Canadian gun confiscation!!!!

[USMCSNIPERONE]

On Feb.16,1995,the Canadian Min. of
Justice,Allan Rock,said"Let us not hear that
{registration} is a prelude to the confiscation by the gov. of hunting rifles
and shotguns.
"There is no reason to confiscate legally
owned firearms". Ten months later, Parliament
passed the Canadian Firearms Act that made
legally owned firearms illegal.
This act, containing three major
provisions,banned private ownership of more
than half of Canada's legally registered
pistols.
Any handgun of .32 or .25 cal.and any
handgun with a barrel length less than 4.14"
became illegal at the stroke of the pen.
Owners of more than 553,000 handguns were
given three options:

1. Sell their handgun to legally qualified
dealers or individuals.
2. Render them inoperable.
3. Surrender them to the gov. without
compensation.

The second provision of the new law
requires a gov.- issued firearms license.
As of Jan. 1, 2001, anyone who owns a
shotgun or rifle but did not apply for a
license can face up to five(5)years in
prison and a $2000 fine.
A license is also required to buy a
long gun or even a box of cartridges.

The third phase of this new law goes into
effect on Jan. 1,2003 and requires that
each individual long gun be registered.
Handgun registration in Canada was
implemented in 1934.
It has been so successful in preventing
crime that the gov.has admitted on three
separate occasions in the past few years
that since handgun registration was
implemented in 1934,not one single crime
in Canada has been solved using the
national handgun registry.

As an aside, the Canadian Firearms Act also
affects Americans who want to bring firearms
into Canada for hunting or other purposes
Those who do not have a valid Canadian
firearms license will have to declare and
register their firearms by completing a
Non-Resident Declaration Form and pay a
$50 fee.
Information presented to the Canadian gov.
may be shared with the BATF as part of a
joint agreement.
Resticted firearms can be brought into
Canada by applying in advance for an
"Authorization to Transport" obtained
from the province(s) Chief Firearms Officer
where the traveler intends to visit.

Concealed carry is not allowed in Canada.

The above information was taken from a
article written by Jack Lee,Public Policy
Director for "Pennsylvania Shooting News"


Sounds like 1935 Germany under Hitler to me,
But thats my .02 worth!
Think I like it even more down here in
Yankeeville!

Semper Fi Sniperone

[LRSC Grunt]

Yet another reason to call canucks pussies.

[clemanis]

I belive in tough gun laws. The only persons who should carry guns are soldiers and police officers period. Use a bow for hunting. Think what ever you like about us Canucks, but don't be mad because the UN has declared Canada the best place to live over and over again.

[Cole]

Speak for yourself Clemanis...this is starting to get annoying.
What will you do when the govenment considers your bow a menace to society and confiscates it?

[ZeroG]

Riigght Clemanis. The only people that have guns are CRIMINALS, and the state. They have effectively taken away our right for self-defense a against criminals and, if things go to hell, the state. Face it, our cops are even outgunned by the common crook these days.

[WS-G]

Originally posted by clemanis:
...because the UN has declared....

F*ck the UN.

[LRSC Grunt]

Originally posted by clemanis:
I belive in tough gun laws. The only persons who should carry guns are soldiers and police officers period. Use a bow for hunting. Think what ever you like about us Canucks, but don't be mad because the UN has declared Canada the best place to live over and over again.


Your about as DUMB as a rock!!!

[USMCSNIPERONE]

Hey Clem,
Where do you live in a F@#king bubble?
I guess you have never watched the news or
read the paper up there!
You must be a Canadian democrat.Give us
your Guns if you don't want them, I still
have space somewhere to put a few more.
Just don't cry to us when you have a home
invasion and your ass is duct taped to a
chair and your watching your wife and or
child get raped!
Just keep thinking that your own personal
Cop will be there to save the day.
Its your duty to protect yourself and your
loved ones.Not the police!
They are a responce to a crime,they are not there standing guard over your dumb ass!

I actually have pity for you and your familly
since you cannot or willnot protect them
and expect someone else to do it for you!

Get a life ! On some other planet!!!!!!!

Sniperone out!

[towhey]

Argue for or against gun control... your choice, your right.

But, the information presented in USMCSNIPERONE's post, quoting an article written by an anti-gun control advocate is factually wrong.

I think the law is silly, and components of it re: search and seizure are frightening. However, the information presented above is just plain wrong. Read the laws. Get the facts. Then decide.

As to gun control as a crime fighting measure... consider that the US, where citizens in many states are legally permitted to "defend" themselves with firearms also face a crime rate so far above that faced by "defenceless" Canadians that numbers fail to capture the magnitude. Can gun control take credit? You decide.

[Jomini]

I agree with townie and also agree with limited gun control. People should start using there minds and not there pistols to solve crime problems. having a gun sure doesnt make me feel any safer then when i didnt have a firearm. I guess us canucks are just better able to control our emotions and thats why we all dont have the erge to lash out and shoot someone like our brethren down south.

[Cole]

***

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 05-24-2001).]

[Cole]

Mr Towhey,
I think a partial explanation to this lies not in the legislation, but in the national culture. I have ran across references to this many times. Canada and the United States have different approaches to firearms. While American culture has it in their Constitution and uses firearms as a strong symbol in their republican heritage, in Canada, being "Crown lackeys", we foster a completely different view towards firearms.

[beachbaby]

Gun control is an emotive subject (as demonstrated here) because it's also a restriction on freedom. If you've never owned a gun, living without one isn't a big deal. If you have, then giving it up is seen as an infringement of personal liberty. If it's a law that you have to give up a weapon, it makes it worse because you know the lawful gun owning population will act in a responsible way and that criminals won't (why change the habits of a lifetime?) and that the people who are making the law are not in touch with the feelings of the people they are supposed to be representing.

Restricting guns by law will never, by definition, affect criminals who operate outside the law. They will acquire their weapons by whatever means necessary and use them against, now, unarmed civilians. It doesn't work.

As for the police being only a response to crime, I always thought they were there to 'protect and serve'. Maybe I got it wrong.

Just my .02

[USMCSNIPERONE]

Originally posted by beachbaby:
Gun control is an emotive subject (as demonstrated here) because it's also a restriction on freedom. If you've never owned a gun, living without one isn't a big deal. If you have, then giving it up is seen as an infringement of personal liberty. If it's a law that you have to give up a weapon, it makes it worse because you know the lawful gun owning population will act in a responsible way and that criminals won't (why change the habits of a lifetime?) and that the people who are making the law are not in touch with the feelings of the people they are supposed to be representing.

Restricting guns by law will never, by definition, affect criminals who operate outside the law. They will acquire their weapons by whatever means necessary and use them against, now, unarmed civilians. It doesn't work.

As for the police being only a response to crime, I always thought they were there to 'protect and serve'. Maybe I got it wrong.

Just my .02



Beachbaby,
I totally agree with your post,BUT
The police are there to "Protect and Serve"
They do this to the best of there ability!

The problem is that there is only ONE Cop
for every 3000 or so people here in the USA.

They can't protect us everywhere and all the
time,I wish they could but they can't!!

So protecting yourself,your familly and your
property is up to you the individual.

And if you can do this without a firearm
thats great! Most people can't. I can up to
a point and thats where the firearm comes in.

As a last resort when all other means fail!

I for one refuse to be a VICTIM and if I can
Help it neither will my familly or even anyone I see that I can help out of nasty
encounter.
The world we live in is not perfect, if it
was we wouldn't have to worry about any of
this would we??

Semper Fi Sniperone

[Quimby]

I worked last summer for the Department of Justice doing the firearms licensing in Canada and don't see any factual mistakes in what USMCSNIPERONE posted. So Towhey, tell us what he got wrong.
The Liberal government has an anti-gun agenda. It is only a matter of time before all handguns in Canada become illegal and you can be sure long guns won't be far behind.

------------------
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

[towhey]

Hi Quimby,

I'm not arguing for or against the law. Only that some of the facts in the statement are wrong -- not those of USMC..., but those in the article from which he quotes...

>>>"This act, containing three major provisions, banned private ownership of more than half of Canada's legally registered pistols."

Comment: I don't know the numbers on this and, since the article doesn't offer any, I am slightly suspicious. My propaganda alarm is humming, if not buzzing.

>>>"Any handgun of .32 or .25 cal.and any handgun with a barrel length less than 4.14" became illegal at the stroke of the pen."

Comment: Not true. The Criminal Code specifically excludes .32 or .25 cal pistols “…where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,”

Comment: Like it or hate it, here is the Criminal Code definition of “prohibited firearm”:

CCC: "prohibited firearm" means
(a) a handgun that
(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,
but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;

Comment: Likewise, the CCC also defines “prohibited weapons” as:

CCC:

(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or

(b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon;

Comment: Just in case that’s not enough, there’s also a definition of “restricted firearms”…


CCC: "restricted firearm" means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that
(i) is not a prohibited firearm,
(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;

Comment: But wait, there’s even more…

CCC: "restricted weapon" means any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a restricted weapon;

>>>"Owners of more than 553,000 handguns were given three options:
1. Sell their handgun to legally qualified dealers or individuals.
2. Render them inoperable.
3. Surrender them to the gov. without compensation."

Comment: This is pretty deceptive. It seems intended to suggest that all handguns were banned. Not so. I don’t know what “553,000” represents, however – many forms of handguns are still lawful in Canada and the owners of these weapons need not do any of these three options.

>>>"The second provision of the new law requires a gov.- issued firearms license."

Comment: This is true – however, in practice, it is not a new requirement. The new Firearms Licence effectively replaces a “Firearms Acquisition Certificate” which has been required for the purchase of any firearm since 1977. What is new in the law is the requirement to eventually register long arms in much the same way that handguns have been registered since 1934.

>>>"As of Jan. 1, 2001, anyone who owns a shotgun or rifle but did not apply for a license can face up to five(5)years in prison and a $2000 fine. A license is also required to buy a long gun or even a box of cartridges."

Comment: True. However, the punishment can in fact be much greater if the offence occurred unlawfully in a motor vehicle, or if the accused can be proved to have known that possession was unlawful. The latter, I think, is particularly interesting. It has been a common law practice for ages that “ignorance of the law” is no defence. Now, in this regard, ignorance of the law is a specific offence.

>>>"It has been so successful in preventing crime that the gov. has admitted on three
separate occasions in the past few years that since handgun registration was
implemented in 1934,not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national handgun registry."

Comment: This is the type of definitive statement that is almost always not true. There may, in fact, be a statement to this effect that may, in fact, have been made by someone associated with the Government. That does not mean, however, that it’s true. I don’t have the facts to dispute the statement, but as a professional communicator I am dubious – since it displays all of the characteristics of a propaganda statement that misrepresents the facts. Personally, I would ask for the source and review it before I accepted this statement as fact.

>>>"As an aside, the Canadian Firearms Act also affects Americans who want to bring firearms into Canada for hunting or other purposes. Those who do not have a valid Canadian firearms license will have to declare and register their firearms by completing a Non-Resident Declaration Form and pay a $50 fee."

Comment: As it should. US citizens enjoy no special privileges beyond their borders – nor should they.

>>>"Concealed carry is not allowed in Canada."

Comment: Not true. Concealed carry is permitted under the Firearms Act, however, the criteria for such authorization are high. Personally, I think this is great. I worked for a while in Israel where it was a common occurrence for a knife-wielding bandit to attack people in public, followed by a “shoot out” of self-defending citizens resulting in half a dozen dead and wounded from “defensive” gunfire.

Source: CCC…

90. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed.

Final Comment: There is more than enough virtue and ignorance in our Firearms laws to sustain any desirable amount of impassioned argument. There is no need to misrepresent the facts.

[USMCSNIPERONE]

I don't give a rats ass how its worded,it
still says the same thing :
You people are screwed!
Your just subjects up there and you don't
even realize it.
I'm proud to be an AMERICAN,The land of the
FREE and the BRAVE. Those of you up there
that are still fighting for your rights,
I salute you! the rest of you should be
ashamed!!
Semper Fi Sniperone

[Barney]

Ah yes, though I haven't checked up on Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), published by the CDC, when I had last looked, the leading cause of death for black males in the US ages approx 18-25 was gunshot wounds. Everywhere else in the devloped world it's things like MVA, cancer, other diseases.

And for those who perpetuate the fallacy that your hangun or rifle will protect your family, you couldn't be farther from the truth. A report I read a few years ago, issued by an association of police chiefs in the US, showed that you are more than 9x more likely to commit suicide with your own gun than ever use it to defend yourself, more people are killed by their own gun than bad guys, and the number of cases where the possession of a gun has foiled a crime is so small as to be almost statistically insignificant.

Mind you, I don't want all firearms banned (I almost bought an old BAR, and a Lee Enfield with an extra twist in the rifling). I just think that if people want to discuss the issue, then bring out all the pro and con facts and leave the insults and emotion behind.

------------------
Death to the Purple One

[Cree Warrior]

Couple things y'all might not realize.
1) You can get numerous firemarms in Canada which are BANNED in the US.
2) You can acquire firearms LEGALLY faster than in the US.

If you abide by the firearms legislation you can legally purchase numerous weapons which are banned in the US. Example; I bought an Armalite M4 (their version, 14.5 inch barrell, bayonet lugs, flash suppressor, flat top, for 1,500 CDN, thats about 1,000 USD!!!) in May of 2000. Paid for it in the morning, presented my paperwork, was faxed to Ottawa, or wherever, and I took home the rifle in the evening.
Try doing that in California!
Better watch your own back yard there guys before you start criticizing ours.

Sua Sponte


[This message has been edited by Cree Warrior (edited 05-25-2001).]

[beachbaby]

Thank you, USMCSniperOne, for not ripping me to shreds. I've never (apart from one time) so much as picked up a gun so I can't speak from experience (except to say, God, they're heavy!). I only have an outsider's opinion on the entire matter.

This may sound naive but surely 'accidental' fatalities would be reduced with proper training in the use of firearms. Those with a military and LE background would be comfortable handling, working with and being responsible for their weapons. People 'off the street' .. it seems to me that it could be an accident waiting to happen. If I'm wrong - as I say, I have no experience at all in the subject - maybe someone can correct me. Are there 'mental health checks' made before a gun is handed over? I'd hate to stop at someone's house to ask for directions only to find they're of a nervous disposition and also have a gun in the house ...

Maybe enforced proper training is the answer rather than legislation to restrict people's rights.

[fish78]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America. (emphasis added by me)
LRRP, couldn't agree with your sentiments more.
Remember those who died defending this right on Memorial Day.
fish78 out

[DonK]

Um...What does the Second Amendment to the US Constitution have to do with Canadian Gun Laws...?

[fish78]

Don, What makes the issue of our Second Amendment relevent to this discussion is that because we have a Bill of Rights , US citizens are not likely to become subjects like our Canadian neighbors. We won our independence the hard way. As it is Memorial Day weekend, it is a good occaision to remember those Americans who died defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All we have to do is look northward to appreciate the wisdom of our Founders showed when they gave us our Republic! Clear enough?
fish78

[Cole]

I don't know.
Mr. Towhey and Cree Warrior put forward some really good points, and all you guys respond with is emotional references to the Constitution and the Revolutionary War.
I think you need some better arguments to support your idea that up here, we are more likly to become subjugated and enslaved due to a a piece of firearms legislation.

[DonK]

Jeez! Amazing how one little question can cause a rant! Sorry I friggin asked...

[fish78]

No rant; just facts.
fish78

[towhey]

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a fantastic document.

To fully "...appreciate the wisdom of (their) Founders...", however, it is necessary to read the quote from the Second Amendment again. This time WITHOUT the emphasis added by fish78.

Those who argue on an emotional basis about US gun laws, often overlook the first part of this sentence (my turn to add EMPHASIS):

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This amendment was not added by the wise old "founders" because they felt citizens should have an intrinsic right to buy machine guns or concealable hand guns.

This amendment was added because the American people had been taxed and governed (oppressed perhaps) by a distant government, with whom they had little influence. They raised a militia -- illegal under British law -- and fought to overthrow the British empire and establish their own nation.

These people, organized as independent states, decided to band together to create a union of states to better protect themselves from larger, more powerful aggressors: read Britain.

However, they remained leery of big government... and of handing away powers to a distant (in this case eventually Washington) government.

So, they designed a constitution based on the premise that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit with only the most absolutely necessary intrusions by government. This fundamental premise is much different from that underlying most other western states, including Canada.

The Second Amendment was added to ensure that this distant government of all the states (based eventually in Washington), could not in future make it illegal for the states to raise local militias. The states wanted "an option" in case they ever felt the need to leave the new union....

It was not added to guarantee that thousands of children would die each year from accidental GSW (although it has), nor to ensure that drug lords could outgun police forces (although it has), nor to ensure that lost souls could pick up an assault rifle and express their frustration with life by gunning down school children or fast food diners (although it has). All these are merely unanticipated fringe benefits.

I don't think guns are bad. But I do think it would be nice, once in my life, to hear a discussion about firearms that was based on fact, not emotion -- and, in this case, adolescent rutting.

[King]

The intentions of the founding fathers of the U.S. went beyond the keeping of a state militia to include the right to bear arms for personal protection. For instance Thomas Jefferson once said...

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

I'd tend to agree. I can't imagine that anyone here really believes gun control will reduce crime. In the strictest sense, more laws increase crime. All gun control does is serve to disarm law abiding citizens. Criminals will continue to acquire guns, more laws won't stop them. gun control is feel-good legislation, but not really practical. For example, here in canada we have had to register handguns since 1934. Yet in 1998 50% of the firearms murders in Canada were committed with handguns. I would love for someone to tell me how the government having a huge database of all the gun owners and the types of guns they own prevents muggings or robbieries or a 15 year old kid from carring one to school. 60% of the people in Canada's jails are repeat offenders (that number is a few years old, it may be higher now). These people aren't law abiding citizens to begin with, why would they go out of the way to register a gun? I don't believe repeat offenders are allowed to even have guns. Taking away those guns is where the problem rests. Bill C68 also costs anywhere from $400-500 million AND Quebec has their own seperate registry in Montreal (the national one is in Miramichi New Brunswick) which is run by the provincial government.

An interesting note. I'm unsure how many have heard of a program called Project Exile. It's sponsered by the NRA and in test cases has been extremely effective in reducing crime. In America, laws exist on the books which state that use of an illegal gun in a crime gets you minimum of 5 years in prison. Yet this law is never enforced and often plea-bargained away. Richmind Virginia was once known as "Murder Capital USA" yet because of Project Exile it has witnessed one of the steepest declines in homicide rates in the U.S. In 1997 Richmond had the second highest per capita homicide ratein the country, with 140 murders out of a population of 200,000 people. Project Exile is basically forcing all judges to enforce the minimum 5 year penalty and actively advertises it on T.V., in newspapers, on huge billboards that read - "An illegal gun gets you 5 years in Federal Prison." In 1998 the number of murders fell to 94, in 1999 that number was 60.

In Canada, we have a minimum 4 year law which is usually plea-baregained away too.

[Barney]

Are you sure that Project Exile is responsible? It is probably a combination of numerous factors, most likely involving the steadily improving US economy and subsequent decreased unemployment rate.

I would theorize that Project Exile would only effect those who premeditate their crime. However, as most use of firearms is rather spontaneous, ie 'crimes of passion', any media campaign would have little overall effect.

I would also be highly suspicious of any self-agrandizing statistics used by the NRA. They are an organization which consistently hides behind an overly misinterpretted constitutional line to perpetuate their own existence when numerous polls have shown that they do not have true popular support.

As I said before, when GSW is a leading cause of death for certain demographics of a society (especially by race and age), and schools need security guards and metal detectors, then one must question the necessity for the proliferation of guns.

I once read that over 6 million handguns were produced in the US every year! That's one for every 50 people. If we assume that this has been an ongoing trend for decades (say, since the mass industrialization of WWII), and if we accept the NRA line that legal gun possession prevents crime, than the US should have been virtually crime free years ago!

I'd say something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

------------------
Death to the Purple One

[fish78]

If one assumes that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment is a right reseved to the various States it becomes necessary to conclude that the other rights confirmed by the Bill of rights are also collective rights. Once again, not an emotional response, but that is horse manure. We have individual rights in this country. I will never surrender even one of my God given rights to conform to some fuzzy headed governmental misinterpretation of our Constitution. Yes we have a Federal system here, but the Tenth Amendment is also still valid.
Regarding the militia issue: I will quote (paraphrase since I don't have the quotation in front of me now) George Mason, "Who are the militia? They are all of us with the exception of certain elected officials." The meaning is clear,even if I may have slighty mangled the wording: the militia is of and for the people. It is important to note that the American "National Character" that I identify with is the "rugged individualist" not the compliant subject that our Canadian neighbors seem to identify with and revere. You must understand that an aversion to authority is a virtue, not a vice in my world view.
fish78

[King]

Barney,

Those numbers are not from the NRA. They were produced by both the U.S. Federal Government and officials of the city of Richmond as well as the Richmond Police Department.

Here are numbers in a bit greater detail. The gun murder rate dropped 65%, robberies decreased by 33%, and the number of felons caught carrying a fiorearm decreased by 60%. The Richmind Police Department says that the rate of criminals carrying guns is down 20-30% in the last fur years. I'd attribute a lot of these numbers to Project Exile since in the years before, Richmonds murder rate had been rising at a time when the national average was declining.

In fact, the entire state of Virginia has implimented a program called Virginia Exile, a copy of Project Exile. Project Exile is also ongoing in Philidelphia, Rochester N.Y., Carman N.J., Birmingham Alabama, Baton Rouge Louisiana, and Oakland California.

The NRA is not the only sponser. The pro-gun control group, Handgun Control Inc. as well as Virginians Against Handgun Violence praise Project Exile.

[Marauder]

Fish, hate to let the sunshine of reality shine on through, but we aren't "the compliant subject(s) that our Canadian neighbors seem to identify with and revere." Yeah we have the odd Royalist kicking around, but they're mostly little, 80-plus year old ladies who have nothing better to spend their dead hubby's pension check on than Princess Diana collector memorial plates. About the only concession we make to being "subjects" is keeping the Governor General comfy in an overpriced house somewhere in Ottawa. BFD. We pay no taxes to the Crown (the gov does a plenty good enough job of taking my cash, spank you very much). All we really do concession-wise is put up the Queen's spoiled little brat kiddies for free whenever the decide to demean themselves and come visit "the colonies". Like when bonny Prince Charlie came to tour the gardens last month. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/rolleyes.gif The only time I have ever had to pledge alligience was for 1) Jury duty and 2)When I swore into the Reserve infantry Regiment I am joining. We are pretty much free of any Crown interference as they no longer have any say in our internal governance. It just took us a little longer than you guys to do it. Sans violent upheaval, I might add. Must be that whole "Canadian civility" thing showing through.

You must understand that an aversion to authority is a virtue, not a vice in my world view.
So you agreed to do everything your COs told you to do, up to and including placing yourself in a position where you may have had to give your life, because...?

No flame intended, just letting you know how things are on this side of the world's longest undefended border. Have a good one.

[fish78]

The oath one takes to follow all lawful orders is taken voluntarily and ends with one's discharge. I was unable to serve in the armed forces due to a heart condition. so I have never been bound by article 88, but I clearly see the need for order, discipline and the respect for the authority for the chain of command in the military. As a citizen at large it is my duty to expose incremental errosion of the individual rights that our Constitution guarentees. No offense was taken, but you Canadians clearly show mor compliance to civil authority than I believe is wise or conducive to individual freedom. At esssence I am a Randian.
fish

[Cole]

God Save the Queen.
I proudly sang it this weekend with veterans who fought at the Melfa River in Italy 58 years ago. Our Monarchy gives us more than you would seem to indicate Marauder.

[Cole]

...

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 05-27-2001).]

[BWO1]

Well hey I am in Canada and I own a AR15 Mossberg 500 and a Sig 226 and f the paper work and F Canada .

[USMCSNIPERONE]

Originally posted by BWO1:
Well hey I am in Canada and I own a AR15 Mossberg 500 and a Sig 226 and f the paper work and F Canada .

If those weapons are illegal,do you think
its smart to post it on a open forum?
You sound like another happy SUBJECT!

Sniperone out