The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[QV]

Weapons teams in Alberta are integrated with municipal investigators, unless they are ordering municipal agencies (I’ve seen nothing to say they are) to do the same you’re observing theatre,

I'd like to think of it as a preview.

 

[Booter]

about two years ago- the firearm officers in Alberta became provincial employees moving away from the federal employees. Their program already isn’t ordering anyone to confiscate guns.

I also note he is inflating the number he says Alberta is paying for the RCMP- to be closer to the potential Alberta provincial police number that came out.

It’s dishonest. But I guess it’s working.

 

[QV]

I know this doesn't mean a whole helluva lot, but reading through the comments to the articles on this Alberta not participating, there sure is a lot of support for Alberta even on the CBC comments shockingly.

 

[Lumber]

I know this doesn't mean a whole helluva lot, but reading through the comments to the articles on this Alberta not participating, there sure is a lot of support for Alberta even on the CBC comments shockingly.

Yes and if you went to Ottawa last January you'd think the entire country was REALLY mad about COVID health measures and ready to fight the government to the bitter end about it.

Turns out, 70% of Canadians weren't that mad.

 

[QV]

Yes and if you went to Ottawa last January you'd think the entire country was REALLY mad about COVID health measures and ready to fight the government to the bitter end about it.

Turns out, 70% of Canadians weren't that mad.

Don’t be so sure. The silent majority that don’t want to be called a racist for no reason act in other ways. Like moving money out of banks, voting, etc. Do you think it’s just a coincidence “Skippy”, to use your words, won decisively on the first ballot? How could a right wing maga lite like PP have any support at all in predominantly liberal Canada?

The mandates were too far, the EA was too far, what’s next? Oh right, censorship and property confiscation. You good with all that?

 

[OldSolduer]

I recall the AG - Lametti - saying if your politics don't agree with ours we'll freeze your bank account. Or words to that effect.
Now I am not sure if this was an off the cuff remark but it sure does hit home.

 

[QV]

I recall the AG - Lametti - saying if your politics don't agree with ours we'll freeze your bank account. Or words to that effect.
Now I am not sure if this was an off the cuff remark but it sure does hit home.

That was them just saying the quiet part out loud. I can't believe that in 2022 a democratically elected government is saying and doing things like that... in Canada! And half the country seems ok with it. I'm holding out a little hope that there will be a reckoning at the next federal election but I've been accustomed to disappointment now.

 

[Lumber]

Don’t be so sure. The silent majority that don’t want to be called a racist for no reason act in other ways. Like moving money out of banks, voting, etc. Do you think it’s just a coincidence “Skippy”, to use your words, won decisively on the first ballot? How could a right wing maga lite like PP have any support at all in predominantly liberal Canada?

The mandates were too far, the EA was too far, what’s next? Oh right, censorship and property confiscation. You good with all that?

The mandates did not go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.

Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.

 

[QV]

If you think the EA and the mandates were both ok given what we now know, then we are indeed at opposite spectrums and will never convince one another. Given that, chances are also exceedingly high we won't agree on censorship or private property confiscation, so no point in any further discussion.

 

[KevinB]

The mandates did not go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety.

Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.

The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.

The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock. It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.

Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.

When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?

 

[Lumber]

If you think the EA and the mandates were both ok given what we now know, then we are indeed at opposite spectrums and will never convince one another. Given that, chances are also exceedingly high we won't agree on censorship or private property confiscation, so no point in any further discussion.

1. Legit question: what exactly is it "we now know"? I haven't learned anything new about these topics, so perhaps you can change my mind?

2. It's never pointless to debate and discuss. Even if you don't convince someone of your position, the mere act of brining your perspective can temper the actions of the other side, or help achieve a middle-ground/compromise. I, for example, may not change my mind and say that I disagree with the use of the EA, but I may, after hearing your side, may agree that the actual implantation of the EA went to far, and that further checks be put in place to safeguard abuse during future use.

3. I said I was against censorship, so I'm not sure why you brought that up again, but I'm not sure why you're fighting so hard against the idea property confiscation. Let's take what-should-be-legal guns out of the equation. Let's say a person was caught numerous times driving an unregistered vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Would you be against the government confiscating their vehicle? What about a business that was found to be a front for human trafficking? Would you appose the government seizing that property? What if bank records proved beyond a doubt that a mosque was using funds donated my members of the mosque under the guise of being for charity and/or mosque operations were instead being fueled to ISIS and ISIS affiliated in both Canada and the ME? Would you be against seizing those bank accounts?

 

[CBH99]

The mandates did not go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.

Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.

Care to share some of those scenarios, and clarify what you mean about the government has reasonable grounds to confiscate someone’s private property?

(I’m not trolling, I’m just trying to clearly understand your side of the debate)


EDIT - Nevermind, you clarified my question while I was writing it

 

[Brad Sallows]

Outrageous cases are easy. Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat. People are weak. The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."

 

[Lumber]

Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.

It seems on this point you agree that at some point the health science warranted our COVID measures. So we agree on that. Where we disagree is on how drastic those measures should have been and how long those measures should have been in place. That's a matter of risk tolerance. It's a policy decision, and that's why we have elections. We don't need to have massive convoy protest over it. We're not going to agree on this one, though if you feel like being more specific in just how we went long past the point of sanity, I'm willing to listen. You probably won't convince me on mask and vaccine mandates, but wrt boarder crossing protocols and the ArriveCan app, I'm probably already on your side.

The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock. It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.

You're right; LE should have been able to solve this problem long before the EA was needed, but in the end the EA was needed (at least that's my opinion). As to whether Canada was made to be a laughing stock as a result? I've not seen any indication of that.

When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?

Since @QV was not quantifying his stance on "property seizure", I was assuming he is taking the extreme view that "absolutely no property seizure should be allowed" (similar to how some gun right activists believe that there should be absolutely no regulations what oever on guns). Maybe he doesn't actually believe in that extreme view, so I await his rebuttle.

And yes, Eminent Domaining my house would f****** suck.

 

[Lumber]

Outrageous cases are easy. Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat. People are weak. The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."

None of the cases I made up above were outrageous, and if we're still talking about the statement made by Lamentti, as far as I'm aware no one but convoy organizers had their bank accounts frozen (so it was specific and targeted to an actual "threat") and there accounts were unfrozen not long after (so, the measures were temporary). Do you think we shouldn't have an emergencies act? If you think we need one, what sort of things should be added that aren't already there?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.


The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock. It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.

When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?

Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.

 

[KevinB]

Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.

It was clearly airborne long before the CDC etc admitted it.
Frankly the PPE issue was worldwide. Frankly I belief the first line workers in healthcare needed it vastly more than anyone else. But also it’s a virus, the easiest solution would have been a 1 week warning followed by a utter lock down for two weeks.

But as we as a species are too selfish that wasn’t done, and the dominos fell.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Outrageous cases are easy. Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat. People are weak. The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."

When reviewing our Act , they wanted to give us very broad powers and had basically cut and paste stuff from another Act. It was pleasing that all of us frontline regulatory staff objected to the scope of the powers they wanted to give us as we felt they were excessive to our needs. There are people in government that are quite willing and happy to impose stuff on others and then others who are to lazy to carefully craft legislation and will erode the rights of citizenship via cut and paste regulations. Governments are like toddlers and require constant supervision to prevent them from doing something naughty.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It was clearly airborne long before the CDC etc admitted it.
Frankly the PPE issue was worldwide. Frankly I belief the first line workers in healthcare needed it vastly more than anyone else. But also it’s a virus, the easiest solution would have been a 1 week warning followed by a utter lock down for two weeks.

But as we as a species are too selfish that wasn’t done, and the dominos fell.

Along with shutting down all air travel for a few months

 

[RedFive]

The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.

The Minister of Public Safety is on record as stating the Police did not ask for the EA. The Commissioner of the RCMP, whom many consider an appointed mouthpiece of the PM, is also on record as stating the RCMP did not ask for or consider necessary that the EA be invoked. The Ottawa Police have stated they didn't ask for it. Premiers of other Provinces where there were protests happening have stated they didn't ask for it. I personally took part in the response to a protest local to me that shut down a border crossing. No EA authorities were needed or used here.

The Government of Canada has been completely unwilling to articulate to Canadians why it was invoked, as the Police never asked for it and had ample authorities given by existing Legislation to deal with the protests across Canada. The Government has, in fact, contradicted themselves over and over and claimed there were misunderstandings and miscommunications after one of them tried to pin it on the Police and multiple agencies came out and stated it was not required or requested. The only people who thought it was necessary were the current Federal government, against the recommendations of the very same law enforcement agencies that were dealing with the protests themselves.

Considering we're talking about personal opinions, having been on the front lines of this one the EA was background noise, posturing and being seen to be doing something by an inept Government incapable of dealing with the reckoning their poor policy and divisive politics had brought to their front door. Turns out when you talk poorly about entire groups of people for years on end, they get kinda pissed off. Whooda thunk.