thomson with unsafe use of a firearm. What is the problem with this? He came out of his house and fired a restricted weapon. That is against the law, plain and simple. It's up to the court to decide if the circumstances mitigated his actions.


i think all other charges have been dropped and now it's just a charge of unsafe storage of a firearm.

apparently when police arrived there was a loaded gun on his bed (as well as the one he had on him).

under the circumstances I can understand why he had his guns loaded. IMO the charges should be dropped if it's apparent that under normal conditions he would have his guns properly stored.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i think all other charges have been dropped and now it's just a charge of unsafe storage of a firearm.
> 
> apparently when police arrived there was a loaded gun on his bed (as well as the one he had on him).
> 
> under the circumstances I can understand why he had his guns loaded. IMO the charges should be dropped if it's apparent that under normal conditions he would have his guns properly stored.


The firearm on the bed (the 9mm auto) was in use and not stored. Storage regs do not apply to a firearm in use. Just like if I transport a non-restricted rifle. I could have it on the dash of my car without a trigger lock, provided it was unloaded, but if I wanted to park my car and go get a coffee, I would have to trigger lock it, and hide it from view in the trunk or under a blanket in the back seat. Stupid eh? The firearms act is full of stupid gems like that.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> The firearm on the bed (the 9mm auto) was in use and not stored. .


well, i think the gun on the bed is probably the biggest problem the police had with him. It was loaded and could be potentially dangerous. I don't think you can just shrug it off like it was nothing.

Having said that, given the circumstances I say drop the charges, as long as it can be demonstrated that under normal circumstances he would have everything stored safely.

But again, it's a mountain out of a molehill. Ian Thomson won't see a day of jail even if he's found guilty.

I'm sure there are dozens of minority kids in the system getting railroaded worse then he is and no one is writing articles about them.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> well, i think the gun on the bed is probably the biggest problem the police had with him. It was loaded and could be potentially dangerous. I don't think you can just shrug it off like it was nothing.
> 
> Having said that, given the circumstances I say drop the charges, as long as it can be demonstrated that under normal circumstances he would have everything stored safely.
> 
> ...


I don't know...some of those "minority kids" (as you put it) seem to pack illegal, unregistered and *prohibited* firearms and I doubt they give a rat's arse about proper storage or transport. 

BTW, I answered your storage question in post #208, not sure if you saw it.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> ha ha yeah. Just looove sitting around yakking about what der gonna do if someone der gits in der house.
> 
> Running around like scardy cats they would. Or get their heads blown off.
> 
> ...


Run and leave your kids until it is safe?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

ehMax said:


> I contend that a householder "doing wrong" and _preventing_ an intruder from *doing wrong* may not be "right" according to some external force, but I will personally always reserve my own right to do so.
> 
> *Anyways, I've had my fill of hypothetical intruders. *


Amen!. TGIF!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> Run and leave your kids until it is safe?


That's what it sounds like, doesn't it?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> The firearm on the bed (the 9mm auto) was in use and not stored. Storage regs do not apply to a firearm in use. Just like if I transport a non-restricted rifle. I could have it on the dash of my car without a trigger lock, provided it was unloaded, but if I wanted to park my car and go get a coffee, I would have to trigger lock it, and hide it from view in the trunk or under a blanket in the back seat. Stupid eh? The firearms act is full of stupid gems like that.


After reading through the thread about the TO lawyer suing Apple because someone broke into his car and stole the new computer which he had left in plain view, the law does make a bit of sense. Certainly the requirements make sense from a gun owners point of view, although the gun rack in the back window of the pick-up would still indicate to would be thieves that there is a chance they might hit the jackpot.

OTH Whatever the legal requirements, transporting a supposedly unloaded firearm with the safety off makes limited sense at best. Over the years way too many rounds left forgotten in the chamber have accidentally discharged in transit, to the sorrow of more than one hunter.

_Edit: I am pretty much old school. It occurs to me that when you mentioned a trigger lock you were referring to an external device rather than the built in safety._


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> You believe wrong...Mr. Thomson is charged with "improper storage", all other firearms related charges were dropped because the man was defending his life, the life of his dogs and his property...to which he's entitled to under the law.
> 
> Yet it's clear that the intent is to punish him further for no other reason than that he used a firearm. A firearm that he was licences to own and use.


Ah. I sit corrected. The stories I read a few days ago cited unsafe use. Either way, my point still holds. He will have the opportunity to explain his side of the story and the court will make the determination as to whether the circumstances warrant waiving the punishment. 

If the circumstances were different and Mr. Thomson was just a guy off his meds, firing warning shots at attackers who turned out to be children on Halloween night, we would all be screaming for any excuse to charge him. You can't pick and choose which law to apply in which case. You must apply them all equally and let the Judicial system sort out which are right to pursue. 

Remember too, this incident is compounded by the fact Mr. Thomson chose to use a restricted weapon to scare off the firebombers. That automatically puts him and his actions under more scrutiny. 

If someone threatened to stab you and you warded him off with your pocket knife, you'd likely get a pat on the back. But if you chased him off with a automatic (switchblade) or butterfly knife, you're likely to be charged with possession of a prohibited weapon for your trouble. It may not seem just, but it is fair under the law.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> _Edit: I am pretty much old school. It occurs to me that when you mentioned a trigger lock you were referring to an external device rather than the built in safety._


Yes the external ones.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> Ah. I sit corrected. The stories I read a few days ago cited unsafe use. Either way, my point still holds. He will have the opportunity to explain his side of the story and the court will make the determination as to whether the circumstances warrant waiving the punishment.
> 
> If the circumstances were different and Mr. Thomson was just a guy off his meds, firing warning shots at attackers who turned out to be children on Halloween night, we would all be screaming for any excuse to charge him. You can't pick and choose which law to apply in which case. You must apply them all equally and let the Judicial system sort out which are right to pursue.
> 
> ...


Stick to what's at issue here and keep the dramatic hypothetical silliness out of it.

Firstly, if Mr. Thomson needed any meds, his firearms would probably have been confiscated and his license revoked prior to this. As it stands, Mr. Thomson is legally licensed to posses and use those firearms, because they happen to be classified as restricted, is irrelevant. Why should he be placed under more scrutiny than if he used a long arm or a pitch fork? This is the kind of Hoplophobia that is also at issue. A 12Ga shotgun is more deadly and far more accurate than the 38 special he grabbed out of the safe. You seem to be criminalizing him for just being a licensed firearms owner.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Stick to what's at issue here and keep the dramatic hypothetical silliness out of it.
> 
> Firstly, if Mr. Thomson needed any meds, his firearms would probably have been confiscated and his license revoked prior to this. As it stands, Mr. Thomson is legally licensed to posses and use those firearms, because they happen to be classified as restricted, is irrelevant. Why should he be placed under more scrutiny than if he used a long arm or a pitch fork? This is the kind of Hoplophobia that is also at issue. A 12Ga shotgun is more deadly and far more accurate than the 38 special he grabbed out of the safe. You seem to be criminalizing him for just being a licensed firearms owner.


I do get the feeling that had Mr. Thomson dropped a couple of bear bangers in a metal trash bin and scared the creeps off that way, he would be up on charges of illegal use of firecrackers.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> Stick to what's at issue here and keep the dramatic hypothetical silliness out of it.
> 
> Firstly, if Mr. Thomson needed any meds, his firearms would probably have been confiscated and his license revoked prior to this. As it stands, Mr. Thomson is legally licensed to posses and use those firearms, because they happen to be classified as restricted, is irrelevant. Why should he be placed under more scrutiny than if he used a long arm or a pitch fork? This is the kind of Hoplophobia that is also at issue. A 12Ga shotgun is more deadly and far more accurate than the 38 special he grabbed out of the safe. You seem to be criminalizing him for just being a licensed firearms owner.


You're right, of course. We wouldn't want to taint this thread with any drama.

Why should he be under more scrutiny for using a handgun? How about because it is a restricted weapon. Unlike the shotgun, you can't take it hunting. Unlike the shotgun, you can't walk around with it on your farm. It must remain securely stored in your home at all times. It must remain secured during transport to and from a registered pistol range which is the only place you can legally discharge it.

Nothing in what I said indicates wanting to criminalize him for being a licensed firearms owner. I respect his right to own both long guns and handguns. I'm not even saying I agree completely with the existing handgun laws. But the laws do exist and because of them Mr. Thomson is facing some questions concerning his storage and use of his restricted weapons.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> I do get the feeling that had Mr. Thomson dropped a couple of bear bangers in a metal trash bin and scared the creeps off that way, he would be up on charges of illegal use of firecrackers.


LOL, no doubt.

...and



> Ammunition is regulated under the Explosives Act, not the Firearms Act.
> The Explosives Safety and Security Branch of *Natural Resources Canada *is
> responsible for administering the Explosives Act and its Regulations.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Mythtaken said:


> You're right, of course. We wouldn't want to taint this thread with any drama.


lol


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> You're right, of course. We wouldn't want to taint this thread with any drama.
> 
> Why should he be under more scrutiny for using a handgun? How about because it is a restricted weapon. Unlike the shotgun, you can't take it hunting. Unlike the shotgun, you can't walk around with it on your farm. It must remain securely stored in your home at all times. It must remain secured during transport to and from a registered pistol range which is the only place you can legally discharge it.
> 
> Nothing in what I said indicates wanting to criminalize him for being a licensed firearms owner. I respect his right to own both long guns and handguns. I'm not even saying I agree completely with the existing handgun laws. But the laws do exist and because of them Mr. Thomson is facing some questions concerning his storage and use of his restricted weapons.


A gun, is a gun, is a gun, is a gun.

You're right, It's restricted and it's restricted because some politicians decided to make it restricted. Bill C-68 is a disaster and continues to be one. Bill c-68 also made the ammunition used in Olympic shooting competitions prohibited and illegal. Olympic shooters had to get a special exemption so they wouldn't have to travel outside the country to train. I can own a 44 Magnum but can't own a .25 cal or .32 calibre firearm. So yeah, there's lots of issues with the Firearms Act. ATTs being a huge one as well.

As far as hunting with a handgun is concerned, If I recall correctly, there is no regulation prohibiting such use. Those are provincial hunting regulations more than federal firearms regulations.

As I said, the firearms in question were in USE. He isn't charged with usage, he's charged with storage.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> lol


Birds of a feather...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> A gun, is a gun, is a gun, is a gun.
> 
> You're right, It's restricted and it's restricted because some politicians decided to make it restricted. Bill C-68 is a disaster and continues to be one. Bill c-68 also made the ammunition used in Olympic shooting competitions prohibited and illegal. Olympic shooters had to get a special exemption so they wouldn't have to travel outside the country to train. I can own a 44 Magnum but can't own a .25 cal or .32 calibre firearm. So yeah, there's lots of issues with the Firearms Act. ATTs being a huge one as well.
> 
> ...


Does not really need any special regulation. Very few hunters are good enough to get close enough to be sure of a kill with a hand gun. With just a few exceptions these are close in type weapons. Around here the majority of ranchers like to carry some sort of fairly powerful handgun, in case should they find themselves uncomfortably close to a bear or a cougar. Most likely to happen when they investigate why all those black birds are circling above the North Forty. That said, that sort of encounter happens about as often as a politician intentionally tells a truth.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Does not really need any special regulation. Very few hunters are good enough to get close enough to be sure of a kill with a hand gun. With just a few exceptions these are close in type weapons. Around here the majority of ranchers like to carry some sort of fairly powerful handgun, in case should they find themselves uncomfortably close to a bear or a cougar. Most likely to happen when they investigate why all those black birds are circling above the North Forty. That said, that sort of encounter happens about as often as a politician intentionally tells a truth.


As far as I know, ATCs (Authorization to Carry) are issued only to those with legitimate job requirements, trappers and only on the trap line and those who work in environments where there is a need for wild life defence (such as a geologist working in Polar bear country). These are for open carry and I believe there are specific conditions as to the caliber, size, etc. You also need to take an additional course.

Having said that, apparently there are those with concealed ATCs out there, consisting mostly of politicians, judges, mob witnesses, and who knows who else...

My guess the politicians are those who brought forth bill C-68...LOL


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> A gun, is a gun, is a gun, is a gun.
> 
> You're right, It's restricted and it's restricted because some politicians decided to make it restricted. Bill C-68 is a disaster and continues to be one. Bill c-68 also made the ammunition used in Olympic shooting competitions prohibited and illegal. Olympic shooters had to get a special exemption so they wouldn't have to travel outside the country to train. I can own a 44 Magnum but can't own a .25 cal or .32 calibre firearm. So yeah, there's lots of issues with the Firearms Act. ATTs being a huge one as well.
> 
> ...


Your disapproval of the law is noted. However it has no bearing on the issue of Mr. Thomson. Clearly, the police and/or CP believed there was a violation worth a charge. Hopefully the court will take the circumstances into consideration when considering it. As much as I personally hope the Crown drops those charges or at least declines to punish him, I still am glad to be in a country where we do not encourage citizens to reach for a firearm at the first sign of trouble. 

Your right on the hunting thing. I think most provinces don't specifically mention handguns because it's covered off at the federal level. (This is for visitors, so it's dumbed down a lot, but it gives the relevant information: Firearm Users Visiting Canada)

While there are some hunters and farmers/ranchers who carry handguns with them, they do so at risk of arrest, unless they possess a carry permit. As you pointed out yourself, restricted weapons are allowed for carrying because of employment or other special circumstances. I carried a gun for 10 years (younger days) and was quite surprised at just how many people out there have permits. And yes, it does require special training courses as well as annual qualifying.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> Your disapproval of the law is noted. However it has no bearing on the issue of Mr. Thomson. Clearly, the police and/or CP believed there was a violation worth a charge. Hopefully the court will take the circumstances into consideration when considering it. As much as I personally hope the Crown drops those charges or at least declines to punish him, I still am glad to be in a country where we do not encourage citizens to reach for a firearm at the first sign of trouble.


Hmmm, well you did know Mr. Thomson was also a firearms instructor and had (and I repeat myself for the nth time) legal authorization to possess those firearms...correct? He used what was available to him. What is so difficult to understand about that? Someone else in the same situation might have used a long arm or a pitch fork. So once again i will repeat myself and say that Thomson is being prosecuted and vilified by the Crown for no other reason than that he's a firearms owner.

Funny you should mention the police and the CP, according to the buzz from those close to the case, the word to charge Mr. Thomson came from someplace high up in the Ontario Ministry of Justice. The popos didn't want to charge him at all...with anything and the CP dropped all the other charges except for the paper crime of improper storage. We'll see when it's all over...I hope it ends in Mr. Thomsons favour in May when the trial resumes, that's all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mythtaken said:


> Your disapproval of the law is noted. However it has no bearing on the issue of Mr. Thomson. Clearly, the police and/or CP believed there was a violation worth a charge. Hopefully the court will take the circumstances into consideration when considering it.


Clearly, they believed they could benefit from exacting the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. They could also arrest people for spitting on the sidewalk.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

New law would allow residents to fire warning shots at suspected intruders | The Chronicle Herald

Yeah, this will end well. Rae is right. If we start letting people fire warning shots, where do you think this is going to go? You think we have gun problems now in Toronto? We'll have gun crime stats just like the US does.

This government is a disaster in shoe leather.

If the guy across the street fired a warning shot and it killed someone I loved, I'd be sure to get a chance to take care of the SOB good.

See where this goes?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> New law would allow residents to fire warning shots at suspected intruders | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> Yeah, this will end well. Rae is right. If we start letting people fire warning shots, where do you think this is going to go? You think we have gun problems now in Toronto? We'll have gun crime stats just like the US does.
> 
> ...


It's not going to go anywhere, as I pointed out already the guy is talking out of his a*ss.

No such thing as a warning shot, it's totaly moronic. Nothing to see there, move along.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Changes in the law would be a good thing--and since any new law will be "the law"--all of the legal eagles here who supported the charges will be silenced.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> It's not going to go anywhere, as I pointed out already the guy is talking out of his a*ss.
> 
> No such thing as a warning shot, it's totaly moronic. Nothing to see there, move along.


yeah, that's what was said about a number of things coming out of the Harper government. You can trust them, but I sure won't.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> yeah, that's what was said about a number of things coming out of the Harper government. You can trust them, but I sure won't.


Now you're just fear mongering...stop reading NOW.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

After the years in power and seeing the bonehead moves they made so far ramming through laws without the thought as to what could happen, I don't think it's fear mongering anymore.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

What goes up, must come down.

Firing in the air is foolish and stupid as evidenced as recently as this past December.

Shooting death of Amish girl believed to be from stray bullet

Ain't gonna happen, just like abortion rights ain't gonna be revoked.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I saw a lot of conservative chest thumping (clapping) with the suggestion so, don't be too sure.

This is a party that only minds it's steps because it knows if it ever tried to do what it wants all at once, they'd be voted out of power.

It's just that simple.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

As much as I would like to see most of C-68 (the current firearms act) dismantled, anyone familiar with firearms would not think warning shots are a good idea. We would prefer other sections of the firearms act changed. 

This is nothing more than political posturing coming from those that do not understand firearms, plain and simple. A better position would have been that if someone under duress (for whatever reason) chooses this action, consideration would be given, but charges may be pending if the negligent discharge causes death or severe injury to bystanders.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> It's not going to go anywhere, as I pointed out already the guy is talking out of his a*ss.
> 
> No such thing as a warning shot, it's totaly moronic. Nothing to see there, move along.


The Ministers comments only serve to say "release the Yahoos."

kps you repeatedly have said "there is no such thing a warning shot." Trouble is some with guns will only listen to "fire warning shots."

My father hunted *once* with a co-worker that took sound shots. What's a sound shot my father asked after one was fired, the answer you hear a sound you take a shot in that general direction. My dad said it was time to go home.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Allow warning shots.... hahahahaha Like the bullet becomes pixie dust or something because it was 'only a warning', and won't hurt or kill someone two streets over. 

omg... too funny.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The Ministers comments only serve to say "release the Yahoos."
> 
> kps you repeatedly have said "there is no such thing a warning shot." Trouble is some with guns will only listen to "fire warning shots."
> 
> My father hunted *once* with a co-worker that took sound shots. What's a sound shot my father asked after one was fired, the answer you hear a sound you take a shot in that general direction. My dad said it was time to go home.


Not sure I want to know what that "sound shooting" was all about, but I'd probably do the same as your father.

The universal distress signal is three of something, in the bush...far, far away from civilization and potential harm, it is acceptable for a hunter in distress to fire three rounds into the air as a signal for help. It is also somewhat acceptable to fire one shot in the air after you down your animal to let your companions know you need assistance in taking the carcass back to camp. This day and age most of us are using GPS units with Walkie Talkie capabilities.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Not sure I want to know what that "sound shooting" was all about, but I'd probably do the same as your father.
> 
> The universal distress signal is three of something, in the bush...far, far away from civilization and potential harm, it is acceptable for a hunter in distress to fire three rounds into the air as a signal for help. It is also somewhat acceptable to fire one shot in the air after you down your animal to let your companions know you need assistance in taking the carcass back to camp. This day and age most of us are using GPS units with Walkie Talkie capabilities.


Dad was hunting some distance away and heard the a shot and made his way back to his "hunting partner" after he heard the shot. The fellow said he heard a noise in the brush and shot at it. He called it "a sound shot."  

So my guess there are still yahoos in Canada that have FACs, guns and ammo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Dad was hunting some distance away and heard the a shot and made his way back to his "hunting partner" after he heard the shot. The fellow said he heard a noise in the brush and shot at it. He called it "a sound shot."
> 
> So my guess there are still yahoos in Canada that have FACs, guns and ammo.


Yep, there very likely are, but you really shouldn't worry much about them. They in fact, are the very least of your worries. 

You need to worry much more about that 'other guy' down the street who drives over the speed limit while texting, tuning his stereo, talking on hands free and eating a burger with a hot coffee balanced in his lap. There are more of those distracted drivers out there with the potential to kill you, than the odd gun owner in hunting season who behaves badly.

That 'other guy' is out there every single day, so be careful of REAL danger.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, there very likely are, but you really shouldn't worry much about them. They in fact, are the very least of your worries.
> 
> You need to worry much more about that 'other guy' down the street who drives over the speed limit while texting, tuning his stereo, talking on hands free and eating a burger with a hot coffee balanced in his lap. There are more of those distracted drivers out there with the potential to kill you, than the odd gun owner in hunting season who behaves badly.
> 
> That 'other guy' is out there every single day, so be careful of REAL danger.


Yes you are correct Sinc. However Sinc turn your mind to the idea that "warning shots" will not limited to hunting season, day light hours, the deep woods or the boonies. 

Were talking Yahoos here, who got out of their cars and into the coffee shop where they overhear that it's now OK to give warning shots because * that guy* in Ottawa said.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Most of us that were brought up around firearms were taught things like there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon. Never aim a gun at anybody unless you have made up your mind to shoot and when you do shoot, shoot to kill. 

In my books the creeps got off extremely lucky.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Yes you are correct Sinc. However Sinc turn your mind to the idea that "warning shots" will not limited to hunting season, day light hours, the deep woods or the boonies.
> 
> Were talking Yahoos here, who got out of their cars and into the coffee shop where they overhear that it's now OK to give warning shots because * that guy* in Ottawa said.


Like I noted, you worry too much. The chances of those you call yahoos firing warning shots is so remote it makes it practically nil. You're trying real hard to make something out of nothing.

First of all the vast majority of households do not have guns in them. And those that do, 99% of them are responsible gun owners who would never do such a thing.

Your chances of getting hurt by a shot in the air are less than winning the lottery. OTOH, be careful crossing the street every single day.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> As much as I would like to see most of C-68 (the current firearms act) dismantled, anyone familiar with firearms would not think warning shots are a good idea. We would prefer other sections of the firearms act changed.
> 
> This is nothing more than political posturing coming from those that do not understand firearms, plain and simple. A better position would have been that if someone under duress (for whatever reason) chooses this action, consideration would be given, but charges may be pending if the negligent discharge causes death or severe injury to bystanders.


Yeah, but as I said, we have a government who clearly by that video thinks it's a good idea, and they're known for ramming through legislation squashing debate and acting like children when anyone dares utter the words amendment or let's study this before making this law.

Clearly you underestimate the thigh suckingly stupid of this government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Yeah, but as I said, we have a government who clearly by that video thinks it's a good idea, and they're known for ramming through legislation squashing debate and acting like children when anyone dares utter the words amendment or let's study this before making this law.
> 
> Clearly you underestimate the thigh suckingly stupid of this government.


Your misunderstanding of your opponent is classic. They understand exactly the vision that the soft left, typical of the Toronto Annex crowd, have for this country. And they are rapidly and deliberately undoing it piece by piece.

After they're done, you'll be an old man by the time you can put it back together in any semblance of the mess you cherished.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Your misunderstanding of your opponent is classic. They understand exactly the vision that the soft left, typical of the Toronto Annex crowd, have for this country. And they are rapidly and deliberately undoing it piece by piece.
> 
> After they're done, you'll be an old man by the time you can put it back together in any semblance of the mess you cherished.


did that make you feel a lot better? I hope so.

Unfortunately for you, I guess, the 'typical Toronto Annex Crowd' has opinions and beliefs that are shared by a large number of Canadians, from coast to coast.

But at least we got to see you jealousy of the 'typical Annex Toronto crowd' out on your sleeve though. :baby:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Your misunderstanding of your opponent is classic. They understand exactly the vision that the soft left, typical of the Toronto Annex crowd, have for this country.


Kind of a broad, lazy-headed slam, innit? What, pray tell, is the typical crowd _you_ belong do? Prefer not to say, I'd expect. No, best preach from behind the curtain.

Stay safe, old boy! It's a jungle out there. Wild lefties everywhere. Keep your blunderbuss at the ready.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

lmao.... I love how **** derails around here. It's why I used to hang around here years ago... course that was a 'different' me back then.... hehehe

have at it kiddies.. lol


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, the need to troll I guess is just too great.

Some like stirring the pot a little as most here have including myself, and then, there are the trolls.

But always from behind a curtain of some sort as max said.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Kind of a broad, lazy-headed slam, innit? What, pray tell, is the typical crowd _you_ belong do? Prefer not to say, I'd expect. No, best preach from behind the curtain.
> 
> Stay safe, old boy! It's a jungle out there. Wild lefties everywhere. Keep your blunderbuss at the ready.


Not at all. The world seen therugh the lens of _Now Magazine_ must be exposed.

The lefties aren't wild, just wrong headed and blind. And who needs a blunderbuss when their group agitations merely seem to jostle them to sleep?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Does anyone read the now anymore? I guess you still do! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Does anyone read the now anymore? I guess you still do! :lmao:


Just the covers, whenever I visit Kensington Market.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Does anyone read the now anymore? I guess you still do! :lmao:


Come on GT, dontcha know? All of us 'lefties' read NOW. It's where we gather most of our info regarding all things political. Then after a big bowl of granola, we hop on our bikes and pick up a copy of The Star. We then sit in our favourite fair trade coffee establishment and rejoice in it's endless mockery of all things mayoral.

As we are riding home we pass a basement window with a sickly yellow light barely penetrating the dirty glass. Inside, plump fingers angrily turn the pages of a well worn copy of Atlas Shrugged and a barely audible raspy voice crackles

_'you'll rue the day'..._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> As we are riding home we pass a basement window with a sickly yellow light barely penetrating the dirty glass. Inside, plump fingers angrily turn the pages of a well worn copy of Atlas Shrugged and a barely audible raspy voice crackles


Why would someone who reads Atlas Shrugged be poor? Or plump for that matter? 

Likewise I believe a large number of lefties are well off enough that they can afford the policies with which they want to punish the rest of Canada.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why would someone who reads Atlas Shrugged be poor? Or plump for that matter?
> 
> Likewise I believe a large number of lefties are well off enough that they can afford the policies with which they want to punish the rest of Canada.


Who said poor? The room in the basement is where they cower, afraid that the marginalized will soon be at their door. It's also next to their torture chamber. :lmao:

Not Plump? Have you seen your Conservative masters these days? The trough is definitely not low cal.

The Lefties want those policies for _ those who can't afford them_. A virtue lost on all things Conservative.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

:clap: Bazzinngaa! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The Lefties want those policies for _ those who can't afford them_. A virtue lost on all things Conservative.


The Lefties want the money spent as a salve for their consciences. However, they're never content to spend only their own money.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Lefties want the money spent as a salve for their consciences. However, they're never content to spend only their own money.


Nonsense.

Like I said:

A virtue lost on all things Conservative.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously, I would be more likely to trust the motives of anyone left of centre if they wanted to fund these programs voluntarily--but there's never an opt-out clause for those who don't believe in them.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Come on GT, dontcha know? All of us 'lefties' read NOW. It's where we gather most of our info regarding all things political. Then after a big bowl of granola, we hop on our bikes and pick up a copy of The Star. We then sit in our favourite fair trade coffee establishment and rejoice in it's endless mockery of all things mayoral.


Omg! So much material in such a small space... hehehe


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Omg! So much material in such a small space... hehehe


Good one!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Nice of you all to derail this thread with your useless and predictable partisan infighting. LOL

Now you'll have to allow me to respond...and it'll be so frigging long that it'll take 3 ...count 'em...3 posts.



> Clearly you underestimate the thigh suckingly stupid of this government.


Far from it, I've never believed the Conservatives had any pro gun inclinations or sympathies toward Canadian firearms owners. If they did, they would completely dismantle the Firearms Act which is an abomination in the first degree and an unholy attack of the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Cons are no different than the Liberals or the NDP in the overall scheme of things. I'll deal with this in a new post as I ran out of space here.

The long gun registry is just a minute part of the wholeC-17, C-68 package and proven to be a useless and expensive boondoggle which served no one else except Liberal consultants. Contrary to all the recent rhetoric from the Liberals and the NDP. The Conservatives are happy to gain political clout with firearms owners for dismantling it as it's of no consequence considering the rest of C-17, C-68, et al remains in tact and the ratio of long guns never registered remains the same.

Here are some interesting quotes from the authors of those bills:



> "I came to Ottawa ... with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." — Liberal minister of justice Allan Rock, 1994.
> 
> "C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to *begin the social re-engineering of Canada.* "— Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, 1996.
> 
> ...


social re-engineering? new humanitarian social agenda? who the f**k are these people to make those decisions at the cost of liberty and freedom? Just wait when they make you line up to donate to the DNA registry because it fights crime...it'll eliminate all crime from our streets...if it saves just one life, it'll be worth it. That's after they disarm everyone first, ban all firearms from law abiding citizens an crime remains the same...because criminals do not care about bans or laws in general. LOL

But hey, you'll be ok with it because it's not an intrusion or a breach of your privacy... after all you have nothing to hide, you haven't done anything and naturally you trust the government and the DNA labs to administer all this properly...just like the gun registry. 

I'll follow with these, read them carefully:



> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
> - C. S. Lewis


and this:



> “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus


more...


> “There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.”





> “One of the things every dictator and authoritarian government does sooner or later is try to take away the guns form the hands of the citizens. Not because of concern for their safety, but to leave them without weapons to defend themselves form tyranny.”


finally I leave you with this:


> I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson.



Let's not forget Paul Martin's little plan four years after so many of us in the firearms community yielded to C-17 and C68 because *we were asked to be reasonable and promised there would be no confiscations:*




> Martin's gun policy gets mixed reviews
> Last Updated: Thursday, December 8, 2005 | 8:27 PM ET
> CBC News
> Liberal Leader Paul Martin's call to ban all handguns is getting mixed reviews, with opposition leaders and other interests questioning its usefulness in combating crime.
> ...


I think this quote by Jeff Snyder sums it up rather nicely:



> To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding
> that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the
> conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have
> only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not
> ...


So far the current government has allowed the confiscation without compensation of a non-restricted rifle (which was legal in Canada for the past 20 years), for no other reason than that it resembled an AK47 in looks only. Not in functionality or caliber...looks only. The decision was made by a bureaucrat...since when do we allow bureaucrats to make laws in this country?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*How the  Firearms Act (Bill C-68)  Violates the  Charter of Rights and Freedoms
(Summary)*


Summary of the study prepared by Dr. Ted Morton for:  the Responsible Firearm Owners of Alberta,  the Responsible Firearm Owners Coalition of British Columbia  and the Recreational Firearms Community of Saskatchewan.  First presented in Saskatoon, October 5, 2002
In 1995 the federal government introduced Bill C-68, a bill to change firearms legislation in Canada. After passage it is correctly identified as "Statutes of Canada 1995, Chapter 39." It incorporates two parts: the new Firearms Act and changes to the existing Criminal Code. Throughout this paper the legislation will be referred to by it's short title The Firearms Act.
In 1999 when the Supreme Court rejected Alberta's (and seven other government's) constitutional challenge that the Firearms Act was outside of the federal government's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court began by declaring that:
"The issue before this Court is not whether gun control is good or bad, whether the law is fair or unfair to gun owners, or whether it will be effective or ineffective in reducing the harm caused by the misuse of firearms."

That was true for the law of federalism. It is not true under the Charter of Rights. If a law is found to violate a Charter right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that the law is "rationally connected" to its purpose and that it impairs the rights involved "as little as possible." While the [stated] purpose of the Firearms Act -- to reduce the use of firearms in violent crime -- is laudable and shared by all law-abiding Canadians, its licensing and registration requirements do nothing to achieve this end.
As summarized below, the Firearms Act violates the Charter in many ways. If the Supreme Court applies the same Charter rules to law-abiding firearm owners as it has to drunk-drivers, drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, single parent welfare recipients, abortion providers, murderers, refugee claimants and owners of child pornography, that is -- if it applies the law of the land even handedly -- then it will be forced by its own precedents to declare the Firearms Act unconstitutional.

 *Right to Liberty*
The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the right to liberty (section 7 of the Charter) to protect "an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference." The Firearms Act interferes with this liberty by making illegal the mere act of owning a firearm inside one's own home. It does so without any evidence of harm to others, the prerequisite for limiting a citizen's freedom.


 *Right to Security of the Person*
The Firearms Act violates the right to security of the person (section 7) by taking away the ability of citizens to defend their own homes and property. The right to bear arms for the protection of one's home, family and property has been recognized in English common law for over 200 hundred years. It is affirmed in the writings of Locke and Blackstone. This right is imported into Canadian law by the preamble to the BNA Act (1867) and by section 26 of the Charter. The Firearms Act deprives Canadians of this right by making them completely dependent upon prompt police response in the case of home invasion and robbery. This deprivation is especially harsh for the thousands of Canadians who live in rural areas where police response is often hours after a 911 call has been placed.


* Right to Procedural Fairness*
The manner in which the Firearms Act is administered and enforced violates the rules of procedural fairness mandated by section 7 of the Charter ("principles of fundamental justice"). In the context of their abortion ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal law must be enforced evenly in all parts of Canada. Seven provinces and territories have refused to administer the Firearms Act, creating a "checker-board" pattern of enforcement. What is legal in one part of Canada is illegal in another, and vice versa. The Charter does not permit this.

The selective enforcement of the Firearms Act also violates procedural fairness. Since the licensing requirements came into effect in 2000, no charges have been laid except as an additional charge in cases where a firearm has been used in the commission of a separate crime. This double standard violates the principle of uniform enforcement established in the Court's abortion ruling. It also discriminates against individuals who are younger, poorer, less educated, urban and members of visible minorities -- the groups more prone to use firearms in the commission of a crime -- and in favour of unlicensed collectors, farmers, ranchers and hunters, who are generally older, more educated, more affluent and rural/small town. This double standard violates one of the oldest principles of Canada's rule of law tradition: "equality in the application and administration of the law."

* Section 7*
The Firearms Act violates the section 7 principle prohibiting unlimited administrative discretion. As Justice Conrad observed in her judgment in the Alberta Court of Appeal: "The entire licensing scheme is at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer. It is a discretion without minimum standards, or any absolute standards for that matter." This violates the rule of law requirement that, in the words of Dicey, prohibit "government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint."


* Right against unreasonable search and seizure*
Section 8 of the Charter prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the police. The courts have interpreted this to require the police to procure a search warrant from a judge before conducting a search, except in narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., "hot pursuit" or probable loss of evidence). The importance of the warrant requirement is heightened when the premises being searched are a home. Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant "reasonable notice." Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures -- in private homes -- without prior judicial approval, they violate section 8 of the Charter.

The search and seizure powers granted by the Firearms Act are also unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes "at any reasonable time" and to search "any place where the inspector believes...there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]" and "may open any container...examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it"; and "require any person to produce for examination or copying any records books of account or other documents." Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police "fishing expeditions" imposed by the section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure.

* Right to privacy*
The Supreme Court has also interpreted section 8 to impose a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from government, and applied this principle to protect impaired drivers, marijuana growers, and single parent welfare recipients. An applicant for a firearms license (POL or PAL) under the Firearms Act is forced to answer personal questions about his or her mental health history, personal finance, bankruptcy, drug use, job loss, and relationship breakdowns. The use of similar -- indeed, LESS intrusive -- questions about welfare applicants' personal lives was recently declared unconstitutional by an Ontario court. The use of these highly intrusive questions in the Firearms Act has already been condemned by the federal Privacy Commissioner.


* Right to be presumed innocent*
Two sections of the Firearms Act (ss.112.4 and107) place the burden of proof on the accused to prove his innocence. This violates the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Canada, this ancient right in all English-speaking democracies is given new constitutional protection by section 11(d) of the Charter. The Supreme Court has used the right to the presumption of innocence to overturn other sections of the Criminal Code that punish drug-dealers (Oakes, 1986), impaired drivers (Whyte, 1988), pimps (Downey, 1992) and murderers (Chaulk, 1990). The courts will be obliged to extend the same constitutional right to law-abiding firearm owners.


* Right against arbitrary detention*
Section 9 of the Charter protects the right against arbitrary detention. The courts have interpreted detention to include being detained by police investigators to be asked questions. (Therens, 1985) Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize police to demand of any person in a house being searched to provide them with assistance. The Act's use of phrases such as "cause to be used," "cause to be reproduced," "shall," and "require" indicate the coercive nature of the "request" for assistance and therefore constitute a detention as defined in earlier cases. These detentions must be deemed arbitrary when they occur in the context of the two kinds of warrantless searches authorized by the Act. (See "Right against unreasonable search and seizure," above.) The detention is also arbitrary in the context of a warrantless search because it is "at the absolute discretion of the police officer." (Hufsky, 1988).


 *Right to freedom of expression*
Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of expression. The courts have interpreted this to protect not just written or spoken words, but also "expressive" activity such as marching in a protest rally. (Irwin Toy, 1989) The courts have also identified "individual self-fulfillment" as a core good advanced by freedom of expression. Linking these two, the BC Court of Appeal has ruled that "the personal belongings of an individual are an expression of that person's essential self" and that the possession of child pornography is therefore protected by section 2(b) of the Charter. (Sharpe, 1999) Under these precedents, ownership of firearms qualifies as a form of expression protected by the Charter. This is doubly true for collectors of antique or rare firearms. It is also true for those who keep a firearm as a family heirloom to commemorate an ancestor's military service or pioneer roots. These activities are all forms of self-fulfillment. In Keegstra (1990), a case involving hate propaganda, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that an expressive activity is private and not intended for public consumption confers even greater protection on it. If possession of child pornography and racist propaganda are protected by section 2(b), then certainly possession of firearms enjoy the same or greater protection.


* Right to bear arms*
The right to bear arms has existed in English common law for at least 300 years and is imported into Canadian law by the preamble of the BNA Act, 1867 and section 26 of the Charter. Section 26 declares that traditional rights not listed in the Charter continue to have force and effect in Canada. The first explicit recognition of the right to bear arms in British-Canadian law occurs in the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is re-affirmed by the celebrated Blackstone in his Commentaries as one of the five most important rights of British subjects; and confirmed in several 18th and 19th century precedents. Although this right is subject to regulation by parliament, in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right. The right to bear arms is thus an historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter. Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm -- even for purposes of self-defense in one's own home -- it violates this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.

Cont. in next post


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

cont...


* Right to counsel upon arrest or detention*
Section 10(b) of the Charter protects the right to counsel "upon arrest or detention." The courts have interpreted this to mean that police cannot elicit evidence from suspects until or unless counsel (a lawyer) is present or the suspect has knowingly waived that right. Those sections of the Firearms Act (ss.102-105) that allow an inspector to demand ANY person in the house to provide assistance are therefore in violation of section 10(b) of the Charter.


* Right to property*
The right to property is one of the oldest and most fundamental rights in British-Canadian legal history. The protection of private property against state deprivation can be traced to the Magna Carta (1215); the 1688 Bill of Rights; Locke's Second Treatise (1690), and Blackstone's Commentaries. Like the right to bear arms, the right to property is imported into Canadian law by the preamble to the BNA Act, 1867. The protection of private property rights was one of the highest priorities of the Canadian founders. Canadian citizens' right to private property was confirmed by the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. In its 1986 Singh ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights continue in force even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Charter -- which property is not. However, the Supreme Court has established that it may confer judicially enforceable constitutional protection on "unwritten constitutional principles" that are fundamental to Canadians' historical sense of justice. The Court should be encouraged to add the right to private property to the five principles to which it has already given this protection: judicial independence, federalism, democracy, rule of law and minority rights. Indeed, without respect for the right to private property, these others would quickly become irrelevant.


* Equality Rights*
Section 15 of the Charter prohibits the government from discriminating against Canadians on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, particularly members of minority groups that have been historically disadvantaged. While some of the prohibited grounds of discrimination are enumerated in section 15, the Court can add new groups if it deems them to be "analogous" to the enumerated groups. The Firearms Act discriminates unfairly and unreasonably against the following non-enumerated minorities in Canada:

rural Canadians and non-aboriginals who depend upon firearms for their livelihood.
Rural Canadians are represented by less than 31% of MPs in Parliament, and consequently their legitimate interests are systematically neglected by the majority of MPs who come from urban and suburban constituencies. Rural Canadians -- farmers, ranchers, trappers, and hunters -- regularly and lawfully employ firearms to make their living. The effect of the Firearms Act is to impose taxes and a heavy regulatory burden on the tools of their trade. The Firearms Act also forces them to disclose sensitive personal and financial information, and threaten them with fines and/or incarceration if they fail to comply. It also has the effect of stigmatizing rural Canadians as somehow responsible for the increase in the illegal use of firearms, when in fact this is predominately an urban trend. This is precisely the type of unfair stereotyping of a politically vulnerable minority that section 15 prohibits.
The Firearms Act's exemptions for Aboriginals discriminate against similarly situated non-aboriginals on the basis of their race. Parliament realized that many Aboriginals farm, ranch, trap, or hunt for their living and therefore provided exemptions for this sub-group of Aboriginals. While this exemption is reasonable, it is under-inclusive because it excludes non-Aboriginals who farm, ranch, trap, or hunt for their living. The Supreme Court has declared in Vriend (1998) and Law (1999) that statutes that confer a benefit but do not extend the benefit to a similarly situated minority (enumerated or analogous) violate section 15.

* Section 27*
Section 27 directs the courts to interpret the rights protected in the Charter in a manner that is consistent with the protection and preservation of Canada's multicultural heritage. The lawful and legitimate use of firearms -- during the early years of settlement and still today by ranchers, farmers, trappers and hunters -- is an integral part of Canada's multicultural heritage. Section 27 thus enhances all of the preceding rights of Canadian firearm owners.


* Section 1*
To the extent that the Firearms Act restricts any of the rights listed above, the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that such restrictions are "reasonable." To do this, the Supreme Court has developed the "Oakes test", which requires the government to demonstrate that the Act: serves an important public policy objective. is rationally connected to that objective. impairs the right in issue as little as possible does more good than harm (proportionality).

While the purpose of the Firearms Act -- the reduction of illegal use of firearm violence -- easily qualifies as an important public policy objective, the means used to achieve this objective utterly fail the last three rules of the Oakes test.
In 1995 when the Firearms Act was enacted, there was no demonstrable need for new restrictions on firearm owners:
•	Homicides were at a 25-year low.
•	Firearms-related suicides were at a 25-year low.
•	Hospitalizations due to firearms were at an 8-year low.

The Firearms Act goes much further than just creating a screening process for those who wish to acquire firearms. It criminalizes the very possession of a firearm in the absence of any wrongdoing or threat of harm to others.
Despite the mandatory registration of "restricted" weapons since 1969 robbery rates increased over next 20 years, as did the number of restricted weapons offenses. Handguns have required registration since 1934.
Three-quarters of all firearms-related deaths are suicide. Suicide is not a crime; does not threaten public safety; and would not be affected by registration requirements.
Over 90 percent of firearms-related violence involves handguns (mostly unregistered). Registering long-guns (shotguns and rifles) will have no effect on this.
In all violent crimes in Canada in 1996, only 3 percent involved any type of firearms. Knives and hockey sticks are a more prevalent form of assault weapon.
The Firearms Act targets the wrong demographic group. Most firearm-related crimes are committed by younger, urban residents with criminal records. The legal use of firearms is concentrated in older, rural and small town residents. Requiring the latter to register their firearms will have no effect on the former.
Evidence presented by the Justice Department to Parliament to justify the need for C-68 in 1995 has since been repudiated as inaccurate by the RCMP. The RCMP stated that the Justice statistics overstated the number of firearms used in violent crimes in 1993 by a factor of 9 (623 compared to 73 in reality).
Costs of implementing the Firearms Act have soared from the government's initial estimate of $85 million dollars over five years to over $670* million by July, 2002 -- with no measurable reduction in firearm-related violence. This money has been spent primarily on hiring bureaucrats to run the new registry, not on law-enforcement officers. This money could be more effectively spent on longer incarceration of those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes and cracking down on gun smuggling -- the primary source of firearms used in crime in Canada. (*The Auditor General said in December of 2002 that the costs would be $1 BILLION by 2005)
There is no systematic verification of the accuracy of the information reported on registrations. The RCMP has said that it would take another 8.8 years to verify the accuracy of registration information on all shotguns and rifles. In 2002, eight firearm officers responsible for verification have resigned.
It was recently disclosed that one out of every six firearms registered has no serial number. This missing information will defeat one of the stated purposes of the Act: assisting police in tracing stolen firearms and firearms used in crimes.
The government's claim that the Firearms Act would deliver more effective screening of firearm owners has been contradicted by recently disclosed CFC information. Between 1979 and 1999 under the old FAC system, the "rejection rate" for applicants was .76 percent. Since 1999, the rejection rate for license applications under the new system is .38 percent, only half of the old rate. It is twice as easy for marginal applicants to become licensed under the new law.
Recent studies indicate that tougher gun control laws do not result in reduced crime rates or increased public safety. Indeed, they suggest the opposite.
In the United States, state attempts to regulate the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens have resulted in higher violent crime (81%) and murder (127%) rates than in states without such laws. (Lott)
Since Great Britain banned all private ownership of handguns in 1997, violent crime rose 10 percent the next year and more than doubled from 1996 to 2000. (Malcom)
In Australia, since stringent new gun control laws were introduced in 1997, homicides involving firearms have doubled and armed robberies have increased 166 percent. (Mauser)
In 1983, New Zealand discontinued universal registration of firearms after that country's police declared that the policy was a complete failure.
In sum, there is no rational connection between the objectives of the Firearms Act and the means used to implement it. It violates multiple sections of the Charter of Rights and is having no effect on reducing the use of firearms in crime or better protecting public safety.
Fair-minded judges will have no choice but to declare the Firearms Act unconstitutional and to dismiss any criminal charges brought against law-abiding Canadian citizens for alleged violations of the Act. No Canadian can be convicted or punished for violating a law that is itself unconstitutional.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson.


This is the crux of it. Some of us agree with Jefferson, and some of us are almost always willing to err on the side of government.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Nice of you all to derail this thread with your useless and predictable partisan infighting. LOL


Sorry Kps but all of these 'us versus them' threads all kind of blend together after awhile.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Sorry Kps but all of these 'us versus them' threads all kind of blend together after awhile.


Hope I punished you all enough with the extra reading...:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Hope I punished you all enough with the extra reading...:lmao:


I don't think they were punished, kps--I'm probably the only one who read it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't think they were punished, kps--I'm probably the only one who read it.


That's what concerns me the most...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Come on GT, dontcha know? All of us 'lefties' read NOW. It's where we gather most of our info regarding all things political. Then after a big bowl of granola, we hop on our bikes and pick up a copy of The Star. We then sit in our favourite fair trade coffee establishment and rejoice in it's endless mockery of all things mayoral.
> 
> As we are riding home we pass a basement window with a sickly yellow light barely penetrating the dirty glass. Inside, plump fingers angrily turn the pages of a well worn copy of Atlas Shrugged and a barely audible raspy voice crackles
> 
> _'you'll rue the day'..._


:clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

For the reading challenged...a more visual presentation:

*Do look beyond the video's creators...just this once...because it is very factual.*

The video is older and looks to be made around the time of the implementation of C-68.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

so is this about defending ourselves or expanding gun laws?

i'm perfectly happy with our country's gun laws.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> so is this about defending ourselves or expanding gun laws?


You'll need to put a little more effort into it than that I'm afraid.... lol


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson.


Well let's see. We have about a fraction of the murder rate here in Toronto compared to Many US cities, so, they can enjoy their so-called liberty all they wish.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Well let's see. We have about a fraction of the murder rate here in Toronto compared to Many US cities, so, they can enjoy their so-called liberty all they wish.


If you put everybody in cages, the murder rate would be zero. Problem solved!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If you put everybody in cages, the murder rate would be zero. Problem solved!


Boy. That one must have really heated up some synapses to think up.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> so is this about defending ourselves or expanding gun laws?
> 
> i'm perfectly happy with our country's gun laws.


It's about losing our freedoms and liberty...that's what it's about.

They come for the guns first, then they go after the rest...feel free to call me a tin foil hatter if you wish, but we're headed that way. It seems with every passing year we give up that much more freedom and liberty in the name of safety or security or crime fighting...etc, etc, etc.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> It's about losing our freedoms and liberty...that's what it's about.
> 
> They come for the guns first, then they go after the rest...feel free to call me a tin foil hatter if you wish, but we're headed that way. It seems with every passing year we give up that much more freedom and liberty in the name of safety or security or crime fighting...etc, etc, etc.


Channeling your Excited States of mind?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Channeling your Excited States of mind?


Deep, deep down ...you know I'm right.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps... you just reminded me of my mom. She used to say "deep down, you know I'm right." When we were in our teens and when she seemed to divine just what we were up to at all times. We boys used to call her "Kreskin," It was our fond moniker for her, and many times we would gently tease her about her uncanny "knowledge."

_________________

I never addressed your initial reason for posting this thread. The examples cited in that article - the Toronto shopkeeper and the Port Colborne man who fired warning shots in the air - those were beyond ridiculous. I think we've gone too far in letting the authorities decide these matters. I'm an urban resident so that's what I have to speak to here; while I don't want to see any more guns in the city than they're already are, I'm all for *not* punishing people who use them to prevent grievous bodily injury, robbery or home invasions, or any of the like. It sure sends out a mixed message - it's bad to rob and threaten people, _*and*_ it's bad to defend oneself from such actions? How did it come to this?

It's a dangerous precedent to let the gubbmint decide for us all what constitutes the proper use of firearms, decide for us all what's self defence and what's simply labelled by the infallible authorities as 'indefensible.'


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well said, Max.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> kps... you just reminded me of my mom. She used to say "deep down, you know I'm right." When we were in our teens and when she seemed to divine just what we were up to at all times. e boys used to call her "Kreskin," It was our fond moniker for her, and many times we would gently tease her about her uncanny "knowledge."
> 
> _________________
> 
> ...


I agree with you. It seems the minute said 'gubbmint' gets involved, it never really clarifies anything, and if anything, leaves far too much to challenges since we know how they like to ram things through without proper thought. But who would get to decide what is, and isn't indefensible? At some point, the officers on the beginning end need to know when or if, they lay charges in the first place. Which, from what I'm gathering from this recent case, is a part of the problem.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> They come for the guns first, then they go after the rest...feel free to call me a tin foil hatter if you wish...


Okay, you're a tin foil hatter.

This is a false slippery slope. There are examples of the police overstepping their bounds, and the system seems to to a pretty good job of catching that. There are also examples of individuals overstepping reasonable boundaries of using force to defend themselves, and the system does a pretty good job of dealing with that too.

We can argue about where that boundary ought to be, and it's okay for reasonable people to disagree. As society changes that boundary will shift one way or another, but I think to argue that there's a dark cabal of authoritarians who're out to get our guns and then oppress us with impunity is definitely tin foil hat territory.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Okay, you're a tin foil hatter.
> 
> This is a false slippery slope. There are examples of the police overstepping their bounds, and the system seems to to a pretty good job of catching that. There are also examples of individuals overstepping reasonable boundaries of using force to defend themselves, and the system does a pretty good job of dealing with that too.
> 
> We can argue about where that boundary ought to be, and it's okay for reasonable people to disagree. As society changes that boundary will shift one way or another, but I think to argue that there's a dark cabal of authoritarians who're out to get our guns and then oppress us with impunity is definitely tin foil hat territory.


Right on, bryanc--it's not like this has ever happened before...

Well, OK, it HAS happened, but that was decades ago. Could never happen again.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i just love this.

A *single* case, where the crown has *dropped* all charges related to the person actually *firing* his handgun, and the judge is considering the validity of a charge of unsafe storage (where the gun was clearly not stored properly when the police showed up).

somehow ^^ that ^^ = government trying to take away all citizen's rights to own guns.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i just love this.
> 
> A *single* case, where the crown has *dropped* all charges related to the person actually *firing* his handgun, and the judge is considering the validity of a charge of unsafe storage (where the gun was clearly not stored properly when the police showed up).
> 
> somehow ^^ that ^^ = government trying to take away all citizen's rights to own guns.


Not at all. But it is an important case.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i just love this.
> 
> A *single* case, where the crown has *dropped* all charges related to the person actually *firing* his handgun, and the judge is considering the validity of a charge of unsafe storage (where the gun was clearly not stored properly when the police showed up).
> 
> somehow ^^ that ^^ = government trying to take away all citizen's rights to own guns.


I've been somewhat fascinated with the right and their insistence on right and freedoms, in particular when it comes to owning guns and protecting themselves, yet when the government wants to infringe heavily on our rights and freedoms with surveillance, and being able to compile data on you based on warrantless spying (who knows what any future governments may do with this law either...), they're all down with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I've been somewhat fascinated with the right and their insistence on right and freedoms, in particular when it comes to owning guns and protecting themselves, yet when the government wants to infringe heavily on our rights and freedoms with surveillance, and being able to compile data on you based on warrantless spying (who knows what any future governments may do with this law either...), they're all down with it.


That's absolute nonsense. I know few people who are happy with such infringements of privacy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> That's absolute nonsense. I know few people who are happy with such infringements of privacy.


It's not nonsense; many on the political right are hung-ho for warrant-less wiretaps on citizens and other obvious infringements on privacy or civil liberties.

It's good to see that you are not. In this, at least, you are being internally consistent, and in this, at least, I'm in complete agreement with you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's absolute nonsense. I know few people who are happy with such infringements of privacy.


well that's good to hear, because I don't any of you talking about the upcoming bills. At all.

Not one... word.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sorry folks, felt a bit under the weather this past day or so. Haven't abandoned you. 

*Max:* Thanks for the level headed response. 

*Bryanc:* We all put on the tin foil from time to time don't we? You certainly do when it comes to Cons and research funding...religion perhaps, like when you see _demons_ behind every religious utterance. The trend is certainly there, it's pretty obvious south of the border (NSA, TSA, Etc.) and Canada is not immune to it either.

*i-rui:* Understand that these are not isolated incidents, these are only the well publicized incidents.There are many who would like nothing more than to do that, there are plenty of organizations and politicians who pander to them where that would be true. You, I think, pride yourself on being reasonable and that may be a problem....sometimes being reasonable is a trap. C-68 was such a trap and by the time we realized it, it was too late. Then to add insult to injury, our glorious PM Martin promised to ban all handguns...legal ones only though, because he nor anyone else has control over the illegal ones.LOL

*Groove:* Just as much the Neo-Cons are a problem the Neo-Liberals are not any better. Perhaps the only separation is the _Y_ axis on the political graphs. I'd like a return to the basics. Small government that stays the f**k out of my business as long as I stay within the law. And sometimes you like to wear the tin foil when it comes to those evil, profit driven, corrupt , government controlling corporations...

*McFury:* Keep up the good work.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Sorry folks, felt a bit under the weather this past day or so. Haven't abandoned you.
> 
> *Max:* Thanks for the level headed response.
> 
> ...


you don't think suspicion of the corporations isn't warranted? Really?

And don;t encourage the troll. It's crapping in all sorts of threads but you know that already too.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> you don't think suspicion of the corporations isn't warranted? Really?
> 
> And don;t encourage the troll. It's crapping in all sorts of threads but you know that already too.


No, what I'm saying is that once in a while the tin foil is the appropriate response. Question the motives, scrutinize the details, seek multiple points of view ...don't settle for BS.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Jeez. Take the weekend away from the computer and you miss a lot.

Now I don't want start off the week being accused of injecting drama or (heaven forbid) rational thought into this discussion, but it seems to me that we would all be much better off if instead of spending time and money on changing laws to allow us to carry guns and more easily kill each other, the government spent that time and money on increasing the scope and quality of our education. That way, perhaps in a few generations, we would no longer be as interested in either breaking into other's houses or killing those that break in. It seems to have worked in some other countries, such as Finland.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh dear. There mere mention of any of those Scandinavian countries will cause hard line conservatives heart palpitations.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oh dear. There mere mention of any of those Scandinavian countries will cause hard line conservatives heart palpitations.


The return of the drama queens....

*Finland*

Population 5.4 million

Ethnicity:
Finn 93.4%
Swede 5.6%
Russian 0.5%
Estonian 0.3%
Roma (Gypsy) 0.1%
Sami 0.1%

Pretty homogeneous population, wouldn't you say, Mythspreader? 

In Finland there are 32 privately owned firearms per 100 civilians according to the Finnish Ministry of the Interior.[1] By the end of 2006 there were more than 1.6 million licensed firearms.[1] Averaged among Finland's population of 5.3 million it comes to 30.5 per 100 people. Another study puts the number of firearms per capita as high as 0.55 [2]
Unlicensed firearms are estimated at around 1.5 per 100. There are some 650,000 firearms permit holders in Finland. 60% of firearm permits are issued for hunting weapons.[3] There are an estimated 290,000 handguns, which comes to 5.5 per 100 civilians [1]. Permits are not required for muzzle-loaded black powder guns made before 1890 as long as they are not used. Captured guns from World War II are thought to constitute the largest share of illegal firearms.
*The widely cited Small Arms Survey 2007 by Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva Switzerland[4] claims there are some 3 million firearms in Finland, or 56 per 100 civilians.*

*Canada:*

Population: 34 million

Ethnicity: Ethnic origins of people in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty diverse, ethnically and culturally, wouldn't you say MythSpreader?

Firearms statistics:

Facts and Figures (October - December 2011)

Have at it...more firearms in the hands of Fins per capita than in the hands of Canadians.

How's that for a little education?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wait a second, was he talking about the number of firearms per capita, or education?


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> Have at it...more firearms in the hands of Fins per capita than in the hands of Canadians.
> 
> How's that for a little education?


I don't remember saying education and firearms ownership were mutually exclusive. 

You forgot to mention in your facts that Finland has one of the highest education levels in the world, as well as one of the lowest crime rates, gun ownership notwithstanding. By increasing our level and quality of education here, perhaps more people will choose to work at meaningful jobs rather than rob houses and be shot by wannabe killas. 

Point ...............................................................................................................................................> You


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> I don't remember saying education and firearms ownership were mutually exclusive.
> 
> You forgot to mention in your facts that Finland has one of the highest education levels in the world, as well as one of the lowest crime rates, gun ownership notwithstanding. By increasing our level and quality of education here, perhaps more people will choose to work at meaningful jobs rather than rob houses and be shot by wannabe killas.
> 
> Point ...............................................................................................................................................> You


As mentioned and pointed out..a small homogeneous society vs Canada's larger highly diverse society...that kind of explains why there may be a difference. Not to mention that gainful employment generally plays a larger role in not wanting to rob people and houses than education. Fins I believe have a rather large social net as well, which is understandable considering the small population and the smarts not to join the EU.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> wait a second, was he talking about the number of firearms per capita, or education?


Groove, I'm trying to educate here...now pay attention in class.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Groove, I'm trying to educate here...now pay attention in class.


just pointing out something you missed.

Perhaps you helped prove a point, if you stop and think about it


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> just pointing out something you missed.
> 
> Perhaps you helped prove a point, if you stop and think about it


What is it you think I missed?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

While we're talking about guns... breaking news:

Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional - Winnipeg Free Press



> TORONTO - An Ontario Superior Court judge has struck down a mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence of possessing a loaded firearm.
> Judge Anne Molloy found a man guilty today of that offence, but ruled that the circumstances of this case don't warrant a three-year penitentiary sentence.
> She ruled that to impose such a sentence for what she called Leroy Smickle's "foolish act" would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," and would breach the charter.
> Molloy declared that section of the Criminal Code of no force and effect.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Oh-oh duck! The right thinking people are about to lose their $h!t.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> As mentioned and pointed out..a small homogeneous society vs Canada's larger highly diverse society...that kind of explains why there may be a difference.


How so? Surely you aren't suggesting that ethnic diversity leads to higher crime?




> Not to mention that gainful employment generally plays a larger role in not wanting to rob people and houses than education. Fins I believe have a rather large social net as well, which is understandable considering the small population and the smarts not to join the EU.


I think you'll find that delivering a higher quality of education to the population leads to more gainful employment. 

But I don't want to stray too far from the increasingly confused topic. There have already been four posts that didn't mention firearms ownership or bills C-17 or C-68. So just to bring it back to topic, I began this by stating it is better to spend resources on education than on changing the gun laws.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> What is it you think I missed?


 I think the post emphasized a focus on education. Which, if that were the trick, it wouldn't matter if finland, had more guns per capita.

Thought you might have picked up on that.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> While we're talking about guns... breaking news:
> 
> Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional - Winnipeg Free Press


i was about to post this in the canadian politics thread. 

much of the cons omnibus crime bill has mandatory minimum sentences which legal experts say will be unconstitutional and lead to court challenges. instead of properly vetting their bill (or even better, actually separating the bill into parts that can be individually debated) the cons are just trying to ram through the bill without any thought to what it will do to our court system.

instead of people getting up in arms about limited gun rights, *this* is what canadians *should* be upset about.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

after all the posturing, useless.

Can't say anyone should be surprised, this was already warned about and cons wouldn't listen. Of course, it'll always somehow be a liberal's fault.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> How so? Surely you aren't suggesting that ethnic diversity leads to higher crime?
> 
> I think you'll find that delivering a higher quality of education to the population leads to more gainful employment.
> 
> But I don't want to stray too far from the increasingly confused topic. There have already been four posts that didn't mention firearms ownership or bills C-17 or C-68. So just to bring it back to topic, I began this by stating it is better to spend resources on education than on changing the gun laws.


Ethnic make up and diverse cultural influences do play a role in crime, but I'll leave that to the anthropologists to confirm. Finland is beginning to see that with Russian organized crime, the homogeny is crumbling. 

The problem is not so much education (you must be a teacher) as it is drugs and drug abuse. I have no doubts that uneducated Fins are very well looked after with government jobs. Not everyone who lacks an education turns to crime, plenty of rich educated folk does however. Don't see education as the silver bullet. Drugs are the major cause of crime in this country and it's not because those involved are uneducated, if you believe that, you've been in the frozen prairie for far too long. 

Think about it, every occasional, recreational, pot smoker with a Phd. and gainful employment is as responsible for the illegal guns, shootings and deaths on Canada's streets as the uneducated heroin addict living in a gutter and breaking into houses. 

That's one of the reasons why I would go as far as supporting legalization of pot, licensing of growers and taxing it at the retail level. Perhaps then there might be enough money for educating everyone.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i was about to post this in the canadian politics thread.
> 
> much of the cons omni bus crime bill has mandatory minimum sentences which legal experts say will be unconstitutional and lead to court challenges. instead of properly vetting their bill (or even better, actually separating the bill into parts that can be individually debated) the cons are just trying to ram through the bill without any thought to what it will do to our court system.
> 
> instead of people getting up in arms about limited gun rights, *this* is what canadians *should* be upset about.


Do you know the details here? I don't. I'll get upset or not when I do. All the things I'm talking about here I do know about...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i was about to post this in the canadian politics thread.
> 
> much of the cons omnibus crime bill has mandatory minimum sentences which legal experts say will be unconstitutional and lead to court challenges. instead of properly vetting their bill (or even better, actually separating the bill into parts that can be individually debated) the cons are just trying to ram through the bill without any thought to what it will do to our court system.
> 
> instead of people getting up in arms about limited gun rights, *this* is what canadians *should* be upset about.





kps said:


> Do you know the details here? I don't. I'll get upset or not when I do. All the things I'm talking about here I do know about...


Nor do I. Let's be very brutal. If it is a good bill hiding the details and the cost from the Public Eye is a very bad idea, as the only sane reaction is: King Harpo knows it is a very bad bill he is foisting on Canadians.

For what it's worth, at least in BC courts are being forced to set criminals free because the courts are so underfunded they cannot bring cases to trial in a timely manner. Increasing this load without adequate funding is hardly likely to improve things.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Alright, I have some more details now...

You can read Leroy Smickle's exploits from the source....The Superior Court Records.

Already convicted of illegal possession, this was an additional charge. Whether anyone likes it or not, this guy is a criminal who was in possession of a loaded prohibited firearm for which he had no license. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, .25 cal short barrelled handguns are prohibited firearms,

Oh, and you're going to love reading the passive description of the raid...LOL Flash-bang anyone?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Alright, I have some more details now...
> 
> You can read Leroy Smickle's exploits from the source....The Superior Court Records.
> 
> ...


The ruling of the Ontario court had to the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentencing of Mr.Smickle not Rojohn Brown.

What has the attached document have to do with the sentencing of Leroy Smickle?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The ruling of the Ontario court had to the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentencing of Mr.Smickle not Rojohn Brown.
> 
> What has the attached document have to do with the sentencing of Leroy Smickle?


Nothing more than background on an already convicted felon...take it for what it's worth. Consider it something pertinent to your quest to be well informed...a small tidbit in order to make a more educated decision. :lmao:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Nothing more than background on an already convicted felon...take it for what it's worth. Consider it something pertinent to your quest to be well informed...a small tidbit in order to make a more educated decision. :lmao:


Am I to understand that being related (cousin) to a convicted felon make one liable for three years minimum in a Federal Penitentiary?

How can one be a felon in Canada? Felons in Canada is beyond my comprehension so please explain that one as well.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Am I to understand that being related (cousin) to a convicted felon make one liable for three years minimum in a Federal Penitentiary?
> 
> How can one be a felon in Canada? Felons in Canada is beyond my comprehension so please explain that one as well.


Are you that hopeless DL or are you just trolling this thread...


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> you've been in the frozen prairie for far too long.


Well that's true enough, though it isn't too frozen this year. 

There are many things about the rest of your reply that I disagree with but I won't because that leads to a whole other subject and I'd much rather get back to the more interesting one at hand. (We'll save this one for another day.)

I've mentioned twice I was making the point that it is better to spend money and effort on improving education than it is to spend it on changing the gun laws. You haven't really responded to that point. So let's turn it around a bit. Let's say you got your way and could make changes to the Canadian gun laws. What would you change and how would those changes benefit Canadians?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps wants to marry his guns (all of them, so we'd have to pass polygamy laws first).


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> Well that's true enough, though it isn't too frozen this year.
> 
> There are many things about the rest of your reply that I disagree with but I won't because that leads to a whole other subject and I'd much rather get back to the more interesting one at hand. (We'll save this one for another day.)
> 
> I've mentioned twice I was making the point that it is better to spend money and effort on improving education than it is to spend it on changing the gun laws. You haven't really responded to that point. So let's turn it around a bit. Let's say you got your way and could make changes to the Canadian gun laws. What would you change and how would those changes benefit Canadians?


Well, I haven't responded because it really is kind of a silly question. Changing the law doesn't cost anything and educational funding comes from _LOCAL_ property taxes...

You know...firearms laws =federal....education = provincial, that kin of thing. Would you really like the feds to meddle in education at a local level?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Are you that hopeless DL or are you just trolling this thread...


No I am not trolling.

I am of the opinion that the teacher is clueless about the material he is attempting to place before us.

Please tell us where or how felons appears that is in which section(s) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

Tell us again why Mr.Smickle is guilty under the Criminal Code of being a cousin.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> kps wants to marry his guns (all of them, so we'd have to pass polygamy laws first).


Typical lefty, thinks guns have a life of their own...LOL 



> “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -Sigmund Freud





> We should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word. – Senator Bennett (UT)


Even the pacifists get it:



> “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001)





> “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> No I am not trolling.
> 
> I am of the opinion that the teacher is clueless about the material he is attempting to place before us.
> 
> ...


Holy crap dude, the cousin's case describes his own case...read the f**g thing. When the cops...should I say SWAT breached and flash banged they way into the cousin's apartment, they found Smickle with a loaded .25... He has already been convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm.(read it) and this was just another charge he was facing.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> He has already been convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm.(read it) and this was just another charge he was facing.


I think you're wrong. Smickle had no prior convictions. I think you're referencing his charge in the cousins case and thinking it was a prior.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Holy crap dude, the cousin's case describes his own case...read the f**g thing. When the cops...should I say SWAT breached and flash banged they way into the cousin's apartment, they found Smickle with a loaded .25... He has already been convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm.(read it) and this was just another charge he was facing.


 I read that the trial for Mr. Smickle was held first and the proceedings for the same matter for Mr.Rojohn Brown were subsequent (you know they came later for Mr. Brown.)



Winnipeg Free Press said:


> "Every reasonable person would support reducing violent crime and protecting the public," Molloy wrote."However, there is no tangible evidence that imposing a mandatory minimum does anything to actually accomplish that objective."
> 
> Leroy Smickle was "very foolish" to have been taking pictures of himself posing with a loaded illegal gun, but the circumstances do not warrant a three-year penitentiary sentence, Molloy ruled.
> 
> ...


Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional - Winnipeg Free Press

So the evidence before the court was: Mr. Smickle is guilty of colossally bad judgment," Molloy wrote. "However, apart from this* one lapse in judgment,* he is not a criminal."

Now, not to belabour the Felon idea. Unless you can show me to the contrary, in Canada their is no such a thing as a felon. 

Under the Canadian Criminal Code persons are charged with an Indictable Offence, as the more serious matter and is most analogous to felony in criminal charge for the courts in Excited States.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> I think you're wrong. Smickle had no prior convictions. I think you're referencing his charge in the cousins case and thinking it was a prior.


No, I think you're wrong...the cousin wasn't around during the Guns & Gangs raid, and it was Smickle who got busted for the .25 prohib and flashing it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Now, not to belabour the Felon idea. Unless you can show me to the contrary, in Canada their is no such a thing as a felon.
> 
> Under the Canadian Criminal Code persons are charged with an Indictable Offence, as the more serious matter and is most analogous to felony in criminal charge for the courts in Excited States.


Get yer heard out of the anti exited states a*ss

Felon is an old English Common Law term that's been around longer than the "exited states" has been in existence.....

Sheesh!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

In Canada, we think the right to bare arms means you can wear short sleeves outside in the winter.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> No, I think you're wrong...the cousin wasn't around during the Guns & Gangs raid, and it was Smickle who got busted for the .25 prohib and flashing it.


you're confusing his first conviction (this one) with a prior conviction. this conviction was his only criminal offence. 

Leroy Smickle case: Judge rejects 'outrageous,' unconstitutional mandatory gun sentence | News | National Post



> The gun wasn’t his and police found other guns in the tenant’s bedroom, court heard. *Smickle had no criminal record*, held a job, has a young child and a fiancée and was working to finish high school.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> you're confusing his first conviction (this one) with a prior conviction. this conviction was his only criminal offence.


No again, you're the one that's confused. 

From the court documents, please read them:



> [12] Mr. Smickle was charged with being in possession of the .25 calibre firearm. It is not the subject of any charges faced by Mr. Brown on this trial. *Mr. Smickle was convicted of possession of the .25 calibre firearm and other related offences on May 11, 2011 in the Superior Court.
> *


Prior to this incident, Smickle was clean and that is what the judge meant at his current trial.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

disconnect!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

*Bang Bang Shoot Shoot*

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> .


I guess you can't see this one?




i-rui said:


> you're confusing his first conviction (this one) with a prior conviction. this conviction was his only criminal offence.
> 
> Leroy Smickle case: Judge rejects 'outrageous,' unconstitutional mandatory gun sentence | News | National Post


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> No again, you're the one that's confused.
> 
> From the court documents, please read them:
> 
> ...


that is his *ONE & ONLY* conviction. you're looking at his *cousin's* court case. it is referencing Smickle's trial.

The ruling the judge gave yesterday is for *that* conviction.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> Well, I haven't responded because it really is kind of a silly question. Changing the law doesn't cost anything and educational funding comes from _LOCAL_ property taxes...
> 
> You know...firearms laws =federal....education = provincial, that kin of thing. Would you really like the feds to meddle in education at a local level?


You seem like a smart guy, so I assume you're just being facetious. I'm sure you know that changing a law like this isn't free. There's the debate, lobbying, advertising to get the population to swallow it, rewriting the laws (nobody works for free, especially in government), not to mention the post change effects it could have on provincial and local legislation and bylaws, new licensing, information packages, etc. etc. etc. Changing a major legislation like this is very expensive. 

As for the federal - provincial baloney, you know as well as I do that it doesn't matter which set of civil savants fumbles through the job, it's you and me that pays the bill.

I noticed you ignored the opportunity to state how you would change the gun laws. I can only assume that you've come to realize that civilized countries don't need an armed populace.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Mythtaken said:


> I can only assume that you've come to realize that civilized countries don't need an armed populace.


I dunno. An armed (and well-trained) populace seems like a nice check and balance to a government shading into fascism.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> I dunno. An armed (and well-trained) populace seems like a nice check and balance to a government shading into fascism.


that seems to be working wonders stateside eh?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Max said:


> I dunno. An armed (and well-trained) populace seems like a nice check and balance to a government shading into fascism.


I especially worry about a government that promotes warrantless phone taps and internet spying. Clearly the kiddie porn excuse does not wash. Way too easy to trap those types when they sell to sting sites, no spying required. Only possible reason for this legislation is the Cons future plans are so abhorrent, they feel the need to be able to track down and squash any opposition before it gets fully organized.

With that in mind I think we may need to re-arm the general population.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> that is his *ONE & ONLY* conviction. you're looking at his *cousin's* court case. it is referencing Smickle's trial.
> 
> The ruling the judge gave yesterday is for *that* conviction.


Perhaps it's all the radiation I got on my head a week ago and yes, I do realize it's his cousin's trial record, but it does say he was convicted in May of 2011...so I really didn't think that the sentencing would take place 9 months later...and three years since the original offence.

So at this point, I'll just concede the issue and be done with it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> I noticed you ignored the opportunity to state how you would change the gun laws. I can only assume that you've come to realize that civilized countries don't need an armed populace.


I didn't ignore it, I kept reiterating that the whole C-68 should be scrapped. Bill C-19 isn't going far enough.

You know what happens when you ass-u-me, eh? I look to highly civilized countries like Switzerland where every citizen has a fully automatic millitary assault rifle and a 9mm SIG in their house.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Max said:


> I dunno. An armed (and well-trained) populace seems like a nice check and balance to a government shading into fascism.


a better solution would be for the populace to make sure they don't allow their government to shade into fascism. (a bit of a problem when the populace allows a megalomaniac like Harper get a majority, but perhaps we'll learn from our mistake).

Still, our current gun laws allows nearly everyone who *wants* a gun to have one. I don't see any problem on that end, unless people are suggesting that people who don't want one be forced to have one....which is just silly.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> it does say he was convicted in May of 2011...so I really didn't think that the sentencing would take place 9 months later...and three years since the original offence.


welcome to our justice system. it is slow, and overwhelmed.

which brings us to the problem of this government wanting to overload it more with terrible laws that are unconstitutional and will clog the system even more as defendants appeal every decision. The only people happy about this will be lawyers.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> welcome to our justice system. it is slow, and overwhelmed.
> 
> which brings us to the problem of this government wanting to overload it more with terrible laws that are unconstitutional and will clog the system even more as defendants appeal every decision. *The only people happy about this will be lawyers.*


And most politicians are lawyers that craved an even scummier profession. Go figure.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> I didn't ignore it, I kept reiterating that the whole C-68 should be scrapped. Bill C-19 isn't going far enough.


 So how exactly would doing away with firearms registration benefit us? 
More importantly, how would it benefit Mr. Thomson and his situation?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> So how exactly would doing away with firearms registration benefit us?
> More importantly, how would it benefit Mr. Thomson and his situation?


You ARE a school teacher..arent you? The way those questions are phrased just exudes the smug arrogance of a school teacher...:lmao:

The debate is over man, most people who are not antis or have a political agenda have realized that the Long Gun Registry was not only a boondoggle, but also a colossal failure in what it delivered. Those who implemented it knew that from the beginning. 

You know very well Mr Thomson's situation has absolutely no bearing on the long gun registry, however, there are parts of C-68 that do.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

kps said:


> You know very well Mr Thomson's situation has absolutely no bearing on the long gun registry, however, there are parts of C-68 that do.


And you must be the naughty boy who never got his homework done. 

It was you who repeatedly dragged bill C-68 into the discussion of Mr. Thomson. I'm only asking for some clarification as to how scrapping that would make a difference to his case. 

Personally, I don't see it. Obviously the choice to charge him on a storage violation was politically motivated, so that wouldn't be affected by the loss of C-68. If anything, he should have been charged with reckless use of a firearm. Again, I don't see C-68 having any bearing on that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> An armed (and well-trained) populace seems like a nice check and balance to a government shading into fascism.


You have a strange idea of "nice."


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> And you must be the naughty boy who never got his homework done.
> 
> It was you who repeatedly dragged bill C-68 into the discussion of Mr. Thomson. I'm only asking for some clarification as to how scrapping that would make a difference to his case.
> 
> Personally, I don't see it. Obviously the choice to charge him on a storage violation was politically motivated, so that wouldn't be affected by the loss of C-68. If anything, he should have been charged with reckless use of a firearm. Again, I don't see C-68 having any bearing on that.


Your question was worded wrong then, because you only asked about registration.

In any case, you don't see C-68 (which is the whole Firearms Act as it exists today) as having any bearing on the Thomson case? You truly are clueless. 

I'm growing weary of your little game, you need to do your own homework from now on.

Start here: Firearms Act and Regulations


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> You have a strange idea of "nice."


"An armed society, is a polite society."


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Yes, I do see. 

You beat your breast and rail against the injustice of the laws, yet when asked to state what you would change and how it would benefit the country, your only answer is deflection. 

That is answer enough. Case closed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mythtaken said:


> Yes, I do see.
> 
> You beat your breast and rail against the injustice of the laws, yet when asked to state what you would change and how it would benefit the country, your only answer is deflection.
> 
> That is answer enough. Case closed.


Case closed my a*ss, NO, you don't see at all, if you did, you would stop asking stupid questions, you'd stop playing games and actually provide an opinion and make a valuable contribution to the thread. If anything, you're the one deflecting with all the silly little questions which have been answered multiple times except that you refuse to acknowledge them.

Read the previous pages, then tell me how bill c-68 which goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms benefits the country? I'd really like to hear that. If a bill that skirts the Charter can be passed and accepted, then it creates a breach in the Charter open to additional abuse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> "An armed society, is a polite society."


spend some time in Jersey and see how polite it is. 

If you don't come back with a bullet hole, you're doing well. I almost did several times.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

groovetube said:


> that seems to be working wonders stateside eh?


That's a different sort of chasm they're sliding into, Groove. Has zero to do with "the right to bear arms" or a populace which digs gun culture; that's really about getting the proverbial chance to have a kick at the can - and eventually, someone else has their turn.

Still, my point holds. If I was a general of an invading army I'd rather invade the peacenik country than the one where its citizenry is armed to the teeth (never mind the size, scope and training of its regular army). With the former, your side would be shedding far less of its own precious blood - and bucks.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> If I was a general of an invading army I'd rather invade the peacenik country than the one where its citizenry is armed to the teeth


For Canadians, being concerned about an armed invasion is about as rational as being worried about the satellite mind-control beams. Our national sovereignty is under threat from banks, corporations (particularly natural resource exploitation corporations), and the ever-present threat of gradually merging (legally, economically, and culturally) with the US. An armed citizenry are effective defences against none of these (and represent an active step towards the latter).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> For Canadians, being concerned about an armed invasion is about as rational as being worried about the satellite mind-control beams. Our national sovereignty is under threat from banks, corporations (particularly natural resource exploitation corporations), and the ever-present threat of gradually merging (legally, economically, and culturally) with the US. An armed citizenry are effective defences against none of these (and represent an active step towards the latter).


I agree. I don't think anyone needs to invade the US (or Canada). They're doing it to themselves just fine. 

If you can't beat them militarily, there are smarter ways to do so without firing many shots.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

groovetube said:


> If you can't beat them militarily, there are smarter ways to do so without firing many shots.


Indeed. I remember the first time I went to Hawaii and noticed that many signs are in Japanese and was surprised at how many hotels and businesses are Japanese-owned. Attacking militarily didn't work out too well, but a few decades later the Japanese found they could buy the place.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Still, my point holds. If I was a general of an invading army I'd rather invade the peacenik country than the one where its citizenry is armed to the teeth (never mind the size, scope and training of its regular army). With the former, your side would be shedding far less of its own precious blood - and bucks.


Worked for Switzerland for the past 800 years...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

they might be also lacking in the yeeeehaaaw! factor.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> they might be also lacking in the yeeeehaaaw! factor.


YeeHaaw or YaaHooo?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

take your pick.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> take your pick.


YeeHoo!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*Here we go again...the catch-all storage charge again.*



> Driver shot after ramming Hamilton house
> 
> A Hamilton man suffered a gunshot wound Friday night after ramming a house and fighting with its owner.
> 
> ...


TheSpec - Driver shot after ramming Hamilton house


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Just a followup to the minimum sentencing case of Mr. Smickle.

Ontario is to appeal the judges decision.



> Ontario to appeal judge's gun sentence ruling
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------

