A Deeply Fractured US

[Eaglelord17]

Or closer to home. imagine if provinces and police forces refuse to enforce gun buy back etc. And the federal gvt decided to activate the military to do it. I imagine many cheerleaders of what is happening down south would be changing their tunes pretty quick.

The fact there is so many tolerating it in the states is wild to me considering how many militia members and anti-government people they have there. Both the left and the right in the states have a vested interest in keeping the military off their streets.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If the US invaded Canadians would line up to report their Canadian neighbours to the RCMP for having guns.

More, or fewer, than those lining up to help the Americans fight and, maybe, round up folks who don't want the Americans running things? Discuss ...

If I was advising Trump I would suggest he offer new Canadians, refugees, international students, and TFW's shiny new American citizenship if they turned on Canadians if they seized ground and property ...

Ah, the "USSR 2.0 in UKR Donetsk/Luhansk in 2014" approach

 

[Altair]

Or closer to home. imagine if provinces and police forces refuse to enforce gun buy back etc. And the federal gvt decided to activate the military to do it. I imagine many cheerleaders of what is happening down south would be changing their tunes pretty quick.

Oh, I'm sure those backing the president of the USA using the military to fight crime would be behind PM of Canada using the military to enforce the gun buyback.

To do otherwise would be highly hypocritical.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Or closer to home. imagine if provinces and police forces refuse to enforce gun buy back etc. And the federal gvt decided to activate the military to do it. I imagine many cheerleaders of what is happening down south would be changing their tunes pretty quick.

Trump is talking about using the military to primarily go after violent criminals and drug trafficking/cartels.

Do you find that is on par with Canadian gun owners, largely non-violent and not trafficking drugs, refusing to turn in their firearms? In many cases at a financial loss?

 

[Remius]

Trump is tlaking about using the military to primarily go after violent criminals and drug trafficking/cartels.

Is he though? Lots of talk of “the enemy within”. They also seem to be helping in the rounding up a lot of non violent undocumented types.

Do you find that is on par with Canadian gun owners, largely non-violent and not trafficking drugs, refusing to turn in their firearms? In many cases at a financial loss?

I imagine some do. If it is acceptable to do so for ideological reasons on one side the why would it be wrong for the other to do the same? Is the law being broken? Is civil authority not following the law? Seems like the very reason they sent in the military to help ice and now it would seem indicate that they will be expanding their scope in law enforcement in cities they deem to not be cooperating with their plans?

Any use of the military in a law enforcement capacity against its own citizens, regardless of how they suddenly classify something or someone, is a slippery slope that goes against basic democratic/western principles.

I think in either case, it’s isn’t acceptable. I stand by the statement that tunes would change if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[McG]

Trump is talking about using the military to primarily go after violent criminals and drug trafficking/cartels.

He is talking about using the military to punish cities.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is he though? Lots of talk of “the enemy within”. They also seem to be helping in the rounding up a lot of non violent undocumented types.

Undocumented types are still illegally in the country. If they were legal and Trump changed the rules over night and they became illegal all of a sudden then maybe yeah.

In any case I did some looking and I didn't see any credible evidence of the US military rounding up undocumented types. It does look like they've protecting immigration enforcement officers and government buildings.

Kind of like the RCMP enlisting the help of Canadian Forces soldiers to assist them saving firearms from drowning in the red river floods.

I think in either case, it’s isn’t acceptable. I stand by the statement that tunes would change if the shoe was on the other foot.

Maybe yeah. Personally it comes down to a case by case basis.

I wouldn't have any problem with the military helping police go after gun and drug smugglers, or assisting tracking down violent offenders. It does become a slippery slope (for me) when it's citizens the government made criminals over night. Espeically when the largest provincial police force (and others) won't touch it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

He is talking about using the military to punish cities.

That's messed up.

 

[Remius]

Undocumented types are still illegally in the country. If they were legal and Trump changed the rules over night and they became illegal all of a sudden then maybe yeah.

Still doesn’t warrant using the military for that.

In any case I did some looking and I didn't see any credible evidence of the US military rounding up undocumented types. It does look like they've protecting immigration enforcement officers and government buildings.

Kind of like the RCMP enlisting the help of Canadian Forces soldiers to assist them saving firearms from drowning in the red river floods.


Maybe yeah. Personally it comes down to a case by case basis.

Right. Funny how drug cartels are targets but yet I haven’t seen anything with regards to the mafia or biker gangs. It seems ideologically driven and not actual consistent policy.

I wouldn't have any problem with the military helping police go after gun and drug smugglers, or assisting tracking down violent offenders. It does become a slippery slope (for me) when it's citizens the government made criminals over night. Espeically when the largest provincial police force (and others) won't touch it.

Even in your first cases of violent offenders and drug smugglers. We are not an authoritarian regime and have created the organizations that are more appropriate to deal with that.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Still doesn’t warrant using the military for that.

To be clear Inunderstand you're disagreeing with Trumps use of the military to protect government agents?

Right. Funny how drug cartels are targets but yet I haven’t seen anything with regards to the mafia or biker gangs. It seems ideologically driven and not actual consistent policy.

Biker gangs traffick drugs. Wouldn't they fall under the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Actif they're trafficking drugs?

Even in your first cases of violent offenders and drug smugglers. We are not an authoritarian regime and have created the organizations that are more appropriate to deal with that.

Whats your thoughts of using the military during natural disasters against armed looters?

 

[Remius]

To be clear Inunderstand you're disagreeing with Trumps use of the military to protect government agents?

I stated that I am opposed to gvt using the military for most if not all law enforcement tasks that should be done by law enforcement

Biker gangs traffick drugs. Wouldn't they fall under the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Actif they're trafficking drugs?

Sure. Should we hit them with predator drones? Or let LE deal with it.

Whats your thoughts of using the military during natural disasters against armed looters?

Scale of a disaster would be a factor. And not something that is normally routine for LE. But generally not a fan.

I would be less cynical if they also targeted red city and states with high crime rates but they aren’t. Still a bridge too far.

 

[QV]

Trump is talking about using the military to primarily go after violent criminals and drug trafficking/cartels.

Do you find that is on par with Canadian gun owners, largely non-violent and not trafficking drugs, refusing to turn in their firearms? In many cases at a financial loss?

That’s exactly the kind leap left wing zealots would make. “That sport shooter with the AR is exactly like the cartel fentanyl traffickers”.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I stated that I am opposed to gvt using the military for most if not all law enforcement tasks that should be done by law enforcement

Thanks I was a little mixed up.

Sure. Should we hit them with predator drones? Or let LE deal with it.

Let em try and out run the predators.

Scale of a disaster would be a factor. And not something that is normally routine for LE. But generally not a fan.

Looks like it's normally National Guard due to them being state run and not federal. Still, it's US soldiers armed and potentially engaging US citizens.

I would be less cynical if they also targeted red city and states with high crime rates but they aren’t. Still a bridge too far.

There's no question about it Trump is using the military as a political weapon of terror.

 

[Remius]

That’s exactly the kind leap left wing zealots would make. “That sport shooter with the AR is exactly like the cartel fentanyl traffickers”.

No more than the right wing zealot thinking all brown people are terrorists and violent cartel members.

Yet here we are.

I think then we can agree that gvt should leave ideology out of it when it comes to using the military domestically.

All we can do is watch the shit show south of the border.

 

[QV]

No more than the right wing zealot thinking all brown people are terrorists and violent cartel members.

Yet here we are.

I think then we can agree that gvt should leave ideology out of it when it comes to using the military domestically.

All we can do is watch the shit show south of the border.

Ok. If you believe that the sophisticated CCP supported fentanyl production and running into your communities is simply an idealogical difference, we’ll continue to disagree.

My guess: a shit load more people in the US are ok with the narco boats getting dusted then are not.

 

[NavyShooter]

As I have read, the 'troops going to Portland' have been federalized and their role is only protection of federal assets/buildings. They cannot do police work.

Putting troops on guard on those buildings does, however, free up some of the police and other agencies who were guarding their home base buildings to go out and do the 'chase down illegals/druggies/gangs' task.

I have a problem with soldiers doing police work. Military police are bad enough at doing police work, putting an infanteer in that role is - un-smart.

Putting an infanteer on guard duty around a building so that the DHS or whoever can safely ingress/egress from their building and go do their work in the public space as a peace officer/police officer makes some sense.

It's certainly inflammatory, but it makes some sense.

Of note - I'm not a legal beagle on this stuff, and I'm able to accept that I'm wrong if that's the case.

 

[Remius]

Ok. If you believe that the sophisticated CCP supported fentanyl production and running into your communities is simply an idealogical difference, we’ll continue to disagree.

No. Go back and read what I am saying about ideological motivations

My guess: a shit load more people in the US are ok with the narco boats getting dusted then are not.

Sure. But that isn’t exactly what we are discussing. It’s a bit broader than that.

 

[brihard]

As I have read, the 'troops going to Portland' have been federalized and their role is only protection of federal assets/buildings. They cannot do police work.

Putting troops on guard on those buildings does, however, free up some of the police and other agencies who were guarding their home base buildings to go out and do the 'chase down illegals/druggies/gangs' task.

I have a problem with soldiers doing police work. Military police are bad enough at doing police work, putting an infanteer in that role is - un-smart.

Putting an infanteer on guard duty around a building so that the DHS or whoever can safely ingress/egress from their building and go do their work in the public space as a peace officer/police officer makes some sense.

It's certainly inflammatory, but it makes some sense.

Of note - I'm not a legal beagle on this stuff, and I'm able to accept that I'm wrong if that's the case.

As best as I can tell you’ve got it about right. There’s definitely a legal distinction between providing physical security to federal sites, and exercising police officer/law enforcement powers. The courts seem to be seeing it that way too.

There’s a lot of really inefficient use of federal resources happening right now, with officers who should be working national security or organized crime being detailed to tromp around DC, or to participate in dragnet immigration sweeps to hit a quota. When you pull federal officers off of major/long term project work to be on the streets doing visible stuff for optics, that causes issues, and it means you’re taking your eye off the ball. Major investigations don’t just hit pause and then play without any damage done.

 

[PrairieFella]

Pete put it this way,



His boss went on, again, about Canada becoming the 51st state.

No mention of what happens when his followers leave their maga regalia back in the.States when traveling ,if they can no longer pass themselves off as Canadians.

Surely that means people with beard chits will get fully funded electrolysis and laser hair removal right?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Trump is talking about using the military to primarily go after violent criminals and drug trafficking/cartels.

Do you find that is on par with Canadian gun owners, largely non-violent and not trafficking drugs, refusing to turn in their firearms? In many cases at a financial loss?

Not getting into the 'for' or 'against' argument here on the gun buyback - but - if i was advising the PM I would ensure that ever individual case of a firearm being bought back did NOT result in a financial loss to the owner, at a minimum this would be the entry point of the buyback. Why rub salt in the wound? At least back these individuals whole financially. It removes an irritant and a talking point from the opposition.