High River Gun seizure - Sun News needs first hand accounts

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

He is a law abiding gun owner, not in the evac zone nor flooded, they kick down his door and check his safe. And you feel that's ok? The police invaded his home when they had no need to do so... There was no danger.

Yeah but the police invaded half the homes in High River that day. Gun owners or not. It was their job.

This guy may think he's special but I don't see the evidence of that.

[Unregistered user]

Kris, try posting the same question here http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/ you may get more feedback. Thank you for your efforts.

[silverdoctor]

Sun is like a dog to a bone... Just gets better.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/r.../2527370392001

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Yeah but the police invaded half the homes in High River that day. Gun owners or not. It was their job.

This guy may think he's special but I don't see the evidence of that.

wow....I had to read your post twice to make sure I read it proper.....

Yeup....you really said this......Im stunned to say the least.

You need to read and understand about the law and human rights better.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by MtnGiant

wow....I had to read your post twice to make sure I read it proper.....

Yeup....you really said this......Im stunned to say the least.

You need to read and understand about the law and human rights better.

They entered his home as part of a search and rescue operation and touched, yes touched his gun safe, he thinks.

The human rights thing is only an issue if this really was just a big gun grab by the police, and that hasn't been established anywhere except in the minds of gun owners.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

They entered his home as part of a search and rescue operation and touched, yes touched his gun safe, he thinks.

The human rights thing is only an issue if this really was just a big gun grab by the police, and that hasn't been established anywhere except in the minds of gun owners.

Again.....you need to seek further proper information.....even old granny's who dont even know what a gun is could see that the law was broken and human rights acts were ignored.

I dont know what else to say to such ill thoughts.

Im amazed you own guns.....remember I told you long ago to learn the laws and your rights as a gun owner. You obviously havnt done that yet.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by MtnGiant

Again.....you need to seek further proper information.....even old granny's who dont even know what a gun is could see that the law was broken and human rights acts were ignored.

I dont know what else to say to such ill thoughts.

Im amazed you own guns.....remember I told you long ago to learn the laws and your rights as a gun owner. You obviusly havnt done that yet.

What part of "search and rescue" are you not getting? The police cleared a whole bunch of houses. Houses with guns, houses with no guns, houses with cats, and houses with porno under the bed.

That particular guy in the article is miffed because they broke into his house in addition to everyone else's house. And he's perceiving that as a targeted threat to his guns, even though his guns were left alone.

Did I leave something out?

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Yeah but the police invaded half the homes in High River that day. Gun owners or not. It was their job.

This guy may think he's special but I don't see the evidence of that.

I wonder what the response would have been if this happened in a certain place that was not even part of Canada until 1948.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

They entered his home as part of a search and rescue operation and touched, yes touched his gun safe, he thinks.

The human rights thing is only an issue if this really was just a big gun grab by the police, and that hasn't been established anywhere except in the minds of gun owners.

Did you happen to catch the part that there was a cat in the house? Animal rescue found the cat AFTER the door was busted in by the RCMP?

What is it going to take to make some of you understand that this is a basic rights issue. The RCMP was breaking into homes and searching for guns - that's very apparent now. If it happened to you and you lost your handgun or any other firearms to the RCMP, i'd bet you'd feel different.

[elkhunter11]

Did you happen to catch the part that there was a cat in the house? Animal rescue found the cat AFTER the door was busted in by the RCMP?

So the RCMP were searching homes thoroughly enough to find hidden firearms, but they couldn't find a cat, even though they claim to have been searching for survivors, both human and pets?

[MtnGiant]

[QUOTE=Classic_Cool;2028541]What part of "search and rescue" are you not getting? The police cleared a whole bunch of houses. Houses with guns, houses with no guns, houses with cats, and houses with porno under the bed.

That particular guy in the article is miffed because they broke into his house in addition to everyone else's house. And he's perceiving that as a targeted threat to his guns, even though his guns were left alone.

Did I leave something out?[/QUOTE]

Yeuuuuup you most certainly did......and almost all the info you need is in this thread or sister threads on this topic.

Start reading

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Did you happen to catch the part that there was a cat in the house? Animal rescue found the cat AFTER the door was busted in by the RCMP?

What is it going to take to make some of you understand that this is a basic rights issue. The RCMP was breaking into homes and searching for guns - that's very apparent now. If it happened to you and you lost your handgun or any other firearms to the RCMP, i'd bet you'd feel different.

Silver, I love a good cause. Anybody who's paid any attention to my exploits on this forum knows I'm usually a self righteous ******* on ever topic of note.

I would love to throw this in the public's face and call it a conspiracy, but so far the proof just isn't there. And have you ever tried to catch a cat that doesn't want to be caught?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

What part of "search and rescue" are you not getting? The police cleared a whole bunch of houses. Houses with guns, houses with no guns, houses with cats, and houses with porno under the bed.

That particular guy in the article is miffed because they broke into his house in addition to everyone else's house. And he's perceiving that as a targeted threat to his guns, even though his guns were left alone.

Did I leave something out?

They had no reason to bust into his house, it was high and dry. They didn't find the cat but they bloody well found his gun safe.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by MtnGiant

Yeuuuuup you most certainly did......and almost all the info you need is in this thread or sister threads on this topic.

Start reading

WHAT INFO in this thread? Kris asked for people's accounts of gun theft and all he's gotten is a bunch of chest beating. I've yet to see this torrent of evidence that everyone insists is out there.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Silver, I love a good cause. Anybody who's paid any attention to my exploits on this forum knows I'm usually a self righteous ******* on ever topic of note.

I would love to throw this in the public's face and call it a conspiracy, but so far the proof just isn't there. And have you ever tried to catch a cat that doesn't want to be caught?

I've read many of your misinformed exploits.....and this is another example.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

WHAT INFO in this thread? Kris asked for people's accounts of gun theft and all he's gotten is a bunch of chest beating. I've yet to see this torrent of evidence that everyone insists is out there.

ONE MORE TIME lil student.......Start Reading

You are NOT listening to what myself and other's are telling you.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by MtnGiant

I've read many of your misinformed exploits.....and this is another example.

If you've got something to say that actually proves your point then say it. Don't come back at me with an insult and call that a response.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So the RCMP were searching homes thoroughly enough to find hidden firearms, but they couldn't find a cat, even though they claim to have been searching for survivors, both human and pets?

Eight(8) days later?

Now that is what I call real search and rescue?

For Fluffy? What did happen to Fluffy? Surely not target practice with a C7.

How much did this gun seizure cost us Albertans?

The bill will be on us Albertans. How about some numbers. I know there are some accountants in the Wildrose Party that would like to get their teeth into these numbers, but they seem to be held back.

Maybe this is good politically..

I wonder what would have happened if this "gun seizure" occurred in Quebec?

They are not stupid in that province.

[elkhunter11]

And have you ever tried to catch a cat that doesn't want to be caught?

I guess that is was just too much effort to rescue a cat, even though they claim that rescuing survivors was the sole purpose that the RCMP broke into those homes.

I guess that it was much easier to just take firearms, even though they claim that taking firearms was not the reason that they damaged otherwise undamaged homes, by breaking in.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

If you've got something to say that actually proves your point then say it. Don't come back at me with an insult and call that a response.

How many times do I have to say the same thing??????

I dont want to call you a slow learner.....but there is soooo much written in several threads that will fill the rest of your evening reading them.

And I am not about to re-write them for you.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I guess that is was just too much effort to rescue a cat, even though they claim that rescuing survivors was the sole purpose that the RCMP broke into those homes.

I guess that it was much easier to just take firearms, even though they claim that taking firearms was not the reason that they damaged otherwise undamaged homes, by breaking in.

They took the guns so a thief wouldnt break into that house and shoot the cat!!!!! pew pew pew LOL

Makes sense to me.

[ctd]

No human rights were violated. No illegal entry's were made. Got, get it, gooood.

Under the State of Emergency that was declared they have every right to search houses with out a WARRANT. No one violated there.

Those houses with firearms that could be easily removed were, the police don't rescue cats or other animals. They rescue people. You know the ones to stupid to evacuate when told to do so by their elected officials. Days afterwards is usually when you find people who are trapped or isolated and in need on food and water. Why, because usually they are to stupid to evacuate when told to do so.

Did the RCMP target gun owners, No do a freedom of information act request and see if they asked for firearms licence info prior to doing the house searches.
Otherwise with out that info they have no way of knowing who and who doesn't have the possibility to legally possess firearms. It would only be a random finding.

Did some officers act in a over zealous manner and search a little harder then others. Maybe, I bet had the floods gotten worse and more damaged caused you would have been happy they safed your firearms.

I posted a link to the Alberta state of emergency guidelines. In a earlier link. If you care to read them you will see no rights were violated.

Although a few of you have already stated that you think the act is BS. No buddy argued that fact when the act was made.
Nor will anyone complain when the full powers of the act are used to save your butt from a disaster.

First hand info would be good. Eventually the truth will come out.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by MtnGiant

How many times do I have to say the same thing??????

I dont want to call you a slow learner.....but there is soooo much written in several threads that will fill the rest of your evening reading them.

And I am not about to re-write them for you.

I just read this thread again and watched all the videos. Maybe I'm just stupid, did I miss all the evidence amongst the bellyaching?

So far, with very little variation, the police did exactly what they said they did. They went into houses that may or may not have had guns in them. Yes that's right, they went in to rescue the unarmed grandmas as well. What fiends.

Moved some furniture around? Looked in the closet?

CAT!!!!!!

Nothing I've seen is unreasonable. There's no proof that they targeted gun owners.

[MtnGiant]

Well....I spose ye ole adage is true that there is 2 sides to every story.

Funny how on this forum there is 2 sides.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

I just read this thread again and watched all the videos. Maybe I'm just stupid, did I miss all the evidence amongst the bellyaching?

So far, with very little variation, the police did exactly what they said they did. They went into houses that may or may not have had guns in them. Yes that's right, they went in to rescue the unarmed grandmas as well. What fiends.

Moved some furniture around? Looked in the closet?

CAT!!!!!!

Nothing I've seen is unreasonable. There's no proof that they targeted gun owners.

Reading this single thread is a start.....there are several more threads on this topic.
Maybe it will help you understand more clearly?????
This topic....if pursued legally....will fill a lawyers cabinet.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by MtnGiant

Reading this single thread is a start.....there are several more threads on this topic.
Maybe it will help you understand more clearly?????
This topic....if pursued legally....will fill a lawyers cabinet.

What, are you talking about Pincherguy's son? Or that guy who secured his guns with cables? I have been following the topic believe it or not.

A cable lock is mildly secure under good circumstances. When the entire block is abandoned, those guns may as well be secured with tin foil. So were the guns legally secure? Yep. Were they actually secure? No. Less so after the front door was kicked in.

At best I'm seeing evidence that some cops didn't know the letter of the law by heart. And in the case of the cable lock, I'd call that a common sense decision under the circumstances.

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

WHAT INFO in this thread? Kris asked for people's accounts of gun theft and all he's gotten is a bunch of chest beating. I've yet to see this torrent of evidence that everyone insists is out there.

There is a lack of evidence in the video released by the RCMP, that is for sure. Not a thing to support their story of S&R being the primary objective.
There is no blankets, medi-kits or food/water on the boat for human survivors. No visible medical professionals, or stretchers for immobilized victims.

Ok, maybe they were more looking for pets. Then where is the accompanying animal control officer? How about a pet carrier or two?

Nothing at all.

They did have a couple long gun cases in that boat though, and a radio call did come in to direct officers to a residence with guns.


What more would you like? It's pretty clear what the true primary objective is, if you care to take off the blinders and look around.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

WHAT INFO in this thread? Kris asked for people's accounts of gun theft and all he's gotten is a bunch of chest beating. I've yet to see this torrent of evidence that everyone insists is out there.

Kris is a she....decent looking she

LC

[elkhunter11]

the police don't rescue cats or other animals. They rescue people.

According to many sources, the RCMP claimed that they were searching for pets, as well as people. So either they do look for pets to rescue, or they lied to many sources about their real reason for breaking into those homes.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...moval-of-guns/

RCMP officers, as part of search and rescue teams, moved through the town after the waters rose, forcing their way into houses to check for survivors, stranded pets and the bodies of anyone who may have perished.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/n...tml?rel=841484

The Mounties took the guns as officers searched homes in High River’s flood zone to look for flood victims, pets and anything that might pose a threat to returning residents.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...369/story.html

It was revealed late last week that RCMP had seized a “substantial quantity” of firearms from homes in High River during the course of their inspections, which involved officers searching evacuated homes for victims, pets, or potential hazards

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...e-2695642.html

Then, with the residents out of the way, the cops gave themselves the task of searching every house for “pets and victims of the flood.”

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...gh-river/8183/

The police and military spent Saturday going door-to-door through the community to assess the damage and check for stranded residents and pets.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/rcmp-w...-in-high-river

The Mounties said earlier that they took the guns as officers searched homes in High River's flood zone to look for flood victims, pets and anything that might pose a threat to returning residents.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by ctd

No human rights were violated. No illegal entry's were made. Got, get it, gooood.

Under the State of Emergency that was declared they have every right to search houses with out a WARRANT. No one violated there.

.

From what I saw from the sunnews video, is that the State of Emergency was invoked SATURDAY, the RCMP had 8 days of free exploitation before that NO??