On top of that, most of all the weapons were purposely destroyed. Misinformed rhetoric is pretty well expected and accepted around here though...Originally Posted by savage112
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
On top of that, most of all the weapons were purposely destroyed. Misinformed rhetoric is pretty well expected and accepted around here though...
Destroyed according to who? Are you talking about the firearms allegedly burned by the Mohawks, witnessed and investigated by no one?
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
As my ARs were built. If it comes to it; they will be buying back the lowers. I still have the boxes for them. "Sorry officer, I never had a chance to build them"
You figure they got them out after surrendering by shoving them up their asses? The receivers would have survived any fire. I have never seen any mention of the weapons not being destroyed.
I am not offering theories as to how the firearms survived. I am simply stating that the ONLY evidence I've seen that indicates they were destroyed, is the unverified claims of the owners who had a strong incentive to lie. Having successfully used those firearms to defend their land, the reasons for wanting to preserve them should have been overwhelming.
I am not concerned about the lack of evidence to prove something didn't happen. This is a logical impossibility: You can't prove a negative. But you are convinced it did happen. Where is the proof? You've seen pictures of burnt receivers then? You've seen police reports of an investigation into the firearms that revealed that they were accounted for and destroyed as indicated? Seen police reports identifying the quantity and make model of the firearms? Did you witness the police conduct detailed search of large areas of land after the surrender? Vehicle searches of all protestors who weren't arrested? No chance the firearms couldn't have been handed off prior to surrender? That's all you got? Asses or nothing?
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
You said it all, neither can be proven. My version is the one being used though so if either was more likely...
You are right. Official narratives that fly in the face of logic and reason offered on scant evidence usually prove to be correct. /sarcasm.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
In terms of when the Liberals plan to specify which semi-automatic weapons will be banned, Variyan wrote that a re-elected Liberal government would allow the “expert, non-partisan Canadian Firearms Program under the RCMP to determine classifications.”
-- September 25 2019, https://election.ctvnews.ca/truth-tr...olve-1.4610395
One eye to the past. One eye to the future. The wisest course.
Cart before the horse. You can not claim that there are 250,000 or so firearms without already having the list of firearms to be banned. The RCMP currently determine classifications based on the rules set by parliament in the criminal code. By saying the RCMP can determine what SHOULD be prohibited, they are in effect allowing the RCMP to dictate what the criminal code should say.
Notwithstanding how patently unconstitutional it is to allow the police to be ones the to determine what is or is not safe to own, it is highly unlikely that the police will have sufficient data to suggest that the firearms that they want to ban are in fact an actual danger. If the RCMP are currently claiming that certain firearms need to be prohibited, it MUST be because of an existential public safety threat from that firearm, absent of the actions of the USER.
If they are claiming that every AR in the country is readily convertible to full auto, for example, then the RCMP have simply misapplied the rules for classification of the criminal code and case law as readily convertible to full auto should already deem that firearm prohibited.
In the past the RCMP have tried to claim that the prohibited firearms OICs are out of date, and need to be updated to correspond with parliament's intent to ban para-military firearms, then the RCMP are inventing a parliamentary justification for regulations that is not on the public record and then dictating that parliament follow it.
Given that no rationale was ever given for selection criteria to make any of the prohibited firearms lists, the RCMP can not claim that any such methodology has been failed to be re-applied to subsequently invented firearms. If the RCMP are now substituting their own rationale for what should and shouldn't be on the prohibited firearms lists, what should happen to firearms currently on that list that don't meet their definition? And shouldn't they publish the eligibility criteria for gun manufacturers to be aware of so they can avoid inadvertently inventing a firearm that the RCMP will just deem prohibited?
This definitely bolsters my theory that whatever the Liberals will do, it will be a mess.
Last edited by Cameron SS; 09-27-2019 at 02:20 PM.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
I have skimmed /read most of the posts here and cannot believe how many of you would gladly turn over a complete rifle. When there just about to boot my door in, the lower with the registration papers rolled and stuffed in the magwell will come hurtling out the top floor window.
Our club is exploring the idea of canceling all RCMP contracts for range use: practice, quailifiction, etc. We will work with local municipal law, but not Federal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote