Political (Or Non-Political) Chat In The Hockey Forum

[Zach6668 513]

guess i'd be a better person if i just feigned outrage at every little thing governments and their agents do wrong even though what i do or say has no effect on anything whatsoever.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

I am going to be woefully unprepared for the police state. I have no canned food in a bunker, not a shotgun in sight to protect my kinfolk, and whats worse, so little paranoia.

 

[digitalmonkey 929]

Zach: who said anything about being a better person? I understand not caring is a defense mechanism.

 

Arp: hyperbole is also a defense mechanism.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Arp: hyperbole is also a defense mechanism.

 

So you're saying I'm safe? Whew. Load off my mind.

[Dubey 1,035]

I heard about this months back. Seems like a reasonable decision by the RCMP to me. You've got guns laying around in a lot of houses that are likely to be abandoned, and are at a high risk for looting. As a non gun-owner living in Southern ALberta, I would much prefer those guns never make it to the black market.

 

Huge eye roll from me at: " rather than leave homes locked with guns locked away safely inside." Like the reporter can even remotely validate that.

 

Also: "It is one of the most massive violations of civil and property rights in modern Canadian history." Come on now.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Did you miss the part about the cops having the place locked down with a heat sensing helicopter in the air?

[mrdannyg 274]

Not surprisingly, I actually agree with Dale on this. I cannot imagine how this was necessary for the Mounties to do. So it's ok for the looters to grab people's TVs but not their guns? I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but rules are rules and private property is private property. You can't just go in and take what you deem dangerous. Why not the chainsaws and kitchen knives too? And if they really left people's doors open, they invited a lot more damage than they saved.

 

If there had been reports of looting and gun theft, that's one thing, and at least a possibility of confiscating. But it is something that should be subject to precedence and actual laws.

[mrdannyg 274]

Huge eye roll from me at: " rather than leave homes locked with guns locked away safely inside." Like the reporter can even remotely validate that.

 

That's pretty much the definition of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[Dubey 1,035]

Still a ridiculous statement.

 

meh, I guess I just can't get too worked up over people losing their guns

[digitalmonkey 929]

Still a ridiculous statement.

 

meh, I guess I just can't get too worked up over people losing their guns

 

Pretend it's not guns; pretend it's your computer, your cell phone, a relative; anything that is deemed a threat to the powers that be.

[iBeaver 409]

Roflcopter

[digitalmonkey 929]

Roflcopter

 

Thanks for your input.

[mrdannyg 274]

Still a ridiculous statement.

 

meh, I guess I just can't get too worked up over people losing their guns

 

Why is it ridiculous? If there was flooding and I had to leave my house for a while. Would I not lock the door? And since the significant majority of Albertan gun owners are hunters and not meth dealers, their guns are probably locked up in general. And even more so, if I was leaving my house for a while, I'm probably checking that my guns are locked up because that is an obvious thing.

 

I am pretty anti-gun, but it is absolutely a safe assumption that in the overwhelming majority of cases, mounties were breaking into locked doors and confiscating guns that were held safely. Anyhoo, a gun is different than a TV. But it's not up to a local mountie force to determine how different and act on it. If they weren't taking steak knives and people's anti-depressants, they shouldn't be taking their guns unless there are rules in place for that situation.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Pretend it's not guns; pretend it's your computer, your cell phone, a relative; anything that is deemed a threat to the powers that be.

 

But they were guns. That's the point.

 

If we're going to play make-pretend, can we just pretend that things are not black and white?

Not every police or government action comes with a long term plan of taking away your rights. Some things really are about one person thinking it was the right decision at the time.

 

I'm not silly enough to think there aren't things going out at the highest levels that we are not aware of, but I also don't think every action is another sign of a monster plan.

[digitalmonkey 929]

But they were guns. That's the point.

 

If we're going to play make-pretend, can we just pretend that things are not black and white?

Not every police or government action comes with a long term plan of taking away your rights. Some things really are about one person thinking it was the right decision at the time.

 

I'm not silly enough to think there aren't things going out at the highest levels that we are not aware of, but I also don't think every action is another sign of a monster plan.

 

The area was under lockdown.

There was a helicopter in the air.

The people followed proper protocol in locking down their homes.

 

What is your opinion on the reasoning for breaking down doors and taking guns?

 

I don't necessarily believe there is a monster plan. Things evolve. People have agendas. I'm talking about this specific incident and you're talking about a police state and canned food. Things are obviously not black and white, but there's a motive behind actions.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

So where does your outrage come from? What is your fear?

 

The slow decaying of liberties?

 

Do you think you live in an oppressed state?

[gruven 530]

I'd like to know more. One thing the reporter says is that doors were smashed in to seize guns instead of searching. Guess what? If we (as a fire department) are evacuating an area, we're smashing in doors to make sure homes are cleared. Then we're leaving the police to take charge os securing the property. If the houses are unsecured, they SHOULD be grabbing guns....

[digitalmonkey 929]

So where does your outrage come from? What is your fear?

 

Our rights are being taken away and infringed upon and people either don't see it or don't give a ****. It's shrugged off like it's no big deal. I won't live long enough for it to have much of an impact on me, but our kids, their kids...it's just ****ing ridiculous.

 

 

 

Sorry, I erased a lot...if you're wondering why I was typing so long.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I'd like to know more. One thing the reporter says is that doors were smashed in to seize guns instead of searching. Guess what? If we (as a fire department) are evacuating an area, we're smashing in doors to make sure homes are cleared. Then we're leaving the police to take charge os securing the property. If the houses are unsecured, they SHOULD be grabbing guns....

 

Yes, I'd like to know more. I'm only going on what we know now.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I'd especially like to hear more about this part:

 

The Mounties had no warrants for what they did in High River. Nor did they seek judicial permission after the fact, as required by law. Alberta’s emergency management law may have authorized their actions, but only if the RCMP had received specific orders from the provincial government to do what they were doing. Yet both the RCMP and Premier Alison Redford’s Tories insist no such orders exist.

[gruven 530]

I'd especially like to hear more about this part:

 

The Mounties had no warrants for what they did in High River. Nor did they seek judicial permission after the fact, as required by law. Alberta’s emergency management law may have authorized their actions, but only if the RCMP had received specific orders from the provincial government to do what they were doing. Yet both the RCMP and Premier Alison Redford’s Tories insist no such orders exist.

You're missing my point: if search and rescue teams are carrying out an evacuation, or searching for possible victims, then THEY are kicking in doors. The RCMP would then be tasked with securing those dwellings. And removing guns from those homes would be common sense, wouldn't it?

[Fenxis 99]

And removing guns from those homes would be common sense, wouldn't it?

 

So why didn't they get permission, as provisioned for under the current laws?

[digitalmonkey 929]

You're missing my point: if search and rescue teams are carrying out an evacuation, or searching for possible victims, then THEY are kicking in doors. The RCMP would then be tasked with securing those dwellings. And removing guns from those homes would be common sense, wouldn't it?

 

The homes they broke into did not contain any people. The RCMP broke down the doors of already secure homes to remove guns.

[gruven 530]

So why didn't they get permission, as provisioned for under the current laws?

As emergency services personnel, I don't need permission to go into your house if I have a reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or property.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I think all guns should have a GPS chip in them that allows the authorities to know exactly where all guns are at all times. If the chip has been tampered with it would render the gun not able to fire.

 

Then I would codify the procedures to allow the police to secure all guns that are located in an evacuated area whether that's a large flooded out area or a high rise condo in Toronto that has been emptied because a fire knocked out the power for a couple weeks.

 

If current law and procedures make it too hard for the police to secure dangerous things in a situation like this then the answer is to change the laws and procedures. I want the police securing dangerous things in evacuated areas.