Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Advance and lead to your hearts content, tradition, traditional activity, and traditional ceremonies, should be done with tradition in mind. At the time of the treaty nobody envisioned a 300 win mag with low light scopes and 1,0000,000 candle power lights would be used, no reason that today that hunting cannot be done at a schedule like the rest of Canadians.
The POINT is fairly simple.................................
which is why you missed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Natives play a silly game.....................
expropriating and exploiting white technology...................
while trying to pretend they are morally SUPERIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its just the usual anti white BULLSH+T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just look at southern Ontari-owe with its hordes of native "smoke shacks"............................
Tobacco is of course a native North American plant traditionally SMOKED IN A PIPE by natives...............................
in various religious ceremonies and that is fine - it is a cultural thing!!!!!!!!!!
But CIGARETTES are a white creation........................................
and the duties and taxes on cigarettes - along with the INCOME TAX that is collected from people who make a profit selling cigarettes are ALL white creations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So WHY IN HELL should natives be exempted from paying ANY taxes on the white created cigarettes......................
to white people?????????????
It is the HYPOCRISY of the native position - that is being encouraged by shameless vote buying LIE-berals with their anti white BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The native position grows more ludicrous by the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Imagine the arrogance and TWISTED VALUE SYSTEM of an allegedly "sovereign nation" - that gets 90 percent of its entire revenue
supply - plus virtually ALL its food and fuel and housing and clothing......................................
from a despised "foreign nation"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you can picture that sort of messed up world view.......................
then you can understand why so many Cdn natives on reserves are drunk, drugged or suicidal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals are encouraging natives to be totally delusional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And natives are paying the price for drinking the LIE-beral koolaid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guns and white supremacists don’t mix
When Justin Trudeau was first elected as Liberal Prime Minister, he promised a new Canada—one based on a commitment to feminism and Indigenous rights. He also promised to address the loopholes in the gun laws created by the former Conservative government under Stephen Harper. Bill C-71, which was intended to strengthen rules around access to firearms especially for those with a history of violence, provided some improvements but fell short of what most Canadians wanted. Canadians want to feel safe.
That cannot happen if hate groups are allowed to buy hand guns and assault weapons.
The Government’s defence of Bill C-71 was framed almost entirely with verbiage like “gangs and guns” and “gender neutral,” ignoring the bulk of the statistical evidence about gun violence in Canada. Women in Canada represent a higher proportion of victims of firearms violence than their male perpetrators. It is not “gender neutral” to worry more about the interests of the primarily male gun lobby and concerns of rural men than the voices of female victims. Further, the voices of Indigenous women were excluded despite the ongoing genocide of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.
The rise of white nationalism has happened so quickly in Canada that governments do not have a handle on the serious threat it poses to public safety and national security. The white nationalist movement (often referred to as the populist movement), has seen far-right Conservatives take increasingly more radical positions that are often racist, sexist and anti-human rights, often aligning themselves with the gun lobby.
Through his own words and actions, U.S. President Donald Trump has further exacerbated the situation by creating a space for those consumed with hatred to share and act on their views more openly. Perhaps emboldened by Trump, the friends, colleagues and affiliates of white nationalists are now being elected as political leaders, hired within universities, and in the background agitating as pro-pipeliners, pro-choice, anti-immigration, anti-Indigenous and pro-gun.
The gun lobby acts as though there is a right to bear arms in Canada, but this is not the United States. The Supreme Court of Canada held—via the historic R v. Hasselwander case—that no such right exists. In fact, the only people with constitutionally-protected rights to bear arms are First Nations whose treaties and Aboriginal rights guarantee them the right to hunt and own rifles. But no one hunts with semi-automatic military weapons. So this has never been about hunting.
While not all gun owners have links to extremists, Canada needs to keep pace with the threats before the threats overtake Canada.
Firearms are often used in hate crimes against racialized and other identifiable groups. The murders of six and injury of 19 Muslims at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, is only one example of what happens when those who hate have easy access to guns. We can never forget that it was the mass shooting of 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal that pushed the conversation of gun control back onto the agenda.
The one target common to all right-wing extremist groups in Canada are “Aboriginal peoples” and the killing of Leo Lachance is just one example. Leo Lachance, a Cree man from Whitefish reserve, was shot and killed by a white supremacist, Carney Nerland, in Prince Albert in 1991. Nerland was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and leader of his local Aryan Nation group who got off with a plea bargain, claiming a misfire. Allowing hate groups, who condone lethal violence, to arm themselves with handguns and military-style assaults rifles, represents a significant public safety threat.
One need only look at the shooting death of unarmed Indigenous youth, Colten Boushie or the recent shooting of another Native youth, Kristian Ayoungman as prime examples of why there needs to be stricter gun control, especially on the Prairies. Both of these shootings are reported to involve elements of anti-First Nation racism, something that has been prevalent on the Prairies for decades. It wasn’t that long ago that the Neil Stonechild Inquiry brought the practice of “starlight tours” to the forefront. This is the practice by police of detaining a Native man, driving him out of town and abandoning him there. Racism is lethal for Indigenous peoples, and easy access to guns by those who hold racist views increase the risk.
To treat gun control as sex-neutral or race-neutral further perpetuates the risk to women and Indigenous peoples. Canada should be engaging with First Nations and Indigenous women’s group to address the threat of gun violence by both white nationalist hate groups and individuals with extreme right-wing, racist views.
www.macleans.ca/opinion/guns-and-white-supremacists-dont-mix/
Good frickin' grief. Well pammie, if FNs are willing to give up every single gun in their possession, I might think you have a point considering that for many FNs it is people in their own communities who they fear most.
What a bunch of unmitigated B.S. , glad I don’t subscribe to MacLeans , who would pay to read that .
That statement is ridiculous from several angles, which you are too stupid to understand, which has been very obvious ever since you first started posting on this forum.
Which one is that? The N.R.A. line? Isn't that the purpose of this thread?You noticed there is a whole crew here who's sole purpose is to further the party line, eh?
Yep.
The gun grabbers just can't stay away from the Not Remotely Accurate line that excessive gun control works for anything except repression.
True Dat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People in the Westport area on Rideau Canal in Ontari-owe ..............................
RAGED FOR YEARS about Asian fishermen CLEANING OUT THE LOCAL LAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Locals watching in disbelief as unmarked panel vans loaded with coolers full of ice..............................
roamed the back roads - picking up the days catch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From what locals claimed were organized gangs staying at local camp grounds.........
and apparently being paid to fish by organized crime!!!!!!!!!!!!
With NO REGARD for conservation laws, or fishing limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And of course a LOT OF "FRESH CAUGHT" Walleye and Pickerel ended up being sold at the St Lawrence Market!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And at various fish shops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other news - a group of Asian fishermen who had spent the day on the south shore of Lake Simcoe.......................
were attacked by a group of white guys IRATE at the alleged conservation violations.........................
there is some doubt whether that particular Asian group had done anything wrong...........................
either on that day or previously................................
it might have been mistaken identity.......................................
but it is the usual thing - PISSED OFF LOCALS who need tourist dollars to survive.......................
watching as smart bastards from out of town clean out a public resource!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND AS ALWAYS THERE IS NEVER A COP AROUND to referee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like with Gerald Stanley and Ed Maurice and others......................
dealing with drunken prowlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so a fight broke out on the Lake Simcoe shore and an Asian guy ended up with brain damage.......................................
and a white guy went to jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just another COST TO THE PUBLIC courtesy of LIE-berals..............................
who are TOO DAMNED CHEAP to supply the legal referees............................
meaning cops that are needed to make people behave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And in the latest news- Toronto SILLY Hall is all bent out of shape because..........................
of the number of car accidents that are clogging roads.....................................
and over the number of pedestrians getting mowed down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW SAD THAT LIE-berals do not want to talk about the drastically REDUCED number of Toronto cops.................................
WHO RETIRED AND WERE NOT REPLACED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again because LIE-berals are TOO CHEAP......................................
And need that gravy for their HOG PALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COPS JUST AINT AS DEPENDABLE AS TEACHERS AND OTHER HOGS WHEN SELLING VOTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So LIE-berals dont need them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The latest news suggests there are eight hundred LESS cops doing traffic patrol now.........................
in the GTA than there were 20 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And idiot LIE-berals wonder why drivers are running wild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But then LIE-berals do not care about money laundering and fraud and illegals trespassing across our borders......................
so why worry about some old folks getting treated like cheap bowling pins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as for Ontari-owe having the LOWEST ACCIDENT RATE IN CANADA...............................
while paying the HIGHEST INSURANCE RATES IN CANADA........................................
LIE-berals have told us for several decades that we pay those high rates...............................
BECAUSE OF ALL THE FRAUD IN THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND LIE-berals aint looking into that either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh that lawsuit crap against gun makers is just LIE-berals fulfilling what they see as their political mandate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the Bloc Quebecois has adopted that mandate as their own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Specifically - both LIE-berals and Bloc - heads intend to make govt so DIS-FUNCTIONAL........................
for as long as it takes..................................
that we SURRENDER - and let the GREEDY SELFISH PIGS have their own way in all things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AS I have said before - Our idiot Boy Juistin is an aspiring Soviet Socialist Dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the idiot Boy has LOTS OF LIE-beral minded dictator imitators!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cigarette makers have been successfully sued because they deliberately HID the damaging and addictive aspects of their product!!!!!!!!
By comparison - a gun is explicitly designed to kill something .......................................
there is NO HIDING the lethal capacity of a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact gun makers ADVERTISE the effectiveness of their product to hunters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thus LIE-berals are doing as they always do -seeking DEVIOUS AND DECEITFUL WAYS to manipulate society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals have FAILED to win popular support for their views and thus CANNOT use democratic laws to get their way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are many legal gun owners and hunters out there quietly pursuing their hobby...............................
and THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHAT BUGS LIE-berals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THERE ARE LIE-beral votes to be won from animal lovers and others who RESENT the mere existence of hunters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And it fries the bacon of Feminazis that hunters are frequently contemptuous of the more radical Feminazi values!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feminazis DO NOT APPROVE of most male interests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One has only to think of recent Feminazi remarks CONDEMNING organized sports and the people who play them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One Feminazi even suggested recently that boys who play sports like hockey are - by nature- BULLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such a remark illustrates the ABSOLUTE DISCONNECT between Feminazi logic and the real world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thus LIE-berals are doing their usual job of deceitfully CENSORING VIEWS they dont like.......................................
and sucking up to voters with more radical agenda - by condemning hunting and sports!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals are animated by a lust for power and thus they need to BUY VOTES - at any price!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If LIE-berals were to CONDEMN criminals they would LOSE VOTES.................................
in ethnic communities where a HIGH PROPORTION of young men are involved in crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals consider it expedient to harass legal gun owners - since legal gun owners are less likely to be LIE-beral supporters anyway
than to take strong action against criminals who are disproportionately from ethnic minorities...................................
AND are more usually LIE-beral supporters than are hunters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If its LIE-beral policy - then its usually a LIE...............................................
supported by selfish greed and ANTI DEMOCRATIC VALUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Right to Bear Arms? Canadian Cases
Here’s something I should have done yesterday, before launching into my analysis of the Charter‘s protection of liberty and of the right to bear arms: read some actual cases! Well, better late than never.
In R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, Justice Cory, writing for a 3-2 majority, opined, at p. 414, that “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.” However, the issue in that case was not the right to bear arms itself, but rather the definition of the Criminal Code‘s provision banning automatic weapons. There had been, in all likelihood, no argument on the right to bear arms, and there was no detailed analysis of the Charter.
The Supreme Court upheld the federal licensing and registration requirements for long guns in the Reference re Firearms Ac (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, which has subsequently been cited for the proposition that possession and use of firearms is heavily regulated in Canada. But the Charter was not at issue in this case – it was only about division of powers between Parliament and the provinces. And of course something being heavily regulated does not mean that it is not also a constitutionally protected right – electoral campaign speech is heavily regulated by Parliament and provincial legislatures, but there is a right to engage in it, and at least some regulations will be unconstitutional, as those struck down in Libman v. Québec (A.G.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569.
The Supreme Court’s last engagement with the right to bear arms came in R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, a brief decision holding that a mandatory prohibition on firearms ownership attaching to a conviction for some (non-violent) drug offences is not “cruel and unusual punishment” contrary to s. 12 of the Charter. Again, a general right to bear arms, or s. 7 of the Charter, was not at issue.
In my view, the Supreme Court has not conclusively pronounced on the possibility that s.7 of the Charter protects a right to bear arms. The question was never directly put to it. The Ontario Court of Appeal, however, took a contrary view in a recent decision. But that decision, as well one by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, rejected a challenge based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Bill of Rights was variously said to have been made part of the Canadian constitution by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, or by s. 26 of the Charter, but those arguments were very weak. Again, s. 7 of the Charter, although mentioned in passing, was not the object of a full argument by the parties or analysis by the courts.
So it seems to me that in theory, a well-developed argument based on s. 7 could yet be brought. But as I wrote yesterday, I think that the chances of such an argument, if based on the s. 7 guarantee of liberty, would not be good. What’s left to explore is an argument based on the s. 7 guarantee of the “security of the person.” I hope to get to it next week.
https://doubleaspect.blog/2012/04/1...IOl3SUd18TOnnEb0QvYMLnN4OByC1LVooc-K0yDyYJ5rQ
Here’s something I should have done yesterday, before launching into my analysis of the Charter‘s protection of liberty and of the right to bear arms: read some actual cases! Well, better late than never.
In R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, Justice Cory, writing for a 3-2 majority, opined, at p. 414, that “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.” However, the issue in that case was not the right to bear arms itself, but rather the definition of the Criminal Code‘s provision banning automatic weapons. There had been, in all likelihood, no argument on the right to bear arms, and there was no detailed analysis of the Charter.
The Supreme Court upheld the federal licensing and registration requirements for long guns in the Reference re Firearms Ac (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, which has subsequently been cited for the proposition that possession and use of firearms is heavily regulated in Canada. But the Charter was not at issue in this case – it was only about division of powers between Parliament and the provinces. And of course something being heavily regulated does not mean that it is not also a constitutionally protected right – electoral campaign speech is heavily regulated by Parliament and provincial legislatures, but there is a right to engage in it, and at least some regulations will be unconstitutional, as those struck down in Libman v. Québec (A.G.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569.
The Supreme Court’s last engagement with the right to bear arms came in R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, a brief decision holding that a mandatory prohibition on firearms ownership attaching to a conviction for some (non-violent) drug offences is not “cruel and unusual punishment” contrary to s. 12 of the Charter. Again, a general right to bear arms, or s. 7 of the Charter, was not at issue.
In my view, the Supreme Court has not conclusively pronounced on the possibility that s.7 of the Charter protects a right to bear arms. The question was never directly put to it. The Ontario Court of Appeal, however, took a contrary view in a recent decision. But that decision, as well one by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, rejected a challenge based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Bill of Rights was variously said to have been made part of the Canadian constitution by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, or by s. 26 of the Charter, but those arguments were very weak. Again, s. 7 of the Charter, although mentioned in passing, was not the object of a full argument by the parties or analysis by the courts.
So it seems to me that in theory, a well-developed argument based on s. 7 could yet be brought. But as I wrote yesterday, I think that the chances of such an argument, if based on the s. 7 guarantee of liberty, would not be good. What’s left to explore is an argument based on the s. 7 guarantee of the “security of the person.” I hope to get to it next week.
https://doubleaspect.blog/2012/04/1...IOl3SUd18TOnnEb0QvYMLnN4OByC1LVooc-K0yDyYJ5rQ
