The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Humphrey Bogart]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2036176045682896944

26000 owners?
51000 firearms?
one week to go

Seeing Nathalie come all unhinged like that...

 

[NavyShooter]

Have had a couple of interesting discussions today....some related to this....in short, they're not getting SFA from me except the scraps of receivers that'll be embedded in a poured tri-wall of concrete with only the serial numbers visible.

The less compliance, the more certain I am of an extension of the amnesty.

I will do nothing until the very last day.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Have had a couple of interesting discussions today....some related to this....in short, they're not getting SFA from me except the scraps of receivers that'll be embedded in a poured tri-wall of concrete with only the serial numbers visible.

The less compliance, the more certain I am of an extension of the amnesty.

I will do nothing until the very last day.

I will bring the strawberry rhubarb moonshine...

 

[QV]

I will bring the strawberry rhubarb moonshine...

I can supply the cutting tools and bags of concrete if you'll kindly extend the invite.

 

[Haggis]

@Haggis

https://twitter.com/x/status/2036101209233240498

Thanks. I watched it when I got home. The Minister and his eventual replacement have no idea what's on the ban list.

 

[OldSolduer]

She’s a talking head and not a terribly smart one at that. Keep your hands off our guns.

 

[NavyShooter]

I can supply the cutting tools and bags of concrete if you'll kindly extend the invite.

Are you in the Halifax area? That's where my humble abode and workshop is located.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Good live, as of me posting this, podcast on today and Firearms and Canada in general.

Home - Calibremag.ca

calibremag.ca

 

[Furniture]

I don't think they like the idea of turning 10s of thousands or more of lawful tax paying Canadian into criminals over night which is what seems it approaching.

That's political bad move..

I'm not sure that bothers them at all. The other 38 million Canadian's who don't own firearms and know nothing about the laws will just see a bunch of people who aren't so trustworthy and "law abiding" at all, and maybe shouldn't have other types of firearms.

Considering they already declared they aren’t paying for a bunch of property declared prohibited, that isn’t going to fly. They have been acting in bad faith since this started I think that will be very clear to the courts.

They said they might not pay for firearms that are registered if the money runs out. That's not the same as declaring they won't, and they've already cut the buy-back budget because with a week left they are under half of the forecasted buy-backs.

I think firearms owners who made no good faith effort to be compensated by the government will be told that they don't have a case because they refused to participate in the buy-back.

That said, I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm way off base here.

 

[Haggis]

I'm not sure that bothers them at all. The other 38 million Canadian's who don't own firearms and know nothing about the laws will just see a bunch of people who aren't so trustworthy and "law abiding" at all, and maybe shouldn't have other types of firearms.

I think the messaging from our side and the very public reluctance of many provinces and LEAs to participate in this scheme have shown those 38M what's behind the gun ban curtain, and it ain't safer streets.

They said they might not pay for firearms that are registered if the money runs out. That's not the same as declaring they won't, and they've already cut the buy-back budget because with a week left they are under half of the forecasted buy-backs.

The Minister waa quite clear. Once the allocated money is gone, no more is forthcoming. That's the incentive for early declaration.

I think firearms owners who made no good faith effort to be compensated by the government will be told that they don't have a case because they refused to participate in the buy-back.

I think you're spot on.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I'm not sure that bothers them at all. The other 38 million Canadian's who don't own firearms and know nothing about the laws will just see a bunch of people who aren't so trustworthy and "law abiding" at all, and maybe shouldn't have other types of firearms.


They said they might not pay for firearms that are registered if the money runs out. That's not the same as declaring they won't, and they've already cut the buy-back budget because with a week left they are under half of the forecasted buy-backs.

I think firearms owners who made no good faith effort to be compensated by the government will be told that they don't have a case because they refused to participate in the buy-back.

That said, I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm way off base here.

To your first point, if that 1 million Canadians were so untrustworthy and violent, no one would be saying anything because they would have dealt with it violently (think of when someone starts causing issues for the mob).

Second point, they said off the back AR-15 uppers would not be paid for, that is bad faith right there. Saying they may or may not pay for the other firearms is also bad faith. Expropration requires fair value to be paid for the property. There is no option to ‘run out of money’.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm not sure that bothers them at all. The other 38 million Canadian's who don't own firearms and know nothing about the laws will just see a bunch of people who aren't so trustworthy and "law abiding" at all, and maybe shouldn't have other types of firearms.

I think if that were the case that whacko who lost the bubble during the press conference would have behaved very differently.

They know they are losing this.

My prediction Oct 31st comes and this is extended over and over. They don't want to deal with this, and the wacko lady will prove to be an anchor for the LPC. This will end up being a new version of registry while they kick the can down the road until they are voted out and this silliness is corrected.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think firearms owners who made no good faith effort to be compensated by the government will be told that they don't have a case because they refused to participate in the buy-back.

I will agree with you, when and if the CPC gets elected in an fails to reverse this. I suspect you will see scores and scores of firearms come out of the wood work.

I also don't care about their dirty money. I don't want it. I would sooner destroy my property than let them have it.

 

[Furniture]

To your first point, if that 1 million Canadians were so untrustworthy and violent, no one would be saying anything because they would have dealt with it violently (think of when someone starts causing issues for the mob).

They won't sell it as every gun owner is dangerous, but "if it saves just one life"... The public didn't care when our stuff was made prohibited back in 2020, they aren't going to care that the government takes away the amnesty after 6 years, and after offering a buy-back programme. PArticularly if gun owners didn't even bother registering for the buy-back.

The public isn't following this very closely, so the government won't have a hard time convincing people that they made an "honest" effort at compensation, and people just refused to play along.

Second point, they said off the back AR-15 uppers would not be paid for, that is bad faith right there. Saying they may or may not pay for the other firearms is also bad faith. Expropration requires fair value to be paid for the property. There is no option to ‘run out of money’.

I don't disagree it's under handed, but how can you claim that you weren't paid the appropriate amount when you refused to even try to get paid? I think the people who stand the best chance would be people who can show that they tried to follow the rules and got nothing for it. There is potentially a case for the parts not covered in the buy-back, like AR uppers, barrels, etc., but that's likely to be treated differently than things that were covered and people don't try to get money for.

I think if that were the case that whacko who lost the bubble during the press conference would have behaved very differently.

They know they are losing this.

I think she was a planned bit of political theatre for the masses. She's a mass shooting survivor, demanding "dangerous" guns get taken off the street, not long after a mass shooting.

Only the firearms community sees her as an unhinged professional victim, the rest of the voters see a woman still struggling with the trauma inflicted on her by a deranged gunman.

My prediction Oct 31st comes and this is extended over and over. They don't want to deal with this, and the wacko lady will prove to be an anchor for the LPC. This will end up being a new version of registry while they kick the can down the road until they are voted out and this silliness is corrected.

I'm pretty sure Tumbler Ridge has made that an impossibility. They can't afford to be seen to not be doing anything when children are dying.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I think if that were the case that whacko who lost the bubble during the press conference would have behaved very differently.

They know they are losing this.

Her tone and demeanor were very different than that of Gary. You may be correct and I hope you are - but I'd be careful assuming that "they" are a homogenous collective wholly aligned on objectives- especially given Gary's quote to the neighbour.

My read is that he's a cynical elected official that just wants a contentious PITA file out of the way, and will be perfectly happy to wash his hands and say, "Well, they're prohibited now, don't get caught" and fly the mission accomplished sign - whereas she's a literal zealot who actually cares about destroying the guns and sees that end state as a disaster.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think she was a planned bit of political theatre for the masses. She's a mass shooting survivor, demanding "dangerous" guns get taken off the street, not long after a mass shooting.

Only the firearms community sees her as an unhinged professional victim, the rest of the voters see a woman still struggling with the trauma inflicted on her by a deranged gunman.

I'm pretty sure Tumbler Ridge has made that an impossibility. They can't afford to be seen to not be doing anything when children are dying.

We disagree on all points.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Her tone and demeanor were very different than that of Gary. You may be correct and I hope you are - but I'd be careful assuming that "they" are a homogenous collective wholly aligned on objectives- especially given Gary's quote to the neighbour.

My read is that he's a cynical elected official that just wants a contentious PITA file out of the way, and will be perfectly happy to wash his hands and say, "Well, they're prohibited now, don't get caught" and fly the mission accomplished sign - whereas she's a literal zealot who actually cares about destroying the guns and sees that end state as a disaster.

I agree. I think they feel like this has turned into a mess and the juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore. That's why I expect this will come around and be extended indefinitely so long as they are in power.

And I think they realize that wacko lady probably belongs in the NDP or Greens.

 

[OldSolduer]

whereas she's a literal zealot who actually cares about destroying the guns and sees that end state as a disaster.

And zealots of any stripe have the potential to be dangerous.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The public isn't following this very closely, so the government won't have a hard time convincing people that they made an "honest" effort at compensation, and people just refused to play along.


I don't disagree it's under handed, but how can you claim that you weren't paid the appropriate amount when you refused to even try to get paid? I think the people who stand the best chance would be people who can show that they tried to follow the rules and got nothing for it. There is potentially a case for the parts not covered in the buy-back, like AR uppers, barrels, etc., but that's likely to be treated differently than things that were covered and people don't try to get money for.

At the end of the day we have common law requiring fair payment for property made illegal, the government literally had to take out a massive loan to pay off slave owners. The government doesn’t get to pick and choose nor do they get to declare what they will or will not pay for.

They don’t have to convince the public on it. They have to convince the courts, and I think the courts will have a tough time throwing out centuries of common law (plus the legal argument of property rights) because the government doesn’t want to pay.

You can’t make a ‘honest’ effort when they are being dishonest from the start. ‘The funds will run out, sign up early or get nothing’ ‘we refuse to pay for AR-15 uppers’ etc. that is all bad faith and works against them. They didn’t create a open ended and fair program to start with.

When the government fails to act in a fair manner in a expropriation program, it goes to court to be resolved by a neutral party. That is what I intend to do.

 

[Furniture]

At the end of the day we have common law requiring fair payment for property made illegal, the government literally had to take out a massive loan to pay off slave owners. The government doesn’t get to pick and choose nor do they get to declare what they will or will not pay for.

They don’t have to convince the public on it. They have to convince the courts, and I think the courts will have a tough time throwing out centuries of common law (plus the legal argument of property rights) because the government doesn’t want to pay.

You can’t make a ‘honest’ effort when they are being dishonest from the start. ‘The funds will run out, sign up early or get nothing’ ‘we refuse to pay for AR-15 uppers’ etc. that is all bad faith and works against them. They didn’t create a open ended and fair program to start with.

When the government fails to act in a fair manner in a expropriation program, it goes to court to be resolved by a neutral party. That is what I intend to do.

I'm not a lawyer, but if it was as simple as you're describing it we wouldn't need lawyers...

We'll see how it goes in October.