If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   RCMP: Sorry about the floods. No, you can't go back to your homes. Oh yeah, we raided your houses and took your guns. Have a nice day, eh   (news.nationalpost.com) divider line 282
    More: Scary, RCMP, Security checkpoint, firearms  
•       •       •

15077 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 6:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



282 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-29 05:05:12 PM  

Flakeloaf: al's hat:

I wonder how many of the unsecured guns were in closets and under beds in a locked (until the police broke down the door) house.  I wouldn't call those guns unsecured until the door was broken down.

You're new to the Firearms Act, aren't you?And before you come back ready to quote 5(b)(iii), the "room" in that section contemplates a weapons vault, not a bedroom with gyproc walls and a tin chain.


Did they take the weapons that had a trigger lock on them?  Because if it is non-restricted, that's all it says you need.
 
Ral
2013-06-29 05:45:33 PM  

Xcott: al's hat: I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

Perhaps, then, you don't understand the law.  The law says that they have to secure a firearm if it's unsecured.

If they were looking for bodies in a field and found a gun there, they'd have to do the same thing.


The inside of a private home and an open field are very different kinds of spaces, legally speaking as well as literally.
 
2013-06-29 05:46:30 PM  

Wise_Guy: Flakeloaf: al's hat:

I wonder how many of the unsecured guns were in closets and under beds in a locked (until the police broke down the door) house.  I wouldn't call those guns unsecured until the door was broken down.

You're new to the Firearms Act, aren't you?And before you come back ready to quote 5(b)(iii), the "room" in that section contemplates a weapons vault, not a bedroom with gyproc walls and a tin chain.

Did they take the weapons that had a trigger lock on them?  Because if it is non-restricted, that's all it says you need.


Dunno, wasn't there. But from the other posters ITT, I'm willing to bet the trigger lock to gun ratio out in that area is quite low. I'm sure we'll hear in the next few days how insecure these weapons really were.
 
2013-06-29 05:47:10 PM  

Ral: Xcott: al's hat: I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

Perhaps, then, you don't understand the law.  The law says that they have to secure a firearm if it's unsecured.

If they were looking for bodies in a field and found a gun there, they'd have to do the same thing.

The inside of a private home and an open field are very different kinds of spaces, legally speaking as well as literally.


Not when storing a firearm they aren't.
 
2013-06-29 06:59:51 PM  

Farktastic: Man On Pink Corner: Question: is there anyone in this thread who didn't grow up in the middle of New York City?

Yeah,  I live less than an hour away from the town in question.  If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to store it properly.  I own guns, and I store them in a safe.  If that is too complicated for you, you shouldn't have guns.  Idiots should not have guns.


What, besides confiscation by police in an emergency, do you see as the chief downside to keeping my rifle on a shelf in the closet?
 
2013-06-29 07:01:46 PM  

Flakeloaf: You're new to the Firearms Act, aren't you?And before you come back ready to quote 5(b)(iii), the "room" in that section contemplates a weapons vault, not a bedroom with gyproc walls and a tin chain.


And you don't see anything unreasonable about requiring adults in an adults-only residence to store their firearms in a "weapons vault?"

I'm not necessarily looking for an argument, I'm just trying to understand the attitudes and beliefs of people who think very differently from myself.  I've found that to be a good habit in life.
 
2013-06-29 07:05:33 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: .

So, I take it the tag on your shirt says Victim. amirite?



Probably in your sad world.  In my world it says FREE.  Free from the constant state of fear in your world.  I win.
 
2013-06-29 07:49:39 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: Farktastic: Man On Pink Corner: Question: is there anyone in this thread who didn't grow up in the middle of New York City?

Yeah,  I live less than an hour away from the town in question.  If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to store it properly.  I own guns, and I store them in a safe.  If that is too complicated for you, you shouldn't have guns.  Idiots should not have guns.

What, besides confiscation by police in an emergency, do you see as the chief downside to keeping my rifle on a shelf in the closet?


Apparently, the people in this thread think that having it available in an emergency is a downside.  Keeping it under lock and key is a "duty" because within the home is not safe "enough".

They have given up on any semblance of the right to bare arms, and think anyone who hasn't is criminal, or soon bound to be.  They've given up on any semblance of privacy or protection from search & seizure, because anyone who would have a problem with that is potentially criminal and ignorant.

They can't even comprehend why people would want those freedoms, they welcome the nanny state, they encourage it, they depend on it like a child depends on the ability to suckle upon the mother.  They call people that want their homes and guns to remain a right, "backwards and paranoid".  That is quite obviously projection, especially the paranoia portion of it.  They fear other humans so much they want the Nanny to be as controlling as possible, even if it means giving up on these values.

What they don't quite grasp, is that the Nanny is comprised of people just like the backwards people they fear.  The actual leaders and people who have that backward view, the people with courage and the will to fight and to defend themselves, the strength to do what these pacifists could/would not.

Placing faith in a power above them, a religion by any other name is still a religion.

Irrational and self-compromising or self-defeating, imo, they've welcomed the very overlords they seek to restrain.

Look at me, I probably even sound like an anti-government whackjob to these ignorant dependant babes.

Truth is, I'm a veteran who has served his country dutifully and supports the military and government, for now.  I, however, do not wear on my sleeve the delusion that our current approximation of fairness is in any way permanent.  I do not seek to control others due to a fear of them, but encourage their liberty because I do not fear them.  When history repeats itself, it is because of people with those fears and prejudice allowed it to happen.

They are the natives that stood by when those in power would do ill to those beneath them.  Yes, that is the inevitable Godwin reference.  Giving it a name does not make it any less applicable.

I can understand the evolutionary drive to shy from conflict.  I mean, I've always moved we're more animal than this idealized man anyhow, and they prove it.  They seek dominance, but not at the risk of any danger or even contempt from the Alpha Nanny.  They are the bootlicking parasites, the Wormtongues, they are the weak links, the scared to pissing himself soldier in the line, yet the loudest in voice when it comes to dictating.

And to think, people call me fascist.
/Disclaimer: The writing is to mock their prosthelytizing condemnations of others. Is not to be taken as a manifesto.
//Farking rights, how do they work?
///and because some asshole will inevitably not get it, I'll repeat what I had to spell out above about rights.
I want all people to have certain rights.  If you are in a place where they're not granted by those in charge, I pity you.  Just like women in the middle east who are stoned or imprisoned for showing skin, or someone who gets beheaded on camera with a dull knife as an example, because he spoke out or was from the wrong nation/religion.
 
2013-06-29 08:23:58 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Apparently, the people in this thread think that having it available in an emergency is a downside. Keeping it under lock and key is a "duty" because within the home is not safe "enough".


Maybe where you live you need to keep a loaded weapon handy.  I'm sorry for you.  Maybe you should move.  Where this happened, you do not need to keep a weapon that handy or loaded.  But you are welcome to your freedom.  I'll keep mine.
 
2013-06-29 08:30:50 PM  

sno man: omeganuepsilon: Apparently, the people in this thread think that having it available in an emergency is a downside. Keeping it under lock and key is a "duty" because within the home is not safe "enough".

Maybe where you live you need to keep a loaded weapon handy.  I'm sorry for you.  Maybe you should move.  Where this happened, you do not need to keep a weapon that handy or loaded.  But you are welcome to your freedom.  I'll keep mine.


I don't currently need to, but I have the right if I so choose.  Freedom is about retaining choice.  Maybe you should get educated.

If it's such a eutopia, you don't need cops seizing them just because you're away either.

You'll keep your freedom?  You pretend you have it..that's rich.  Your wool, it's getting in front of your eyes.
 
2013-06-29 08:46:16 PM  

omeganuepsilon: sno man: omeganuepsilon: Apparently, the people in this thread think that having it available in an emergency is a downside. Keeping it under lock and key is a "duty" because within the home is not safe "enough".

Maybe where you live you need to keep a loaded weapon handy.  I'm sorry for you.  Maybe you should move.  Where this happened, you do not need to keep a weapon that handy or loaded.  But you are welcome to your freedom.  I'll keep mine.

I don't currently need to, but I have the right if I so choose.  Freedom is about retaining choice.  Maybe you should get educated.

If it's such a eutopia, you don't need cops seizing them just because you're away either.

You'll keep your freedom?  You pretend you have it..that's rich.  Your wool, it's getting in front of your eyes.


If the bozo's had kept their guns responsibly, as any gun owner should, they would still be where they left them.
And you are right, freedom is about choice.  I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid. Nor pick on your spelling. Good day.
 
2013-06-29 08:58:05 PM  

sno man: If the bozo's had kept their guns responsibly, as any gun owner should, they would still be where they left them.


Behind cop-proof steel doors?
 
2013-06-29 09:00:55 PM  

Alleyoop: sno man: If the bozo's had kept their guns responsibly, as any gun owner should, they would still be where they left them.

Behind cop-proof steel doors?


as in a gun safe, yea, pretty much.
 
2013-06-29 09:02:17 PM  

sno man: I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid.


Yeah, that's why you think people "should" lock guns in a safe.  Because that's not fear talking at all..
 
2013-06-29 09:07:42 PM  

omeganuepsilon: sno man: I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid.

Yeah, that's why you think people "should" lock guns in a safe.  Because that's not fear talking at all..


No it's nothing to do with fear.  It's called responsibility. All those freedoms you are on about actually come with responsibilities. I thought you were smarter than that.
 
2013-06-29 09:37:46 PM  

sno man: omeganuepsilon: sno man: I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid.

Yeah, that's why you think people "should" lock guns in a safe.  Because that's not fear talking at all..

No it's nothing to do with fear.  It's called responsibility. All those freedoms you are on about actually come with responsibilities. I thought you were smarter than that.


The responsibilities that I'm "on about" are the citizen's responsibility to maintain.  The people in any country do have the ability, in theory, to influence and even control the government, many people perceive that as a responsibility.

Sad that you do not.  You embrace those who remove people from their homes, and then remove things from the home without consent.

Nothing to do with fear?

sno man: Alleyoop: sno man: If the bozo's had kept their guns responsibly, as any gun owner should, they would still be where they left them.

Behind cop-proof steel doors?

as in a gun safe, yea, pretty much.


Not only are you a poor citizen, you are a self-contradictory charlatan who who revels in denial/delusion.
 
2013-06-29 10:01:25 PM  

omeganuepsilon: sno man: omeganuepsilon: sno man: I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid.

Yeah, that's why you think people "should" lock guns in a safe.  Because that's not fear talking at all..

No it's nothing to do with fear.  It's called responsibility. All those freedoms you are on about actually come with responsibilities. I thought you were smarter than that.

The responsibilities that I'm "on about" are the citizen's responsibility to maintain.  The people in any country do have the ability, in theory, to influence and even control the government, many people perceive that as a responsibility.

Sad that you do not.  You embrace those who remove people from their homes, and then remove things from the home without consent.

Nothing to do with fear?

sno man: Alleyoop: sno man: If the bozo's had kept their guns responsibly, as any gun owner should, they would still be where they left them.

Behind cop-proof steel doors?

as in a gun safe, yea, pretty much.

Not only are you a poor citizen, you are a self-contradictory charlatan who who revels in denial/delusion.


Because you need the last word, I'll leave you and your sad little world to it.  Good night.
 
2013-06-29 10:04:02 PM  

sno man: Not only are you a poor citizen, you are a self-contradictory charlatan who who revels in denial/delusion.

Because you need the last word, I'll leave you and your sad little world to it.  Good night.

 
2013-06-29 10:07:16 PM  

omeganuepsilon: sno man: Not only are you a poor citizen, you are a self-contradictory charlatan who who revels in denial/delusion.

Because you need the last word, I'll leave you and your sad little world to it.  Good night.


nice misquote.  just night this time.
 
2013-06-29 10:19:39 PM  

sno man: Alleyoop: sno man: If the bozo's had kept their guns responsibly, as any gun owner should, they would still be where they left them.

Behind cop-proof steel doors?

as in a gun safe, yea, pretty much.


Sorry, that doesn't work. By the logic the cops are using (we busted into your locked house, and thus any guns you had were no longer locked up), they could well bust into your safe, then take the 'unsecured' guns from it.
 
2013-06-29 10:35:18 PM  

fredklein: Sorry, that doesn't work. By the logic the cops are using (we busted into your locked house, and thus any guns you had were no longer locked up), they could well bust into your safe, then take the 'unsecured' guns from it.


You seriously believe the RCMP is going to bust into a gun safe in search of bodies or people in need of help?

Maybe we should settle this with a bet.  Are you willing to bet money that the RCMP broke into locked gun safes?
 
2013-06-29 11:11:23 PM  

Xcott: al's hat: I understand the concept of looking for people who might be trapped. I don't understand taking the time to haul guns away instead of moving quickly to the next house to continue looking for people who might be trapped.

Perhaps, then, you don't understand the law.  The law says that they have to secure a firearm if it's unsecured.

If they were looking for bodies in a field and found a gun there, they'd have to do the same thing.


That's because a wee babe could stroll along and happen to find the gun.
I dont think the wee babe is going to pick people's locks and force entry.
 
2013-06-29 11:18:03 PM  

sno man: omeganuepsilon: sno man: Not only are you a poor citizen, you are a self-contradictory charlatan who who revels in denial/delusion.

Because you need the last word, I'll leave you and your sad little world to it.  Good night.

nice misquote.  just night this time.


No misquote, just hitting the fark button for quote.  But thanks for the other example of your behavior.  I bolded the word, but maybe you need to know what it means before it makes sense.

From the wiki for charlatan:
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.

Exampled by:
Making a claim that I need the last word, setting up a trap designed to get the last word, or if not, you get to say "told you so neener neener" as framed with the inane accusation of misquoting.

You cannot address points I made, only sidestep them with falsehoods and straw men and motorized goal posts.

Entertained me for a time, now I get to tag you for the charlatan that you are, so I know what I'm getting into if I decide to reply again in some other thread. Orange, for caution.
 
2013-06-29 11:25:45 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: I dont think the wee babe is going to pick people's locks and force entry.


I don't think you understand:  if the RCMP has to bust the lock to get into the house, then it's unsecured.  At that point a kid (or looter) doesn't have to pick a lock or force entry to get in.  That's why firearms lying around the house must now be secured---just as if they were found lying on a porch or in an unlocked shed.
 
2013-06-29 11:28:39 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: Flakeloaf: You're new to the Firearms Act, aren't you?And before you come back ready to quote 5(b)(iii), the "room" in that section contemplates a weapons vault, not a bedroom with gyproc walls and a tin chain.

And you don't see anything unreasonable about requiring adults in an adults-only residence to store their firearms in a "weapons vault?"

I'm not necessarily looking for an argument, I'm just trying to understand the attitudes and beliefs of people who think very differently from myself.  I've found that to be a good habit in life.


Happy to oblige! It's a shame I can't keep my lamentations for the necessity of what happens in other countries to myself because that keeps me from taking your stance. Something to work on.

In practical terms no, an ordinary household isn't reasonably expected to have a vault. Non-restricted weapons can be stored open-shelf with a trigger lock, or in a secure container that meets the criteria of a gun safe. Restricted and prohibited weapons have to be stored in a container, and any automatic weapons have to be disassembled with their bolts secured in a separate container as though they were ammunition (a locked container inside the same container as the weapon but with a different key will suffice).

Collectors, museums and NGOs that have firearms don't often think it practical to store weapons with individual trigger locks, and managing multiple cases for groups of weapons is unwieldy, so they opt for a big, walk-in container instead. (fun fact: My last job used to involve assessing the suitability of rooms held out to be vaults).  There's nothing stopping an individual from specially constructing a vault and using it as such but that would be seen as really weird unless they had a few dozen handguns on display inside.
 
2013-06-29 11:34:27 PM  

omeganuepsilon: sno man: omeganuepsilon: sno man: Not only are you a poor citizen, you are a self-contradictory charlatan who who revels in denial/delusion.

Because you need the last word, I'll leave you and your sad little world to it.  Good night.

nice misquote.  just night this time.

No misquote, just hitting the fark button for quote.  But thanks for the other example of your behavior.  I bolded the word, but maybe you need to know what it means before it makes sense.

From the wiki for charlatan:
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.

Exampled by:
Making a claim that I need the last word, setting up a trap designed to get the last word, or if not, you get to say "told you so neener neener" as framed with the inane accusation of misquoting.

You cannot address points I made, only sidestep them with falsehoods and straw men and motorized goal posts.

Entertained me for a time, now I get to tag you for the charlatan that you are, so I know what I'm getting into if I decide to reply again in some other thread. Orange, for caution.


You typed Charlatan. And claim I did. And now try to explain to me what I meant by calling you a Charlatan. Are you high? Do you need me to call someone to get you help? Call it a night big guy.  But do please get the last word first.
 
2013-06-29 11:43:58 PM  
sno man: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
 
2013-06-30 12:13:32 AM  

Xcott: fredklein: Sorry, that doesn't work. By the logic the cops are using (we busted into your locked house, and thus any guns you had were no longer locked up), they could well bust into your safe, then take the 'unsecured' guns from it.

You seriously believe the RCMP is going to bust into a gun safe in search of bodies or people in need of help?

Maybe we should settle this with a bet.  Are you willing to bet money that the RCMP broke into locked gun safes?


My point (which you apparently missed) was that the only reason the guns they took were 'unsecured' was because they busted into the houses to begin with. If they had not busted into the houses, the guns would have been secured... in a locked house. It is this tautological argument that stinks, and could be applies to their busting into gun safes.
 
2013-06-30 12:15:10 AM  

Xcott: I don't think you understand: if the RCMP has to bust the lock to get into the house, then it's unsecured.


Solution 1) Don't bust into houses.

Solution 2) Re-lock the door when you leave.
 
2013-06-30 12:22:31 AM  

omeganuepsilon: sno man: I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid.  Yeah, that's why you think people "should" lock guns in a safe.  Because that's not fear talking at all..


I suspect they're teaching kids that guns fire themselves these days.  Some kind of demonic possession, or something.
 
2013-06-30 01:06:07 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: omeganuepsilon: sno man: I choose to not be a paranoid and afraid.  Yeah, that's why you think people "should" lock guns in a safe.  Because that's not fear talking at all..

I suspect they're teaching kids that guns fire themselves these days.  Some kind of demonic possession, or something.


Actually they teach that if someone finds your unsecured weapon and kills people with it, you're going to have a bad time. Especially if that someone is a child.
 
2013-06-30 07:24:23 AM  

Xcott: You seriously believe the RCMP is going to bust into a gun safe in search of bodies or people in need of help?  Maybe we should settle this with a bet. Are you willing to bet money that the RCMP broke into locked gun safes?


Do you seriously believe the RCMP did a service to people waiting for help by taking the time to search for and seize weapons that they themselves made unsecured?  I find it interesting that the article said they seized a large quantity of firearms but there was no mention of a single body being recovered or a single person being helped.

I don't know if they bothered to break into gun safes.  But if they had enough people to break into houses and seize a "large quantity of firearms" then they had enough people to simply drag gun safes out onto the back of a truck.  With the power out (and back-up batteries probably underwater or dead by now), alarms would not deter looters.  The authorities chose to use their resources to keep out home-owners as they did the looting themselves.
 
Displayed 32 of 282 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report