Trudeau's Gun Ban and Buy Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
The EE is depressing right now, panic selling everything on the chance a minority government has power. Also your panic selling, you can not ask $100 over retail because you added an afg

Well, prices sure haven't dropped yet, haha!

Let's see some 'scared hands' 70% discount on your black rifle, and then I'll snatch up every damnone of 'em :)


Stay off EE for now, unless you are 'swapping guns' or managing your collection.


If you want a new toy, eat the retail and support the vendor of your choice. They are going to need the support.
 
Interestingly, most of the founding fathers were dead set against ANY form of standing army

Yes.

because they knew it would lead to costly adventurism. (i.e. what we basically have today)

Please explain.
Yes, that's the way it is today;
but the reason for it in 1791, in addition to that the 2nd amendment equivalents were in the various state constitutions, was because they'd just fought a war over an abuse of power by the King, and the King used a "might makes right" attitude of his central army ("And remind him to keep his legions intact. They make the law legal." Julius Caesar). This resulted in the much hated 'British soldiers ransacking homes without warrant' to enforce the Stamp Act (taxes on goods), and billeting soldiers in homes without compensation for food and lodging. The Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army, because that would give the federal government power to enforce its will over that of the people, which was contrary to what they'd just fought a war over. Indeed they'd just drafted a constitution with checks and balances, including a 4 way split of power (Representatives, Senate, President, Court), and state/federal split of power, to prevent that sort of thing. (Which worked until someone decided that the constitution's commerce clause applied to everything including when there was no commerce at all let alone interstate commerce (e.g. a farmer imprisoned for growing his own crops for his own use because that meant he didn't buy from another state, infringed on interstate commerce and thus he was in violation of a recent federal Law))


The idea of every able-bodied man over the age of 14 being able to defend himself, his family, his property and, if called on, his state and country was at the heart of that belief.

Yes.

If anything, the current form of the US military is a mis-reading of the intention of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not the 2nd Amendment.

Yes. But the concept of a militia, as opposed to a standing army, was basically wrecked in the war of 1812, when a few disciplined British soldiers routed a militia force several times its size. Thereafter Congress was pretty much agreed that a standing army was necessary for practical survival reasons.

The US didn't even get a real navy until it was forced to pay tribute to North African pirates for a few years. And it was because they decided the navy would be a cheaper investment than being held hostage financially.

Yep. USS Constitution (aka Old Ironsides) constructed in 1797, authorized by the Naval Act of 1794, was one of a couple of warships that sailed independently across the Atlantic to deal with Barbary States support of piracy and slavery of captured crews and passengers. The Barbary states told Congress they'd stop the pirates attacking American vessels if Congress paid them a million(?) dollars a year in tribute. The Americans built a Navy instead. The Battle of Tripoli Harbor (North Africa) had the Constitution take over the fort and the city, and was the first time the American flag was raised on foreign soil as the result of conquest.
The 1926 silent film "Old Ironsides" tells the tale quite nicely, although it beings (7:34) with a mis-atributed yet apropos quote "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii-iyNEQFTw , https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07GGMC5BM )
 
Last edited:
Isn't that the dream of every soldier, to get to pick his wars?
Imo, campaigns and actions overseas, should only ever be on a strictly volunteer basis.

Overseas, sure. Domestically, not so much.

But if soldiers get to pick and choose the conflicts that they go to, taxpayers should get to pick and choose the wars that they pay for. IF taxpayers are unwilling to pay for it, then that will put a serious cramp on the resources available to the soldier during that conflict. And then soldiers will start campaigning to raise funds for the wars they want to fight, and if they can't do it through legitimate government channels they may do it through private channels, and then you don't have a state run military any more, just a bunch of private mercenary armies running amok on the world stage waging conflicts without legitimacy of a recognized national interest, which by our own definition makes Canada an exporter of terrorism.

So maybe not. Soldiers go where they are told to go. IF you don't want to go, you don't get to call yourself a soldier. Politicians however, should never be allowed to pay for international operations on the government's credit card. Were it not for Nation-state government's ability to borrow heavily from other nations in order to fund conflict, neither of the world wars would have happened.

After US economic collapse throws the world into global financial chaos, the only thing that will get us out of it will be another global war that will be funded almost entirely by a financial system fueled by credit and international loans.
 
Too bad they never distinguished between 'a standing army' and an expeditionary force.

Jefferson believed that there was no difference. He believed the problem was that once the taxpayers got the bill for the costs of maintaining a standing army, politicians would be under increasing pressure to justify the expense, and realize some kind of return on the investment, politicians would therefore look for opportunities to deploy them. Further, standing armies that never leave garrison almost always get their asses handed to them when faced off against an experienced force, regardless of numbers or equipment.

Jefferson believed that the militia, private citizens ready and willing to act in self defense, was the only standing army that was needed, because only self defense was the legitimate right of sovereign nations. As Rangebob said, the war of 1812 readily showed the lack of readiness and combat power that the general population can maintain in times of peace. In a utopian society, every country would adopt Jeffersons model and no one would hae the power to attack everyone, but everyone would have the power to defend. Unfortunately there are despotic regimes out there will be amass massive armies at public expense and will easily prey on any country not capable of mustering a robust defense and counter attack.
 
Please explain.
Yes, that's the way it is today;
but the reason for it in 1791, in addition to that the 2nd amendment equivalents were in the various state constitutions, was because they'd just fought a war over an abuse of power by the King, and the King used a "might makes right" attitude of his central army ("And remind him to keep his legions intact. They make the law legal." Julius Caesar). This resulted in the much hated 'British soldiers ransacking homes without warrant' to enforce the Stamp Act (taxes on goods), and billeting soldiers in homes without compensation for food and lodging. The Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army, because that would give the federal government power to enforce its will over that of the people, which was contrary to what they'd just fought a war over. Indeed they'd just drafted a constitution with checks and balances, including a 4 way split of power (Representatives, Senate, President, Court), and state/federal split of power, to prevent that sort of thing. (Which worked until someone decided that the constitution's commerce clause applied to everything including when there was no commerce at all let alone interstate commerce (e.g. a farmer imprisoned for growing his own crops for his own use because that meant he didn't buy from another state, infringed on interstate commerce and thus he was in violation of a recent federal Law))

I think CoonT actually explained it better than I did... the idea of not wanting an expeditionary force. I think the initial intention of the founders was a capable reactionary force, not a proactive military force. They should have written that down... They probably thought they didn't have to, given - as Rangebob points out - they had all just come out of a war. (Yet another war to end all wars...)

I love that part of history - the Barbary pirates. Barely anyone even knows about the tribute and the origins of the navy - and it's such a cool story.
 
I love that part of history - the Barbary pirates. Barely anyone even knows about the tribute and the origins of the navy - and it's such a cool story.

The Burning of the White House in 1814 had some similar bits.
British General Ross intended to secure a ransom for the city, when a militiaman shot Ross's horse out from under him, along with several other British soldiers, as Ross approached the Capitol under a flag of truce.
The militiamen probably didn't know of the plans of the English to demand tribute, when militia fired, but other than not knowing it was similar. "Tribute? Fire!"

An Irishman, James Hoban, designed the White House.
And an Irishman, Major General Robert Ross, burnt it down 14 years after it was completed.

With the defeat of Napoleon, the Empire turned its full attention to its former colony sending its battle-hardened troops to squash the up-start Americans. Washington had little strategic value - the thriving port of Baltimore was much more important. However, as capital of the nation, the British hoped that its burning would have a psychological impact on the will of the Americans to continue the conflict.

Ross, and his 4000 man army of experienced veterans, the vanguard of the British army, had just finished fighting the Napoleonic Wars, when they were put on ships and sent to America "to avenge American atrocities" including the burning of York in 1813. The Ross family's coat of arms now depict a captured American flag.

"Such being the intention of General Ross, he did not march the troops immediately into the city, but halted them upon a plain in its immediate vicinity, whilst a flag of truce was sent in with terms. But whatever his proposal might have been, it was not so much as heard, for scarcely had the party bearing the flag entered the street, than they were fired upon from the windows of one of the houses, and the horse of the General himself, who accompanied them, killed. You will easily believe that conduct so unjustifiable, so direct a breach of the law of nations, roused the indignation of every individual, from the General himself down to the private soldier.

All thoughts of accommodation were instantly laid aside; the troops advanced forthwith into the town, and having first put to the sword all who were found in the house from which the shots were fired, and reduced it to ashes, they proceeded, without 'a moment's delay, to burn and destroy everything in the most distant degree connected with government. In this general devastation were included the Senate House, the President's palace, an extensive dockyard and arsenal, barracks for two or three thousand men, several large storehouses filled with naval and military stores, some hundreds of cannon of different descriptions, and nearly twenty thousand stand of small arms. There were also two or three public rope works which shared the same fate, a fine frigate pierced for sixty guns and just ready to be launched, several gun brigs and armed schooners, with a variety of gunboats and small craft. The powder magazines were, of course, set on fire, and exploded with a tremendous crash, throwing down many houses in their vicinity, partly by pieces of the wall striking them, and partly by the concussion of the air whilst quantities of shot, shell, and hand grenades, which could not otherwise be rendered useless, were thrown into the river."

...When the detachment sent out to destroy Mr. Madison's house entered his dining parlor, they found a dinner table spread and covers laid for forty guests. Several kinds of wine, in handsome cut glass decanters, were cooling on the sideboard; plate holders stood by the fireplace, filled with dishes and plates; knives, forks, and spoons were arranged for immediate use; in short, everything was ready for the entertainment of a ceremonious party. Such were the arrangements in the dining room, whilst in the kitchen were others answerable to them in every respect. Spits, loaded with joints of various sorts, turned before the fire; pots, saucepans, and other culinary utensils stood upon the grate; and all the other requisites for an elegant and substantial repast were exactly in a state which indicated that they had been lately and precipitately abandoned.

You will readily imagine that these preparations were beheld by a party of hungry soldiers with no indifferent eye. An elegant dinner, even though considerably overdressed, was a luxury to which few of them, at least for some time back, had been accustomed, and which, after the dangers and fatigues of the day, appeared peculiarly inviting. They sat down to it, therefore, not indeed in the most orderly manner, but with countenances which would not have disgraced a party of aldermen at a civic feast, and, having satisfied their appetites with fewer complaints than would have probably escaped their rival gourmands, and partaken pretty freely of the wines, they finished by setting fire to the house which had so liberally entertained them.

...Of the Senate house, the President's palace, the barracks, the dockyard, etc., nothing could be seen except heaps of smoking ruins."​

Ross’s campaign on the shores of the Chesapeake lasted less than a month, but its military and political impact was enormous. Considered an officer and a gentleman by many on both sides of the Atlantic, the general who captured Washington would in time fade in public memory. Yet Ross’s strategies and achievements during the final days of his career would shape American defense policy for decades to come.
-- https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0806151641
 
This forum/thread is getting out of control and becoming a joke, just pointing fingers #####in and moaning and look how big my #### is type crap. Come on, FFS.

This is a useful tool for us and we're using it like a bunch of ####s in a pissing contest. Everyone says we need a plan, a course of action to prevent this from coming to be.

We (I assume) all tried with our votes (that was step 1) and it didn't work out the way we all hoped it would, so we need to now take the next LEGAL steps.

Not everyone here has lots of money to spend. Not everyone is single or married or has kids to think about. Not everyone is in the same situation. Not everyone was/is in the Military or LE. Not everyone here has $10,000+ invested in the sport/hobby therefore wont risk their livelihoods/families well being for an AR-15, it is what it is, doesn't mean we should be at each other's throats.

I hate this Macho Man Randy Savage BS that tells everyone they are hardcore and not going to comply and you're a freedom hating sheeple if you do. I love how when times are good we pride ourselves on being law-abiding then in a flash we get these tough guy rants of F the law. If you want to run the risk of non-compliance and someone does not, to each their own lets hope we don't get to that point!!! Maybe some will hand in their AR15(s) so they don't raise any red flags so they can keep/hide other firearms that aren't registered.

So lets stop this ###### #### with "I'm tough and your a pussy" BS and lets focus on the plan needed prevent this ban coming to pass. Many gun owners will comply when their legal options run out because their families are more important to them than a gun, get over it, doesn't give them or you the moral high ground.

So instead of F'n around, we outline the plan clearly that hopefully the majority will follow and therefore the purpose of this website, to have a united front! Comply/not comply should be the very last step in this plan

Sending money to pro-gun groups to spread the right message. Getting as many people out to the range to change opinions and educate, then seeing if they will get their license(s). Simply having a conversation about guns/laws with people you meet. Maybe there is a Lawyer on here who could help outline the legal actions we can take as a group or as individuals (again, not everyone has money to spend on this type of thing so lets not belittle someone for not being able to do this or that). Let's focus on the ideas in this type of discussion. Some will say their two cents and sometimes it will be bat #### crazy but then someone can educate them on why that is and move on. You wouldn't go off on someone you're trying to educate on guns/laws/bans in a vilifying way, so why do it here? Consider it practice for the real world trying to win ppl over.

The politicians WILL NOT listen because the ball is rolling, their ears are plugged and their small group is making the loudest noise, they have their agendas and the media in their pockets for that propaganda. The chances the Lib/NDP/Green pandering to themselves and the public is high but not a guarantee. Trudeau and his pee brain will be more cocky now then ever cause he is still the PM after not being called on his s**t by Canadians. We have to combat this with our own unified LOUD AF voices
 
Last edited:
Don't be so quick to dismiss it, MBAKER. It serves an important purpose. Imo, this sort of '####-swinging back and forth' as well as the 'glee of showing vagee', is how we end up on more or less the same page.

Ie. This is where culture is cultivated. Don't diss the cake, when it's still being mixed in the bowl. :)
 
It amazes me how many naively believe they can COMPLY THEIR WAY OUT OF TYRANNY.

Dude, you don't even know what tyranny is. Try living in countries that truly are oppressive and dictatorial. This is Canada FFS, you have more freedom and a higher quality of life than many in other countries. Stop your angry whining.
 
Welcome to the forums, RK99.

One thing I notice, is that all the new guys are saying the same thing?


Glad you're here and appreciate the point of view. It just comes across a bit like a junkmail flyer the postal lady won't stop stuffing in my mailbox, is all I'm sayin.

Cheers! :).
 
Welcome to the forums, RK99.

One thing I notice, is that all the new guys are saying the same thing?


Glad you're here and appreciate the point of view. It just comes across a bit like a junkmail flyer the postal lady won't stop stuffing in my mailbox, is all I'm sayin.

Cheers! :).

Thanks. I just find the hyperbole around here a bit much. In my experience angry screaming rarely accomplishes anything and all the threats and anger here will only be a negative forthe firearms community. The only hope of fighting this is, possibly legal challeneges, and more likely with information and making people understand the high financial cost of a ban that will accomplish zero for public safety. It's not the politicians that need convincing. It's the media and the public. That won't happen with threats and anger.
 
Welcome to the forums, RK99.

One thing I notice, is that all the new guys are saying the same thing?


Glad you're here and appreciate the point of view. It just comes across a bit like a junkmail flyer the postal lady won't stop stuffing in my mailbox, is all I'm sayin.

Cheers! :).

That's what we call confirmation bias, if you see an opinion you don't agree with and check the join date and it's another new member, it sticks out. You probably don't check to see if a post you agree with was posted by someone who just joined.
 
Dude, you don't even know what tyranny is. Try living in countries that truly are oppressive and dictatorial. This is Canada FFS, you have more freedom and a higher quality of life than many in other countries. Stop your angry whining.

Yes this is Canada and our general standard of living is unarguably one of the highest in the world. Those of us with spines intend to KEEP it that way. Thanks for sharing your braindead views, perhaps the “canadian gun nutz” forum isnt for you.
 
Yes this is Canada and our general standard of living is unarguably one of the highest in the world. Those of us with spines intend to KEEP it that way. Thanks for sharing your braindead views, perhaps the “canadian gun nutz” forum isnt for you.

I could equally argue your views are braindead. That won't get me far in this echo chamber though. And perhaps "nutz" is an apt name for this place....
 
It's not the politicians that need convincing. It's the media and the public. That won't happen with threats and anger.

1) politicians own the media, or vice versa... they’re hands are both in each other’s pockets.
2) the public means diddly #### now. They’ve already proven being ass raped for the last 4 years was fine, they want to try it with no lube this time around.
And it doesn’t matter anymore, we live in a far-left dictatorship. The world (western) has allowed the bleeding hearts to overtake the common sense and fill it with dreams of complete and utter retardation.

Look down down at OAC - her ‘utopia’ is absolutely mind boggling, and she has a following... a large one at that. The zombies are here to stay, and I’m just anticipating WW3 or something as the gene pool is long overdue for a cleanse.
Maybe this global warming #### is the answer to our problems... and the ‘higher beings’ sorting the world out.

Call me cynical, but it’s hard not to be when you know that everything is about to come crumbling down.

And in response to threats and anger getting nowhere... it actually seems to be a tactic that works well for the other groups out there (lgbtqfmgkbybsbfh, the trans whatever issues, gun control has made it this far because of the people crying the loudest, the climate control freaks, etc)... we should learn from these individuals and try their own tactic
 
Dude, you don't even know what tyranny is. Try living in countries that truly are oppressive and dictatorial. This is Canada FFS, you have more freedom and a higher quality of life than many in other countries. Stop your angry whining.

I have been around long enough to see that compliance has only brought us erosion of our freedoms.

Soft tyranny is still tyranny.

As to complying our way out of it, collaborating our way out of it won't work either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom