RCMP Gun Seizure Meeting With Danielle Smith

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

OK. Why were they removing private property if they were on a humanitarian mission? If the mission was to save people in distress why were they wasting precious time and resources on inanimate objects?

Because we the people are not to be trusted. Plain and simple.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

OK. Why were they removing private property if they were on a humanitarian mission? If the mission was to save people in distress why were they wasting precious time and resources on inanimate objects?

quit arguing in circles... The RCMP didn't remove the guns on the 1st round.. hell it wasn't til days later they secured the guns. That's probably when they realized that High River wasn't completely evacuated, and they should do something about it.

"private property" that is at high risk to be stolen and used in other crimes.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

I'd go with the assumption that the RCMP weren't going to ransack my home and remove the people, animals and irreplaceable albums etc. then bug out.

But that might make too much sense.

Ransack.. lol..ok.. I'm sure they did more damage than 8 ft of water..

NO.. that makes no sense at all..

Living in HIGH RIVER, which is on a flood plain, that floods EVERY year. This is something you should be ready for. END OF STORY.

At the end of the day, everyone has their guns back, so what's the big deal? Oh that's right, they entered my property w/o my permission, secured & saved my firearms, then returned them to me.. they should be punished..

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by brslk

But the RCMP made damn sure no home owner could get to their homes. How would criminals get in?
They had the perimeter sealed they said.

They say it is sealed to prevent people from trying. Through out the ordeal however they stated numerous times people were still sneaking in. A perimeter means road blocks... not a fence around the town.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

At the end of the day, everyone has their guns back, so what's the big deal? Oh that's right, they entered my property w/o my permission, secured & saved my firearms, then returned them to me.. they should be punished..

Hey JB,

Ever heard the saying "walk a mile in their shoes"?

Let me know where you park your truck - I will come by in the middle of the night and "borrow it".

Don't worry you can have it back in a few weeks.

What's the problem?

Do you own a sporting clays shotgun? I need one - I'll just go ahead and kick in your door and borrow it for the next round of clays I shoot. Don't worry you can have it back after I am done with it. I will keep it safe. Obviously you would be okay with this?

Think before you speak.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT a grey area.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Ransack.. lol..ok.. I'm sure they did more damage than 8 ft of water..

NO.. that makes no sense at all..

Living in HIGH RIVER, which is on a flood plain, that floods EVERY year. This is something you should be ready for. END OF STORY.

At the end of the day, everyone has their guns back, so what's the big deal? Oh that's right, they entered my property w/o my permission, secured & saved my firearms, then returned them to me.. they should be punished..

Homes that had suffered no flooding at all were broken into.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Hey JB,

Ever heard the saying "walk a mile in their shoes"?

Let me know where you park your truck - I will come by in the middle of the night and "borrow it".

Yes I have heard that saying.. The other 95% of the population that aren't gun owners are quite happy the RCMP secured the guns, in fact, it is a very small few who are mad about this, i'd say less than 25% of gun owners. How about you walk in their shoes? Have you ever lost someone who was shot by a stolen gun? I have..

Difference is, they are securing private property that is at high risk of being stolen and used in crimes.. END OF STORY..

borrow.. lol. ok.. I'm sure they were using the guns while they had them..

Do you own a sporting clays shotgun? I need one - I'll just go ahead and kick in your door and borrow it for the next round of clays I shoot. Don't worry you can have it back after I am done with it. I will keep it safe. Obviously you would be okay with this?

haha.. exaggerate much?.. If my house was evacuated, and under a state of emergency, and you were a LEO ordered to do that. Sure.

Think before you speak.

You should really take your own advise.. your points just completely undermined your ability to comprehend what is actually going on. But if you want to twist the story around and make it what it isn't.. Have at er..

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT a grey area.

Your right.. But Maybe you should reread your rights and freedoms during a state of emergency...

(5.1) Unless otherwise provided for in the order for a declaration of a state of emergency, where
(a) an order for a declaration of a state of emergency is made, and
(b) there is a conflict between this Act or a regulation made under this Act and any other Act or regulation, other than the Alberta Bill of Rights or the Alberta Human Rights Act or a regulation made under either of those Acts,
during the time that the order is in effect, this Act and the regulations made under this Act shall prevail in Alberta or that part of Alberta in respect of which the order was made.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?pa...7&display=html


Yeah.. Pretty cut and dry..

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by sask

I'm glad he got them back

Just a FYI - there has been at least one case reported on the News (Sun) of a homeowner who had a locked closet broken into by the RCMP , after they kicked in his front door. He was in a non flooded area. The RCMP have admitted to seizing non restricted firearms that were trigger locked - those firearms were legally stored .

So bandwagon or not - the RCMP lied about (some) of their actions and admitted to seizing legally stored firearms

Kicking in his door is just as bad as the seizures....IMHO. Is that what they do when they get a call to a commercial establishment in the middle of the night...do they kick the doors in to see if anyone is hiding inside?? Bogus. Nothing more than a weak excuse to search peoples private homes.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

quit arguing in circles... The RCMP didn't remove the guns on the 1st round.. hell it wasn't til days later they secured the guns. That's probably when they realized that High River wasn't completely evacuated, and they should do something about it.

"private property" that is at high risk to be stolen and used in other crimes.

Ya, like sharp knives, swords, baseball bats, machetes, crow bars...even ladders could be stolen and used in other crimes.....

Funny they were only worried about firearms.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Homes that had suffered no flooding at all were broken into.

I'm sure they were.. They had to secure the whole town. did they ransack the houses? Not intentionally.. and if there was damages that is what insurance is for.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Ya, like sharp knives, swords, baseball bats, machetes, crow bars...even ladders could be stolen and used in other crimes.....

Funny they were only worried about firearms.

Except you are missing the "HIGH RISK" part.. those other objects can be purchased by anyone anywhere. Not so with a GUN.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Yes I have heard that saying.. The other 95% of the population that aren't gun owners are quite happy the RCMP secured the guns, in fact, it is a very small few who are mad about this, i'd say less than 25% of gun owners. How about you walk in their shoes? Have you ever lost someone who was shot by a stolen gun? I have..

Difference is, they are securing private property that is at high risk of being stolen and used in crimes.. END OF STORY..

borrow.. lol. ok.. I'm sure they were using the guns while they had them..



haha.. exaggerate much?.. If my house was evacuated, and under a state of emergency, and you were a LEO ordered to do that. Sure.



You should really take your own advise.. your points just completely undermined your ability to comprehend what is actually going on. But if you want to twist the story around and make it what it isn't.. Have at er..



Your right.. But Maybe you should reread your rights and freedoms during a state of emergency...



http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?pa...7&display=html


Yeah.. Pretty cut and dry..

And that answers every question about your view of it being ok. You have an emotional attachment to the issue.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

I'm sure they were.. They had to secure the whole town. did they ransack the houses? Not intentionally.. and if there was damages that is what insurance is for.

So you say they took the guns and that's ok because then they wouldn't have to go through the hassle of insurance claims over water damaged or stolen guns. But it's ok for them to use insurance to make a claim to fix the damage caused by the cops breaking in, to prevent them from having to make a claim for guns?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

Heard the fuzz down there are booting doors down and making off with guns, record players, and oprah workout videos....... Can anyone confirm this?

Yep just check with the Wildrose party, they got all the answers

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

And that answers every question about your view of it being ok. You have an emotional attachment to the issue.

No that answers why 99% of the population is OK with this gun seizure.

Ask anyone (that isn't a gun owner), and they will tell you their #1 fear of guns is that it will end up in the wrong hands or be used for something other than it was intended for.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

So you say they took the guns and that's ok because then they wouldn't have to go through the hassle of insurance claims over water damaged or stolen guns.

Nope, I said you should be happy they seized the guns so YOU wouldn't have to go through the hassle of replacing/fixing guns through insurance.

I didn't say the guns were seized to save them from damage. That was a side effect of them securing the guns.

But it's ok for them to use insurance to make a claim to fix the damage caused by the cops breaking in, to prevent them from having to make a claim for guns?

Nope That's not what I said. LEO's went door to door checking for vacancy initially (which is required under a state of emergency). In doing so, some doors had to be kicked down. That is what insurance is for. Ransacking, I highly doubt the LEO's went around smashing furniture and plates looking for guns. If anything the homeowner probably just needed to reorganize when they returned (aside from a new door or two). THAT is what insurance is for.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

No that answers why 99% of the population is OK with this gun seizure.

Ask anyone (that isn't a gun owner), and they will tell you their #1 fear of guns is that it will end up in the wrong hands or be used for something other than it was intended for.

So it's you against us is it? That's the biggest line of BS i've read in this thread so far.

Lemme fill you in here, I do not own guns - nor do I have a pal - and your post is a huge insult to alot of Canadians. It's not that cut and dry and it upsets to no end when gun owners make the claim that it's "you against me".

I support gun ownership 100%, as do many non gun owners - but this isn't just about the guns. It's about loss of rights and freedoms in this great country of ours.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Except you are missing the "HIGH RISK" part.. those other objects can be purchased by anyone anywhere. Not so with a GUN.

Firearms can be purchased anywhere by anyone with the desire to get their hands on them.....ask any gang banger.

In an urban setting your more likely to be stabbed by a knife than be shot by a gun....but if you only see a risk being created by firearms it would be the scared of guns blinders impairing your vision.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Your right.. But Maybe you should reread your rights and freedoms during a state of emergency...

(5.1) Unless otherwise provided for in the order for a declaration of a state of emergency, where
(a) an order for a declaration of a state of emergency is made, and
(b) there is a conflict between this Act or a regulation made under this Act and any other Act or regulation, other than the Alberta Bill of Rights or the Alberta Human Rights Act or a regulation made under either of those Acts,

during the time that the order is in effect, this Act and the regulations made under this Act shall prevail in Alberta or that part of Alberta in respect of which the order was made.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Nope That's not what I said. LEO's went door to door checking for vacancy initially (which is required under a state of emergency). In doing so, some doors had to be kicked down. That is what insurance is for. Ransacking, I highly doubt the LEO's went around smashing furniture and plates looking for guns. If anything the homeowner probably just needed to reorganize when they returned (aside from a new door or two). THAT is what insurance is for.

Do you know how many locked up commercial establishments had their doors kicked in to make sure they were vacant??? Perhaps not a single one???

Insurance shouldn't have to be used to repair damage done by the police....I'd be really po'd having to put out $500 for a deductible and have my home insurance rates go up because my door was kicked in on an evacuated home.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

quit arguing in circles... The RCMP didn't remove the guns on the 1st round.. hell it wasn't til days later they secured the guns. That's probably when they realized that High River wasn't completely evacuated, and they should do something about it.

"private property" that is at high risk to be stolen and used in other crimes.

Funny they didnt steal the guns in Calgary,There were no problems there.Why in High River?

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

So it's you against us is it? That's the biggest line of BS i've read in this thread so far.

Lemme fill you in here, I do not own guns - nor do I have a pal - and your post is a huge insult to alot of Canadians. It's not that cut and dry and it upsets to no end when gun owners make the claim that it's "you against me".

I support gun ownership 100%, as do many non gun owners - but this isn't just about the guns. It's about loss of rights and freedoms in this great country of ours.

I never said it was you against us.. I said, most people understand why it was done. END OF STORY.

I also support Gun ownership..

Your right.. But Maybe you should reread your rights and freedoms during a state of emergency...

Quote:
(5.1) Unless otherwise provided for in the order for a declaration of a state of emergency, where
(a) an order for a declaration of a state of emergency is made, and
(b) there is a conflict between this Act or a regulation made under this Act and any other Act or regulation, other than the Alberta Bill of Rights or the Alberta Human Rights Act or a regulation made under either of those Acts,
during the time that the order is in effect, this Act and the regulations made under this Act shall prevail in Alberta or that part of Alberta in respect of which the order was made.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?pa...7&display=html

The problem is, in a state of emergency, authorities must look out for the good of the public. And that is where you are perceiving that it is an us vs them. when the reality of it is, YES, guns being stolen is probably a high risk probability in a state of emergency.

If this wasn't a state of emergency, I'd agree with every one of you. YES it would be a loss of human rights, and everyone involved should be charged.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

I never said it was you against us.. I said, most people understand why it was done. END OF STORY.

I also support Gun ownership..



The problem is, in a state of emergency, authorities must look out for the good of the public. And that is where you are perceiving that it is an us vs them. when the reality of it is, YES, guns being stolen is probably a high risk probability in a state of emergency.

If this wasn't a state of emergency, I'd agree with every one of you. YES it would be a loss of human rights, and everyone involved should be charged.

Really ?how many were stolen from flooded homes in Calgary?

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by pseelk

Really ?how many were stolen from flooded homes in Calgary?

Maybe people in Calgary are more civilized?

[Ryry4]

Let's put another spin on this. What if the RCMP came in and "secured" other private property. Say cash, gold, silver, vehicles etc. What would you guys that will support the RCMP and Alberta's crooked government be saying then?

The fact that the took peoples guns is not my biggest issue with what happened, it's the fact they entered peoples homes and took legally owned goods. PERIOD!

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Maybe people in Calgary are more civilized?

That must be it.Because Im pretty sure the probability of theft would increase with the # of people in the area,yet I havent heard of one gun bieng stolen during the Calgary flood.

[Rockman]

The law is the law and rights are rights. When we start excusing and overlooking any entity breaking the law, including LE, it's a slippery slope to the loss of more and more freedoms.

I see no gray area there and find it rather scary to see someone(s) defending blatant disregard for freedoms and the law. That's my opinion.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by Rockman

The law is the law and rights are rights. When we start excusing and overlooking any entity breaking the law, including LE, it's a slippery slope to the loss of more and more freedoms.

I see no gray area there and find it rather scary to see someone(s) defending blatant disregard for freedoms and the law. That's my opinion.

x2

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

I never said it was you against us.. I said, most people understand why it was done. END OF STORY.

I also support Gun ownership..

The problem is, in a state of emergency, authorities must look out for the good of the public. And that is where you are perceiving that it is an us vs them. when the reality of it is, YES, guns being stolen is probably a high risk probability in a state of emergency.

If this wasn't a state of emergency, I'd agree with every one of you. YES it would be a loss of human rights, and everyone involved should be charged.

End of story for you - if that's the case, then stop posting. It's not the end of the story.

The state of emergency was called AFTER the police started beating down doors - they actually used spike strips to keep people out of town. Even the ones that didn't have homes flooded were kept out - and you agree with that? Any firearms owner that supports ownership 100% should be appalled that this happened, i'm amazed at how much people support what the RCMP does.

This doesn't smell like a trial to you? This never happened in Calgary, why only high river?

"Must look out for the good of the public" - yep, that's how they sell it - public safety.

[igorot]

Originally Posted by pseelk

That must be it.Because Im pretty sure the probability of theft would increase with the # of people in the area,yet I havent heard of one gun bieng stolen during the Calgary flood.

They are smarter they stole 6 k mountain bike rather than 400 bucks M14 norinco. Cant imagine a person running with a stolen gun on a perimeter lockdown by military and police.