Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
LILLEY: RCMP and feds atone for sins by using legal gun owners as scapegoats

Brian Lilley

Published: May 13, 2020
Updated: May 13, 2020 5:06 PM EDT








In the time when Moses was leading the Israelites through the desert in search of the promised land there was a ritual for ridding the people of their sins — it was called a scapegoat.


Two goats would be chosen, one would be sacrificed on the altar, the other would have the sins of the people cast upon it.


“The goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat,” Leviticus 16:10.


It may seem like an odd ritual, but we keep it up to this day only now we blame people or groups of people for the failings of others. Like the attempt to blame legal and licensed gun owners for events such as the mass shooting in Nova Scotia.


We now know the shooter, Gabriel Wortman, never had a gun licence and none of his firearms were legally purchased. We also know two people, including his own father, had reported Wortman to the RCMP telling them about his violence and his illegal stash of guns.



Yet nothing ever happened.


In a news released earlier this week, the Mounties said Wortman left his home with four firearms — two handguns and two rifles.


“One of the guns has been traced to Canada. The remaining guns that were recovered are believed to have been obtained in the United States,” the RCMP said in their release.


Over the past 15 years, members of the RCMP have reported more than 640 guns issued to them as lost and more than 175 stolen.

Last year, an RCMP service pistol was stolen from the car of an off-duty member in downtown Halifax.


I’m willing to bet given how much Wortman wanted to have everything from the uniform to the car just like a real Mountie, that he found a way to acquire one of those lost or stolen guns and that is why the RCMP won’t tell us more about the guns he used.


Yet, licensed and legal gun owners are being used as the scapegoat to atone for the sins of the RCMP here. Just as they are the scapegoat for the RCMP not dealing with reports of Wortman beating his common-law spouse and having an illegal stash of guns.


Brenda Forbes — a former neighbour of Wortman in Portapique, NS, where the massacre began — told the Canadian Press in an interview that Wortman not only beat his live-in partner but he also had an illegal gun collection that she reported to the RCMP.


In 2013, Forbes said she witnessed Wortman being violent with his common-law partner and not for the first time. She claimed she witnessed him on top of her behind one of his properties beating and strangling her.


“On that incident, I called the RCMP and I told them what happened, and I said he has a bunch of illegal weapons, and I know because he showed them to us,” Forbes told CP.


Despite reports of domestic violence and illegal guns, nothing happened to Wortman.


His own father spoke to the Sun’s Joe Warmington and to Frank Magazine detailing how he had been beaten and threatened. Paul Wortman also called the Mounties to report violence and illegal guns and nothing was done.


It’s not like they wouldn’t have reason to look in on him beyond the reports. Wortman had a record for a vicious assault on a teenage boy that happened when he was very much an adult.


Hindsight can be 20/20 but, in this case, the RCMP was warned there were problems and they did not act.


In the end, 22 innocent people lost their lives because of that inaction.


Now, the RCMP and the government are trying to atone for their sins by using licensed, legal gun owners as the scapegoat and telling you this will make you safer.


https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...-sins-by-using-legal-gun-owners-as-scapegoats


Brought this here for one reason.


I understood that perhaps the RCMP could do nothing about Ms. Forbes report, as she was not a victim.



But his own father reported his gun cache after being beaten.


The RCMP did nothing.


But I'm responsible, me and every other Canadian gun owner.


Outrageous.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
I bought my house in '87 from an OPP who was moving out of town...
A few years ago while doing renovations, I found a S&W '38 special
I asked another O.P.P. friend what he could find about a serial number I was thinking of buying
He told me it wasn't in the system!
And as a friend, never asked any more question,
Ammunition was purchased second hand!
"nuf said!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,586
9,177
113
Washington DC
I bought my house in '87 from an OPP who was moving out of town...
A few years ago while doing renovations, I found a S&W '38 special
I asked another O.P.P. friend what he could find about a serial number I was thinking of buying
He told me it wasn't in the system!
And as a friend, never asked any more question,
Ammunition was purchased second hand!
"nuf said!
If you ever need more, just slip across the border. Cash basis, no records.

Just about any gas station or convenience store.
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
If a firearm is disassembled into multiple pieces and distributed to multiple owners, is there any 1 piece that is considered a firearm?
because while the libs are cpntent to violate the rights of owners that have never commited a crime, they are doing it to grab firearms that never been used in a crime....to me this sounds like it needs to be reviewed by the oaks test.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Is TrudOWE going to ban Ford trucks since they are made with military grade aluminum and kill more people every year than anAR15? And they are fully automatic as well.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!


Fully automatic!


Good one!


And the reality is that LIE-berals want us talking about ANYTHING EXCEPT the Chinese Wuhan Virus MESS!










The LIE-beral position on new gun laws is drawing ever more fire as LIE-berals attempt to justify their costly and inept approach to crime and gun control! With some comments of my own in brackets):

Liberals add even more gun 'ban' incoherence by getting gender involved

By Chris Selley. From National Post May 8, 2020

In a recent column , I questioned whether the Liberals’ new “ban” on certain kinds of semiautomatic rifles — “ban” in quotation marks, inasmuch as current owners can keep them — constituted the sort of good public-health policy we’re demanding nowadays in the face of COVID-19. I concluded it did not. Even if you support the idea of banning such weapons, you can’t really support this endeavour except in the way a starving man might welcome his least favourite meal. Indeed, gun control advocates are nearly as annoyed by it as gun rights advocates, and rightly so.

(LIE-berals do not dare actually use an Order In Council to deprive Cdns of their property! Nor can they get the cash they need to buy back guns UNLESS they get the MAJORITY CONSENT of Parliament and that CANNOT HAPPEN until the Wuhan Pandemic has ended and govt biz returns to normal!)

(Even worse - LIE-berals are facing a storm of public anger over what people see as a WASTE OF CASH - with LIE-berals harassing legal gun owners of long rifles used for legitimate hunting and target shooting - while IGNORING the gang bangers that are murdering each other on the streets with SMUGGLED PISTOLS! LIE-berals CANNOT escape condemnation of their soft on crime CRAP!)

The Liberal “ban” targets certain semiautomatic rifles falling under the undefined term “military-style,” while leaving other semi-automatics alone. It focuses on rifles, which collectively are the least lethal form of previously legal weapons, while leaving handguns — which are used in 65 per cent of firearm homicides — alone. “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says, yet the “ban” exempts current owners of these weapons who use them to hunt for the purposes of sustenance.” Upon its unveiling, it was very nearly perfectly incoherent. And it’s nearer still now.

(The ONLY people happy with this LIE-beral move are Radical Feminazis who object in principle to the idea of a male owning a gun FOR ANY PURPOSE! And of course LIE-berals are PROFOUNDLY HOSTILE to rural dwellers using their guns to protect their isolated properties from thieving and violence prone drug addicts who also benefit greatly from LIE-beral hug a thug values!)

In recent days the Liberals have touted the “ban” as a way of protecting women and girls in particular. “These guns make it easier to commit mass murder,” Trudeau added. “And the culture around their fetishization makes our country inherently more dangerous for the people most vulnerable. And that is women and girls.” Trudeau cited reports about increasing domestic violence during the pandemic, and grim statistics about the number of Canadians killed by their spouses.

(The LIE-beral position is ABSURD! Cdn natives on reserves have consistently REFUSED to register any of their guns or to be limited from owning guns by any sort of LIE-beral legislation! Also - reserves are literally under siege with an epidemic of drug and alcohol abuse and all manner of violence that is fuelling an epidemic of suicide on reserves! Yet LIE-beral gun bans IGNORE native gun owners on reserves!)

'Incoherent' Liberal firearm ban excludes several semi-automatics, potentially outlaws big-game hunting rifles
Matt Gurney: The Liberals' useless 'assault weapons' ban
Chris Selley: If Liberals treated gun control like coronavirus, they wouldn't hassle hunters and farmers

(LIE-berals are catering to cottage owning animal lovers and horse farm owners by offering their gun bans! Horse owners are notorious for being mostly female and thus hostile to male hunters and horse owners DEMAND the right to wander as they please over many miles of rural land - without having to consider the rights of hunters to use the same land at any time! Some of the anti gun lobby wants to SELFISHLY trample on the rights and hobbies of others!)

There is very little evidence to support this case for the “ban.” And when you go looking for it, you wind up only with more questions.

To be fair, there is very little evidence to support any position on gun control. Nobody comprehensively keeps track of how many Canadians are killed using currently restricted weapons, or by the weapons the Liberals are “banning,” or even by rifles as opposed to shotguns — so we certainly don’t know how many men and women are killed by these various kinds of firearms.

As for Canada’s history of mass murderers, while several were seething misogynists, the victims are far from monolithically women.

(LIE-berals deplore the deaths of a few women at the hands or guns of their spouses but always deceitful LIE-berals happily include statistics from our horrific native reserves along with numbers from our MUCH MORE STABLE cities to make general society look WORSE! And LIE-berals make NO DISTINCTION between a loon like the recent Nova Scotia shootings with the killer making use of SMUGGLED GUNS and the use of a legal gun by a hunter!)

(LIE-berals KNOW that the Toronto Danforth shooter was an UNTREATED LUNATIC who obtained his gun ILLEGALLY from his drug dealer brother - with the brother ending up in a COMA as a result of ingesting his own product that turned out to be to heavily mixed with Fentanyl!)

(The Danforth shooter and his criminal brother are FINE EXAMPLES of all that is wrong with LIE-beral immigration policy - choosing people based on their willingness to vote LIE-beral - without worrying about putting ILLEGAL guns and drug dealing into the mix!)

We can probably figure out how many men and women are killed using the categories of weapons into which Statistics Canada sorts them: handguns, rifles and shotguns combined, fully automatic weapons and other firearms. But a spokesperson says the agency is currently operating under “an emergency framework” due to the pandemic, and is unable to perform such custom tabulations. According to Statistics Canada’s public data, between 2014 and 2018, 68 per cent of the 2,576 Canadians murdered using all sorts of guns combined were male, so it seems unlikely that a more detailed analysis by type of firearm would lead to the conclusion that women are disproportionately victims of any kind of gun violence the Liberals claim to be targeting.

(LIE-berals DO NOT want us to know about spousal abuse numbers as it will make LIE-beral immigration policy look bad and we have only to look at Mohamad Shafia who drowned his first wife and 2 daughters in an “honour killing” of the sort LIE-berals refuse to condemn! We should also ask angry questions about the wisdom of allowing drugged up and suicidal natives to own as many guns as they choose!)

(Nor do LIE-berals want to admit that it is native smugglers that are KEY PLAYERS in bringing guns and other contraband into Canada! But a LIE-beral confrontation with natives WOULD BE VIOLENT as LIE-berals have SURRENDERED any claim to impose the rule of law on reserves! LIE-berals promote “native sovereignty” - meaning turning a blind eye to law breakers!)

It is true that for domestic violence, between 2008 and 2017, 19 per cent of homicides were committed by the victim’s current or former spouse or intimate partner, and roughly 80 per cent of those victims were female. Other domestic relationships — parents, siblings, etc. — account for another 19 per cent of homicides, but in those cases nearly 60 per cent of the victims were male.

Even if you just focused on spousal homicide, though, guns simply aren’t very commonly used in those crimes. Between 1995 and 2009, according to data Statistics Canada provided to Gary Mauser, an emeritus criminology professor at Simon Fraser University, 28 per cent of spousal homicides with female victims were committed using firearms.

The majority of those were with long guns, but we have no idea how many of those were “military style” and now “banned.” It’s probably not very many. Meanwhile, eight per cent of those homicides were committed with handguns, which the Liberals have no intention of banning at the federal level!

As for Canada’s history of mass murderers, while several were seething misogynists, the victims are far from monolithically women. Nine of Gabriel Wortman’s victims in Nova Scotia, which is clearly the impetus for the Liberals finally acting on this file, were men. All six Muslim worshippers Alexandre Bissonnette cut down at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017 were men. (One wonders why the Liberals didn’t act on their campaign promise then.) Psychotic Concordia University engineering professor Valery Fabrikant gunned down four colleagues in 1992, all men.

Justin Trudeau looking at the camera: “The culture around (gun) fetishization makes our country inherently more dangerous for the people most vulnerable. And that is women and girls,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said recently.

Fabrikant, incidentally, used three pistols. Faisal Hussain, who killed two young women on Toronto’s Danforth Avenue in 2018, used a .40-calibre handgun. Wortman and Bissonnette used handguns in addition to “military-style” rifles — indeed, Bissonnette was licensed to own them and had them properly registered. He might be the single best example a government ideologically committed to ramping up gun control could cite: “See? Sometimes ‘law-abiding gun owners’ do commit unspeakable acts. Licensing isn’t enough. We must prohibit their use altogether.”

I wouldn’t find that a particularly convincing argument. But the fact they aren’t even bothering with it, and are instead trying to sell this hot mess on well-meaning gun owners and anti-gun advocates alike , says just about everything you need to know about this profoundly unserious government and how stupid they think we all are.

(If LIE-berals stopped trying to sell us dubious and miss-leading policy - they would end up with NOTHING TO SAY OR SELL! All LIE-beral policy is failing and the only solution LIE-berals can think of is to employ EVER MORE FAKE NEWS!)
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,586
9,177
113
Washington DC
because while the libs are cpntent to violate the rights of owners that have never commited a crime, they are doing it to grab firearms that never been used in a crime....to me this sounds like it needs to be reviewed by the oaks test.
Is that where you smack a liberal with an oak branch and tell him to pull his head out of his ass?

If not, don't you wish it was?
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Half of Canadians in cities support full ban on firearms: Ipsos poll

https://globalnews.ca/news/6893821/firearms-ban-ipsos-poll-canada/

Seems logical to me that when half of Canadians in cities favor a complete ban on guns that 80% would support an assault wepaon ban.

Those numbers line up.






MOST LIE-berals SUPPORT TELLING LIES regarding how Cdns feel about guns!


Take a read through the post by Colpy about Cdns and guns and Angus Reid methodology above - that clearly indicates



THE LIE-beral FIX is in! And Fake News is the ORDER OF THE DAY!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,586
9,177
113
Washington DC

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
I'm familiar with it. And impressed. It is a remarkably clear piece of legal doctrine.
Your guys did very well with this one.

unfortunately, if can't be used until there is a challenge and that typically doesn't happen until someone is defending themselves in court.
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
MOST LIE-berals SUPPORT TELLING LIES regarding how Cdns feel about guns!
Take a read through the post by Colpy about Cdns and guns and Angus Reid methodology above - that clearly indicates
THE LIE-beral FIX is in! And Fake News is the ORDER OF THE DAY!

Wow, I'll actually give you some credit here.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,586
9,177
113
Washington DC
unfortunately, if can't be used until there is a challenge and that typically doesn't happen until someone is defending themselves in court.
That is a problem.

We have a rarely-used, difficult doctrine that sometimes allows a person who cannot demonstrate direct, personal effect of a government action to sue on the basis that Constitutional government is a good thing for everybody, and therefore anybody can sue on a violation of the Constitution, without demonstrating direct, personal harm.

While I generally disapprove of resolving things through courts, as opposed to the political process, I'd like to see this doctrine used more, and refined better.
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
That is a problem.
We have a rarely-used, difficult doctrine that sometimes allows a person who cannot demonstrate direct, personal effect of a government action to sue on the basis that Constitutional government is a good thing for everybody, and therefore anybody can sue on a violation of the Constitution, without demonstrating direct, personal harm.
While I generally disapprove of resolving things through courts, as opposed to the political process, I'd like to see this doctrine used more, and refined better.

Interesting.

If john doe sues and loses for whatever reason. maybe he just didn't present a strong enough arguement.

does other people still have the right to sue?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,586
9,177
113
Washington DC
Interesting.
If john doe sues and loses for whatever reason. maybe he just didn't present a strong enough arguement.
does other people still have the right to sue?
Good question. Generally I'd say "yes," and whether or not the court simply dismissed on the basis of the previous loss would depend on the reason for that loss.

It's complicated. Too complicated, in my opinion, but at the same time I wouldn't want the law to be too simple.

We continue to struggle with it.