No because ive had the same close friends for 21 years. I know them, more than my own sister. And these friends i talk to everyday. I know them. Not naive at all. Someone can easily know someone well enough to know if they even do drugs or anything else illegal. They wouldnt hide it from me. Just like they know im the same.
Whats bad is your teaching a sense of entitlment and scream "my rights! My rights!" Everytime someone speaks in your direction. Allowing a search with what i believe to be reasonable. Fine. Search my house cause something happened downtown. Nope. Being able to pick and choose what i determine to be reasonable that makes more sense to me. As a gun owner im not going to cause a scene over something i deem as minor. We can draw the line in the sand where ever we choose. They arent stepping on my rights asking to search and me allowing. Now if they tried to pull me from the truck thats different. People need to find the middle ground. Standing on the far side of anything doesnt help a thing. Theres my middle, can i search? Sure. Im going to search if you like it or not. Thats crossing the line. Always being worried that something bad is about to happen make it seem like you should be on my side with the gun safety your so against on the other thread. As you said, they are only human too.
You're hilarious - you think it's a sense of entitlement to ensure and exercise one's rights?
You'd fit right in to countries like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc - just accuse everyone who opposes you of "entitlement"?
How about thinking objectively for a moment. I simply do not want to give up my rights - as I've said before, your rights are only going to stick around if you want them to. If you ignore them and pretend they do not exist, they are not going to stick around. As mentioned already, there's a reason canadians are LOSING privacy rights, when most other countries are tightening up restrictions against invasions of privacy - and it's because canadians haven't bothered to fight for their privacy rights.
Furthermore, how is it a sense of entitlement when standing up for my (our) rights is not causing any harm or getting in the way of anything? Not allowing an unjustified search is not getting in the way of the investigation - it is simply ensuring that the police follow the rules and laws set out for them. If parliament had thought it reasonable that police have the powers to search anyone without just cause, they would have given them that power. They did not - they instead made clear that police needed a reason to search people and their cars, homes, or other property. If they don't have that reason, then why would anyone allow it?
You're right, they aren't stepping on your rights by asking you to allow them to search your truck. They are asking you to voluntarily give up your right to be free from searches such as that, and allow them to search.
Finally, I would ask you why it is that YOU think YOU are somehow qualified or capable to decide if their search request is reasonable or if it's egregious? Why is it any more reasonable to search your truck if it was in the area of a theft than your home if the theft happened elsewhere? By your logic, the police wouldn't ask unless they had a good reason - if they're asking you to search your home, it's likely because they either suspect you are the criminal, or they suspect that the criminal was in the area.
It's not about being a gun owner at all - I know plenty of people who are not gun owners and who would still stand up for their rights. You don't have to be a gun owner to care.
I'm not standing on the far side of anything, either. I'm simply standing on the side that the law tells me I'm allowed to stand on. I'm not saying we should fight a search request when it is justified, or that we should even impede in a legitimate investigation.
Maybe there are circumstances where a search without just cause would be warranted - maybe the police say they had a witness say specifically that someone suspicious was seen putting a bag into the back of a truck that was similar color to mine. In that case, I might very well say they could go ahead and look, MAYBE. But to think that it's acceptable for them to just search my vehicle because "it was in the area" is ridiculous. It's completely against the charter of rights.
Finally, what's the difference between you saying yes, and them demanding one? You say you are standing in the middle - how is that the middle? You say "it's not fine if they say 'i'm going to search if you like it or not', but you will say sure if they ask nicely? Then why care if they demand the search - you were going to allow it anyways... I would suggest YOU are the one on the far side of this - you are claiming to stand up on a principle, but there's no basis for what you're standing on. You'd be upset if they demanded a search, but would consent to that same search if asked nicely? So you're concerned about their manners more than the basis for their search?
wow.
And no, again, the other thread is about not presuming everyone is a tool. Yes, everyone is fallible, and that's my point. You can't assume everyone is going to fail or screw up or become a criminal, and in doing so, punish everyone on that basis. Furthermore, as has been stated to you already, licensing and mandatory training is NOT about safety. It's about making it more difficult to own guns, to discourage gun ownership, and eventually, to disarm canadian citizens fully. If you're actually serious about the discussion, look into it. Look at the statements that were made when C-68 was being debated. It is very clear that the authors of the bill had a goal of disarming Canadians, not of making things safer.
In fact, they had clear evidence brought before them that many of the proposed parts of C-68 would have zero impact on public safety, and/or that they would be incredibly costly with no benefit on public safety. They went ahead with it anyways. Then look at the safety/accident statistics and find out what kind of difference the mandatory government indoctrination had - you'll find it was insignificant. Then look at the estimated gun owners in Canada before C-68 came in to play, the rate of growth, and the totals after it came into play. Their goals were accomplished. We went from an estimated 3.3 million gun owners in Canada (at a minimum) to what the government claims is about 2 million gun owners (as there are about 2 million PAL holders). Compare that to the growth of gun ownership that we saw before legislation, and compare that to the growth of firearms ownership in the states (one of the few countries with less restrictive gun laws, sadly). Now can you tell me that the liberal gun control legislation was truly designed to stop criminal use of guns, or can you admit it was meant to discourage civilian gun ownership?
Have a boo....:
http://cssa-cila.org/wp-content-cssa/uploads/2014/12/If_I_had_a_Billion_Dollars.pdf
http://cssa-cila.org/rights/lies-da...ian-firearms-centre-response-to-cfc-brochure/
But obviously you don't care about the truth - you'd rather just buy into the indoctrination you've suffered.
).
