You have to love the CBC and all the left lib media of Canada..They have been the House Orchestra for the liberal party of Canada for so long that they trip over themselves to look stupid.
Item- It seems one of Canada's pro firearms organizations has been conferring with SATAN. in laymen terms the NRA. About? Take a guess,,,if you guessed how to fight the gun control orgs and how to effectively lobby give yourself a cheroot..Imagine two pro firearms orgs comparing notes....Of course it has all the "we hate America " set aghast and are calling on the Ghost of Pierre T. to smite Stephan Harper...How dare they meddle in Canadian politics....
Of Course there is not mention of IANSA and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Controls long standing love affair..IANSA this org is just plain anti firearm and has been lobbying the U.N. to get everyone to sign a disarmament treaty..that is to say remove individual firearms ownership completely so that only police and military have guns...Just as an FYI they are well funded by the likes of George Soros..Another foreign National billionaire who happens to despise Capitalism, though it has been very kind to him.....but that is not his worse crime,
You see Mr Soros is/was a Jew. During WW II in order to survive he turned on his fellow Jews he turned them into the SS..worse still he feels no guilt about that...I would call him the most dangerous man on the planet..He is incredibly rich and has no conscience..
But hey instead of seeing things for what they are the lib left media will over look that. and keep howling at anyone that dare challenges their view
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
A Tale Of Two Registries
The debate rages two sides collide and a battle of words in the media. Among them we see the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police(CAPC)we are seeing public servants stepping across a boundary that arguably they are not supposed to cross. Be that as it may it still does not change the fact that this said same organization tried to stop Canadian politicians from enacting The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms citing that it would emasculate policing in Canada. Twenty eight years later they don't appear to be emasculated.
This is not the theme of this article just a little preface, to the main topic. We have two registries in Canada(there are more but for this we will stick with these two)The one registry is the Sex Offender Registry (I'll refer to it as SR for short) and the Gun Registry. One keeps track of convicted sex offenders the other keeps track of inanimate objects.
The SR is related to the gun registry simply because that is what the CAPC wanted in order to get it they had to give their approval and support to the long gun registry which when the gun registry was proposed the CAPC did not support it. As we can see the game of politics is in play the old you wash my hands I'll wash yours. So they traded their opposition to support in order to get what they really wanted, The Sex Offender Registry.
The SR was developed very inexpensively largely because the criminal records system meshed neatly with it. It did not require a ground up construction like the Gun Registry.
Now for the bones of contention, Firstly in order to be placed on the sex offender registry all you need do is commit a sex offence be convicted and a judge order you placed in the registry in the sentence he/she imposes sounds simple but plea bargains and such or a little absent mind-ism on the part of the court and no such order issued. Result no entry of a sex offender in the registry. However we must also recognize that the sex offender is given the benefit of what is called "due process of law", firearms owners were given no such benefit and never ever committed a crime guilt simply by possession.
The sex offender registry did not apply to people that were convicted before the enactment of the law indeed no. However the gun registry applies to all gun owners past and present, that is to mean not just new gun owners. I've owned firearms for 30 years and I was required to register even though I have never aimed a firearm at another living soul ever nor used them to commit a crime ever. It appears a sex offender has more rights than I.
It gets even better, a sex offender who registered is only required to update information once a year, and if they move they have to let the authorities know. If they bother to at all it is only a 6 month max. stint in the pokey if they don't. Me on the other hand have to tell the CFC in advance of a move for restricted firearms and immediately after the move for non restricted firearms. If I fail to it's 2 years in prison again with out ever committing a crime against society strictly just for a regulatory offence.
I am tired of being treated worse than people who have harmed society. Being a firearms owner has become no different than being on parole from prison, though I have not ever done anything to warrant such treatment. You might say that maybe I ought to just give up and turn in or sell my guns. I can't do that, not and live with myself. It is a right to keep arms in Canada, I am not one to give up a right on anything and I will challenge people that do try to take away a right that I hold.
I have proof beyond reasonable doubt that we in Canada have the Constitutional Right to keep arms in our defence. It wasn't easy to find but it does exist. The English Bill of Rights 1689 forms part of our Constitution there for Parliament has not have the right to legislate against it, it is ultra vires of Parliament or beyond their power, though it has not ever slowed a politician down in the past plenty of laws are enacted which are unconstitutional, it takes the Court to strike them down though.
I have also heard/read time and time again the same tripe about we register this that and the other, however no one goes to prison if they don't register this that or the other, a firearms owner will if he fails to register, this is a marked difference.
This is not the theme of this article just a little preface, to the main topic. We have two registries in Canada(there are more but for this we will stick with these two)The one registry is the Sex Offender Registry (I'll refer to it as SR for short) and the Gun Registry. One keeps track of convicted sex offenders the other keeps track of inanimate objects.
The SR is related to the gun registry simply because that is what the CAPC wanted in order to get it they had to give their approval and support to the long gun registry which when the gun registry was proposed the CAPC did not support it. As we can see the game of politics is in play the old you wash my hands I'll wash yours. So they traded their opposition to support in order to get what they really wanted, The Sex Offender Registry.
The SR was developed very inexpensively largely because the criminal records system meshed neatly with it. It did not require a ground up construction like the Gun Registry.
Now for the bones of contention, Firstly in order to be placed on the sex offender registry all you need do is commit a sex offence be convicted and a judge order you placed in the registry in the sentence he/she imposes sounds simple but plea bargains and such or a little absent mind-ism on the part of the court and no such order issued. Result no entry of a sex offender in the registry. However we must also recognize that the sex offender is given the benefit of what is called "due process of law", firearms owners were given no such benefit and never ever committed a crime guilt simply by possession.
The sex offender registry did not apply to people that were convicted before the enactment of the law indeed no. However the gun registry applies to all gun owners past and present, that is to mean not just new gun owners. I've owned firearms for 30 years and I was required to register even though I have never aimed a firearm at another living soul ever nor used them to commit a crime ever. It appears a sex offender has more rights than I.
It gets even better, a sex offender who registered is only required to update information once a year, and if they move they have to let the authorities know. If they bother to at all it is only a 6 month max. stint in the pokey if they don't. Me on the other hand have to tell the CFC in advance of a move for restricted firearms and immediately after the move for non restricted firearms. If I fail to it's 2 years in prison again with out ever committing a crime against society strictly just for a regulatory offence.
I am tired of being treated worse than people who have harmed society. Being a firearms owner has become no different than being on parole from prison, though I have not ever done anything to warrant such treatment. You might say that maybe I ought to just give up and turn in or sell my guns. I can't do that, not and live with myself. It is a right to keep arms in Canada, I am not one to give up a right on anything and I will challenge people that do try to take away a right that I hold.
I have proof beyond reasonable doubt that we in Canada have the Constitutional Right to keep arms in our defence. It wasn't easy to find but it does exist. The English Bill of Rights 1689 forms part of our Constitution there for Parliament has not have the right to legislate against it, it is ultra vires of Parliament or beyond their power, though it has not ever slowed a politician down in the past plenty of laws are enacted which are unconstitutional, it takes the Court to strike them down though.
I have also heard/read time and time again the same tripe about we register this that and the other, however no one goes to prison if they don't register this that or the other, a firearms owner will if he fails to register, this is a marked difference.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Enough With The Rule Making Already
At long last a fellow with letters behind his name has finally come and said what myself and many like minded have been saying for some time "We don't need a rule for everything". That is to say that we don't need to pass a law every time a tragedy strikes.
"If a skeptic was to wonder why Canadian authorities seem to respond to every tragedy by proposing intrusive new rules that can have impacts far beyond the problems they purport to be addressing, Frank Furedi has the answer: Canada has a cultural "addiction to rule-making."" Joseph Brean, National Post • Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010
I have had the good fortune in my life to not have tragedies where a loved one has died as a result of it.(knock on wood) I've had a good number of close calls and have known people who have. However do we always need a law passed every time someone does?
We have fallen pray to a new brand of "legalism" I say new because the first Emperor of China had used such methods for obtaining slave labour basically by passing law after law that essentially you could not breath without breaking a law. Of course it carried dire consequences back then. Unlike today where many "rules" are just legal pick pocketing by the the authorities.
Indeed we are a rule happy society. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million statutes. So in essence at some point in our daily lives we are breaking some rule or another,with little consequence since we don't have the authorities peeking in our windows and following us around..At least not yet anyway.
The single largest problem with this addiction is that it erodes personal liberty and freedom. It derogates our rights, not that our supreme court cares, they are on record saying that yes that rule does infringe your rights but it is a minor infringement. So go away and don't bother us. Nice of them to think so highly of rights and freedoms since it is their job to protect them. My opinion of that august body has fallen dramatically I now refer to them as Supreme Court Jesters.
Well since we have so many rules already could we not recycle them for other things? It would save printing costs and paper in our parliaments. What is more the pity though is these jokers in parliament like justifying their high salaries and want to show us they care beyond their fully indexed pensions. So they proposed legislation for this that and the other tragedy or crisis du jour. What is odd though is, I don't feel any safer for their efforts. In fact I feel poorer for it all because in the end I am less free.
"If a skeptic was to wonder why Canadian authorities seem to respond to every tragedy by proposing intrusive new rules that can have impacts far beyond the problems they purport to be addressing, Frank Furedi has the answer: Canada has a cultural "addiction to rule-making."" Joseph Brean, National Post • Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010
I have had the good fortune in my life to not have tragedies where a loved one has died as a result of it.(knock on wood) I've had a good number of close calls and have known people who have. However do we always need a law passed every time someone does?
We have fallen pray to a new brand of "legalism" I say new because the first Emperor of China had used such methods for obtaining slave labour basically by passing law after law that essentially you could not breath without breaking a law. Of course it carried dire consequences back then. Unlike today where many "rules" are just legal pick pocketing by the the authorities.
Indeed we are a rule happy society. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million statutes. So in essence at some point in our daily lives we are breaking some rule or another,with little consequence since we don't have the authorities peeking in our windows and following us around..At least not yet anyway.
The single largest problem with this addiction is that it erodes personal liberty and freedom. It derogates our rights, not that our supreme court cares, they are on record saying that yes that rule does infringe your rights but it is a minor infringement. So go away and don't bother us. Nice of them to think so highly of rights and freedoms since it is their job to protect them. My opinion of that august body has fallen dramatically I now refer to them as Supreme Court Jesters.
Well since we have so many rules already could we not recycle them for other things? It would save printing costs and paper in our parliaments. What is more the pity though is these jokers in parliament like justifying their high salaries and want to show us they care beyond their fully indexed pensions. So they proposed legislation for this that and the other tragedy or crisis du jour. What is odd though is, I don't feel any safer for their efforts. In fact I feel poorer for it all because in the end I am less free.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Time To Stand And Be Counted
My fellow Ontarians. This is a plea to each and everyone of us.
It is quite apparent that over the past months that the Government of Dalton McGuinty is out of control.
It has not been since the Government of William Davis has there been such disregard for the rights and freedoms of the people of Ontario.
The Government of Ontario has ignored the needs of the people and the economic health of our Province. We were the manufacturing engine of Canada. We were one of 3 Provinces that were economically sound and did not require equalization payments from the Government of Canada.
Today we are an over taxed and over regulated. We Cannot afford to wait till November of 2011 we need to act now.
I propose that we petition the Lt. Governor of Ontario The Honourable David C. Onley, O.Ont Stating that we the people have lost confidence in the Government in Ontario to Govern responsibly and wisely. Therefore We the People Demand that He present this petition to Premiere Dalton McGuinty and advise him that a writ will be delivered to dissolve the Parliament of Ontario and call an election immediately
This is unprecedented however it is completely lawful for we in Ontario we have no Constitution to say otherwise. Whereas the the English Bill of Rights 1689 is in force in Ontario, which clearly states our right to petition the Queen.
Therefore a petition has been drafted in both PDF format. It Can be down loaded from the following links or From my Website. No Confidence In The McGuinty Government
You can make a difference and you can stop an elected tyrant. Print the Petition out go out and get 20 signatures, that's not many nor all that hard to do. Ask yourself how many times any of us has said "oh well nothing we can do about it" here is our chance.
Mr McGuinty arrogantly said " That if the people don't like what I'm doing they can tell me in the polls." I don't think he would ever think that the polls would come charging toward him.
It is quite apparent that over the past months that the Government of Dalton McGuinty is out of control.
It has not been since the Government of William Davis has there been such disregard for the rights and freedoms of the people of Ontario.
The Government of Ontario has ignored the needs of the people and the economic health of our Province. We were the manufacturing engine of Canada. We were one of 3 Provinces that were economically sound and did not require equalization payments from the Government of Canada.
Today we are an over taxed and over regulated. We Cannot afford to wait till November of 2011 we need to act now.
I propose that we petition the Lt. Governor of Ontario The Honourable David C. Onley, O.Ont Stating that we the people have lost confidence in the Government in Ontario to Govern responsibly and wisely. Therefore We the People Demand that He present this petition to Premiere Dalton McGuinty and advise him that a writ will be delivered to dissolve the Parliament of Ontario and call an election immediately
This is unprecedented however it is completely lawful for we in Ontario we have no Constitution to say otherwise. Whereas the the English Bill of Rights 1689 is in force in Ontario, which clearly states our right to petition the Queen.
Therefore a petition has been drafted in both PDF format. It Can be down loaded from the following links or From my Website. No Confidence In The McGuinty Government
You can make a difference and you can stop an elected tyrant. Print the Petition out go out and get 20 signatures, that's not many nor all that hard to do. Ask yourself how many times any of us has said "oh well nothing we can do about it" here is our chance.
Mr McGuinty arrogantly said " That if the people don't like what I'm doing they can tell me in the polls." I don't think he would ever think that the polls would come charging toward him.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Of Lawful Protest
With the recent "riot" at the G20 conference in Toronto, and Billy Blair snivelling to another snivelling politician for greater police powers while the summit is in progress to arrest anyone who does not identify themselves to the corporate policy enforcers within 5 metres of the security zone. I feel the time is ripe to let the cat out of the bag.
I have bad news everyone, this is the system you all voted for and this is the system you all support. So stop whining.
The Toronto Star has gone on ad nauseium about Mr McGuinty granting these extra powers to the police behind closed doors but are ardent supporters of gun control. how is topic related? Simply the right to protest and the right to keep arms are both lawful and synonymous with freedom.
In my own humble opinion it is an utter waste of time protesting peacefully or otherwise. I can't think of a single thing protesting has ever accomplished. It also proves that many of these "hooligans" have far too much time on their hands and need to be engaged in something productive. While they might claim they are raising awareness of the plight of others at the hands of these organized criminals (Governments) what they are truly doing is raising the awareness of people that they are violent and unprincipled. What they are saying is "Listen to us or we will wreck the place"
At Common Law we are free to do pretty much what ever we wish to do. The LAW only comes into play when the public peace is breached, when another human being is harmed, or when their property is damaged. These are serious crimes at Common Law (which is the only true LAW) The quote unquote "protesters" have broken several of these canons of LAW in an attempt to make the police and the pooh bahs look bad. Was it worth it?
If 15 000 firearms owners marching on Parliament Hill could not get Bill C-68 repealed how would a few thousand self entitled individuals change anyones minds? The short answer is they won't. These G20 blokes are used to protests even expect them, and fringe groups pushing their agendas at public expense will not make a difference.
How do you get a Government's attention? Well easy you rescind your consent to be governed. Trust me though,that is the only easy part of it and realize that you will be literally be "jumping the ship of state". You will need to make sure there is dry land under your feet when you land. We live presently on board a ship metaphorically speaking, that is to say we live under Admiralty Law which is the law of the sea. To live under the law of the land (which is Common Law) you have to declare your intent, your understanding, and declare your claim of right. To do this you will need a notary or a solicitor swear all this out in an affidavit which will then be sent to the respective pooh bahs and if they do not respond within the allotted time then it is perfected and a default judgment must be entered into the public record. Shazzam you have just made LAW.
A handful of people doing this will not raise an eyebrow, when thousands if not millions start doing this then they will take notice and true meaningful change will begin to take place. Why? because you will have stated why you are opting out and secondly you will be able to stop paying taxes legally(but that is a complicated subject, it takes time and must be done carefully)
This is the truest form of lawful protest. however you must be prepared to go all the way. I will publish a Letter of Intent and Understanding and A Claim of Right to demonstrate what I am talking about here. Mine is seven pages long so I think it precludes it being published in full here.
What also needs to be understood that you will be waiving benefits of this Free and Democratic society. Furthermore you also need to understand that the benefits I mention are not all good benefits. Remember the speeding ticket you got? surprisingly that is considered a benefit same with the parking ticket.
I have bad news everyone, this is the system you all voted for and this is the system you all support. So stop whining.
The Toronto Star has gone on ad nauseium about Mr McGuinty granting these extra powers to the police behind closed doors but are ardent supporters of gun control. how is topic related? Simply the right to protest and the right to keep arms are both lawful and synonymous with freedom.
In my own humble opinion it is an utter waste of time protesting peacefully or otherwise. I can't think of a single thing protesting has ever accomplished. It also proves that many of these "hooligans" have far too much time on their hands and need to be engaged in something productive. While they might claim they are raising awareness of the plight of others at the hands of these organized criminals (Governments) what they are truly doing is raising the awareness of people that they are violent and unprincipled. What they are saying is "Listen to us or we will wreck the place"
At Common Law we are free to do pretty much what ever we wish to do. The LAW only comes into play when the public peace is breached, when another human being is harmed, or when their property is damaged. These are serious crimes at Common Law (which is the only true LAW) The quote unquote "protesters" have broken several of these canons of LAW in an attempt to make the police and the pooh bahs look bad. Was it worth it?
If 15 000 firearms owners marching on Parliament Hill could not get Bill C-68 repealed how would a few thousand self entitled individuals change anyones minds? The short answer is they won't. These G20 blokes are used to protests even expect them, and fringe groups pushing their agendas at public expense will not make a difference.
How do you get a Government's attention? Well easy you rescind your consent to be governed. Trust me though,that is the only easy part of it and realize that you will be literally be "jumping the ship of state". You will need to make sure there is dry land under your feet when you land. We live presently on board a ship metaphorically speaking, that is to say we live under Admiralty Law which is the law of the sea. To live under the law of the land (which is Common Law) you have to declare your intent, your understanding, and declare your claim of right. To do this you will need a notary or a solicitor swear all this out in an affidavit which will then be sent to the respective pooh bahs and if they do not respond within the allotted time then it is perfected and a default judgment must be entered into the public record. Shazzam you have just made LAW.
A handful of people doing this will not raise an eyebrow, when thousands if not millions start doing this then they will take notice and true meaningful change will begin to take place. Why? because you will have stated why you are opting out and secondly you will be able to stop paying taxes legally(but that is a complicated subject, it takes time and must be done carefully)
This is the truest form of lawful protest. however you must be prepared to go all the way. I will publish a Letter of Intent and Understanding and A Claim of Right to demonstrate what I am talking about here. Mine is seven pages long so I think it precludes it being published in full here.
What also needs to be understood that you will be waiving benefits of this Free and Democratic society. Furthermore you also need to understand that the benefits I mention are not all good benefits. Remember the speeding ticket you got? surprisingly that is considered a benefit same with the parking ticket.
Monday, May 3, 2010
As The Panic Sinks In,
It has been quite a while since I last posted anything on the topic of firearms. I would like to take the opportunity to debunk and set some records straight.
Why do firearms owners feel they shouldn't have to register their firearms, we register cars and dogs and land etc. etc. etc.?
What is the big bone of contention? simply put, Indeed we register a great many things. However you don't get sent to prison if you don't register your car and the plethora things you register. Also believe it or not there is not a single law that requires anyone to register those things.
Registering firearms make firearms accountable for their guns
That statement begs the question "Accountable for what?" We hold criminals accountable either by placing them on probation, parole or locking them up. Now this is where the debate becomes white hot for me. I am not a criminal and I refuse to be treated like one. Under Roman Civil Code which made its way into our system of law viz inheriting English Law etc. Criminals were given licences to stay out of prison provided they behaved themselves.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of CANADA made every firearms owner in CANADA a criminal, an outlaw without ever committing a crime nor having ever been before a court. One stroke of the Governor Generals pen 7 million people were made criminals. Now how do we manage to stay our of prison ,,,,We had to get a Licence. (which by the way only 2 million of us did,,,5 million of us said no)
There are about 8% of the 2 million that don't have a problem with that. They are of the opinion they will never need to worry. But,Think about it, How would you feel if you were all of a sudden declared a criminal?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry and say it is an important tool in preventing crime
A year ago CPAC was outed. Their support can be bought. The ethics advisor even resigned because of their "funding practises". They are a LOBBY GROUP. accountable to nobody, especially the public..
Lets use a bit of common sense for a minute. Does the registering of cars prevent drunk driving? If you answer yes? I just be polite and say you are not being honest.
seriously it can't do that. So how can a registry firearms prevent a misuse? It can't either.
As an FYI we in Canada have not been required to have licence nor register our rifles and shot guns for 135 years. In the 8 years that we have been required to have a licence and register our firearms we have seen a rise in criminal use of firearms. Why? Simply GUN CONTROL is a farce. But don't take my word for it here is an excerpt from an article published "Canadian Gun Control. (Gun Rights)." by Don B. Kates..
Over several decades Canadian gun controls have been a subject of study by criminologist Philip Stenning who is a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. His views should be of particular interest for he is not a gun owner and has scant liking for guns and their ownership. Nevertheless he is anti-gun control because he has concluded that it "just does not work." His findings severely undermine gun control proposals made in either the U.S. or Canada.
Prof. Stenning's first finding is that the evidence does not support the anti-gun faith that more guns will cause more crime or that fewer will result in reducing crime. That faith is refuted by the lack of correlation--indeed, the often NEGATIVE correlation--between how many guns there are in any particular area and how much gun misuse there is in that area. As Professor Stenning wrote in Gun Control - A Critique of Current Policy 15 POLICY OPTIONS 13 (1994): "The highest concentrations of firearms in Canada are in rural communities. Data from the most recent study on this matter... [1991] indicate that approximately 60 percent of household firearms in Canada are in non-urban households. Yet most firearms abuses occur in urban areas; in recent years, for instance, urban areas have accounted for about 65 percent of firearms homicides. While almost every household in remote Aboriginal [Indian] communities contains at least one firearm (and typically more), the proportion of homicides in these communities committed with firearms is no higher than the proportion in other rural and urban non-Aboriginal communities."
Genuine fear is settling in among Gun Control advocates, the level of deception they are stooping too is both amazing and frightening at the same time. It is frightening because never in Canadian history has so much hysteria been mobilized at one time. All aimed at people who really don't care one way or another about the issue, nor do they understand what they are being asked to support. I don't doubt that if you did ask the average Canadian if they support gun control the answer would be yes. However this support dwindles quickly when the costs start accumulating, when they realize that, it is money being spent that could be used better else where.
It is amazing in the sense these people are lying in the day and age of such things as the world wide web, the freedom of information act and statistics are readily available to the public. All because they benefit from the status quo.
I'll put it to you this way think hard now, in 143 years of CANADA how many people have lost their sanity and gone off on shooting sprees. Not many less than 10 by my count 7, in fact the worst mass murder in Canadian history didn't even involve a gun. Nope, just plain old gasoline. For the one is too many set I ask you this, If one is too many then are you prepared to make everyone that uses gasoline a criminal?
Though the question that remains unanswered is simply this. If Gun Control is such a positive thing and genuine benefit to society, Why do its supporters feel the need to lie about it?
Why do firearms owners feel they shouldn't have to register their firearms, we register cars and dogs and land etc. etc. etc.?
What is the big bone of contention? simply put, Indeed we register a great many things. However you don't get sent to prison if you don't register your car and the plethora things you register. Also believe it or not there is not a single law that requires anyone to register those things.
Registering firearms make firearms accountable for their guns
That statement begs the question "Accountable for what?" We hold criminals accountable either by placing them on probation, parole or locking them up. Now this is where the debate becomes white hot for me. I am not a criminal and I refuse to be treated like one. Under Roman Civil Code which made its way into our system of law viz inheriting English Law etc. Criminals were given licences to stay out of prison provided they behaved themselves.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of CANADA made every firearms owner in CANADA a criminal, an outlaw without ever committing a crime nor having ever been before a court. One stroke of the Governor Generals pen 7 million people were made criminals. Now how do we manage to stay our of prison ,,,,We had to get a Licence. (which by the way only 2 million of us did,,,5 million of us said no)
There are about 8% of the 2 million that don't have a problem with that. They are of the opinion they will never need to worry. But,Think about it, How would you feel if you were all of a sudden declared a criminal?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry and say it is an important tool in preventing crime
A year ago CPAC was outed. Their support can be bought. The ethics advisor even resigned because of their "funding practises". They are a LOBBY GROUP. accountable to nobody, especially the public..
Lets use a bit of common sense for a minute. Does the registering of cars prevent drunk driving? If you answer yes? I just be polite and say you are not being honest.
seriously it can't do that. So how can a registry firearms prevent a misuse? It can't either.
As an FYI we in Canada have not been required to have licence nor register our rifles and shot guns for 135 years. In the 8 years that we have been required to have a licence and register our firearms we have seen a rise in criminal use of firearms. Why? Simply GUN CONTROL is a farce. But don't take my word for it here is an excerpt from an article published "Canadian Gun Control. (Gun Rights)." by Don B. Kates..
Over several decades Canadian gun controls have been a subject of study by criminologist Philip Stenning who is a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. His views should be of particular interest for he is not a gun owner and has scant liking for guns and their ownership. Nevertheless he is anti-gun control because he has concluded that it "just does not work." His findings severely undermine gun control proposals made in either the U.S. or Canada.
Prof. Stenning's first finding is that the evidence does not support the anti-gun faith that more guns will cause more crime or that fewer will result in reducing crime. That faith is refuted by the lack of correlation--indeed, the often NEGATIVE correlation--between how many guns there are in any particular area and how much gun misuse there is in that area. As Professor Stenning wrote in Gun Control - A Critique of Current Policy 15 POLICY OPTIONS 13 (1994): "The highest concentrations of firearms in Canada are in rural communities. Data from the most recent study on this matter... [1991] indicate that approximately 60 percent of household firearms in Canada are in non-urban households. Yet most firearms abuses occur in urban areas; in recent years, for instance, urban areas have accounted for about 65 percent of firearms homicides. While almost every household in remote Aboriginal [Indian] communities contains at least one firearm (and typically more), the proportion of homicides in these communities committed with firearms is no higher than the proportion in other rural and urban non-Aboriginal communities."
Genuine fear is settling in among Gun Control advocates, the level of deception they are stooping too is both amazing and frightening at the same time. It is frightening because never in Canadian history has so much hysteria been mobilized at one time. All aimed at people who really don't care one way or another about the issue, nor do they understand what they are being asked to support. I don't doubt that if you did ask the average Canadian if they support gun control the answer would be yes. However this support dwindles quickly when the costs start accumulating, when they realize that, it is money being spent that could be used better else where.
It is amazing in the sense these people are lying in the day and age of such things as the world wide web, the freedom of information act and statistics are readily available to the public. All because they benefit from the status quo.
I'll put it to you this way think hard now, in 143 years of CANADA how many people have lost their sanity and gone off on shooting sprees. Not many less than 10 by my count 7, in fact the worst mass murder in Canadian history didn't even involve a gun. Nope, just plain old gasoline. For the one is too many set I ask you this, If one is too many then are you prepared to make everyone that uses gasoline a criminal?
Though the question that remains unanswered is simply this. If Gun Control is such a positive thing and genuine benefit to society, Why do its supporters feel the need to lie about it?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Ann Comes to Ottawa...Almost
It became a non event, and a banner day for Canada.
Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.
Canadian Human Rights Act
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.
Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work
NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link
It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.
From the elder Bill of Rights
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
From the Charter
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?
Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....
As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....
In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons
Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world
Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.
Canadian Human Rights Act
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.
Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work
NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link
It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.
From the elder Bill of Rights
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
From the Charter
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?
Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....
As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....
In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons
Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world
Friday, March 12, 2010
Legal System 1 Rights 0
Lets be perfectly clear. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. That said, under such a system truth, rights, the long established common law mean nothing. The only ones safe from such a system are the common criminals themselves. Which is apparent with our current catch and release method of dealing with violent people. A ten year sentence for manslaughter can be served in less than 3 years with double and triple credit for time served awaiting trial and sentence.
This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.
If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).
I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?
If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.
Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.
Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.
This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.
If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).
I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?
If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.
Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.
Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)