Y'all are f'ked

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

I've never understood why guns should deserve special protection from safety legislation.  I think that it offends some people's concept of free will somehow.

Who proposed any changes to safety regulation. Guns already get far more safety legislation than almost anything else that's remotely comparable. We're just talking about nonsense like banning guns entirely

[Venandi]

On 12/14/2024 at 9:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

In governance, it's sometimes is necessary to just make a decision based on assumptions

- If so then, do you accept the assumption that the grab under discussion here is an attempt to address the supply side of the issue... in other words availability and access to rifles and handguns? The reason I ask is that I don't... I think JT is smarter than that, I believe it's a cheap way of deferring real and appropriate action while simultaneously creating a series of powerful wedge issues that resonate in critical ridings.

- Do you accept the assumption (more fact than assumption IMO) that the governments own statistics show that domestically sourced guns represent only 2% of the supply side problem and that 98% of the issue at hand is a function of guns illegally funnelled through a porous border for obvious illegal purposes and that the demand is growing?

- Finally, do you accept the assumption that the problem in need of remedy is, indeed,  the criminal use of those illegal guns, the possession and use of which is already manifestly illegal under current regulation? Taken a step further will you stipulate that many of the criminals arrested for using those illegal guns (for illegal purposes) were actually on bail for previous gun crimes at the time of re-arrest and already under a lifetime possession ban.

Based on those assumptions, and putting aside the regulatory provisions that PAL and RPAL holders are already subjected to as a matter of course, does the decision to address only 2% of the supply side problem with such a weak sister (and expensive) response seem like a reasonable approach to you?

Can you defend it as a rational course of action in and of itself, and while doing so, can you justify the money already spent (and the expense of future collection efforts) to finish an action aimed solely at 2% of the problem while virtually ignoring 98% of it.

As an aside, keep in mind that we are really talking about the supply here, (criminal use is a separate assumption).... the point is that 2% was also acquired illegally, distributed illegally and used illegally. Most importantly, it isn't tied to wild eyed duck hunters from PEI shooting up the streets of Toronto. If we assume that 2% of crime gun availability is actually attributable to the theft of legal guns from legal owners, it means that they themselves were the victims of crime when their property was stolen.

Just for fun, you should look into the number of service weapons lost by or stolen from active duty police officers in Canada... I could tell you but I don't want to ruin it. Then look at some of the individual cases individually and try to imagine a galaxy where a regular owner wouldn't be charged and have his entire collection seized.

In keeping with my car analogy, your van was stolen and used in a crime so we're going to confiscate your pickup truck in an effort to deter further criminal behaviour on the part of criminals.... BTW, we're only confiscating it because you added racing stripes and it's now a "racing style pickup" as a result of the addition.

Our working "assumption" in doing that is no one needs a racing pickup truck and we are committed to keeping Canadians safe.

As a PS, I would observe that the reason you find the car analogy faulty is for two reasons: first your vehicle is important to and you use it every day. Secondly, `by exposure, knowledge and experience, you instantly realize how utterly foolish (and useless) my proposition is.

If so, all I can say is welcome to the shooting sports club....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

- If so then, do you accept the assumption that the grab under discussion here is an attempt to address the supply side of the issue... in other words availability and access to rifles and handguns? The reason I ask is that I don't... I think JT is smarter than that, I believe it's a cheap way of deferring real and appropriate action while simultaneously creating a series of powerful wedge issues that resonate in critical ridings.

- Do you accept the assumption (more fact than assumption IMO) that the governments own statistics show that domestically sourced guns represent only 2% of the supply side problem and that 98% of the issue at hand is a function of guns illegally funnelled through a porous border for obvious illegal purposes and that the demand is growing?

- Finally, do you accept the assumption that the problem in need of remedy is, indeed,  the criminal use of those illegal guns, the possession and use of which is already manifestly illegal under current regulation? Taken a step further will you stipulate that many of the criminals arrested for using those illegal guns (for illegal purposes) were actually on bail for previous gun crimes at the time of re-arrest and already under a lifetime possession ban.

Based on those assumptions, and putting aside the regulatory provisions that PAL and RPAL holders are already subjected to as a matter of course, does the decision to address only 2% of the supply side problem with such a weak sister (and expensive) response seem like a reasonable approach to you?

Can you defend it as a rational course of action in and of itself, and while doing so, can you justify the money already spent (and the expense of future collection efforts) to finish an action aimed solely at 2% of the problem while virtually ignoring 98% of it.

As an aside, keep in mind that we are really talking about the supply here, (criminal use is a separate assumption).... the point is that 2% was also acquired illegally, distributed illegally and used illegally. Most importantly, it isn't tied to wild eyed duck hunters from PEI shooting up the streets of Toronto. If we assume that 2% of crime gun availability is actually attributable to the theft of legal guns from legal owners, it means that they themselves were the victims of crime when their property was stolen.

Just for fun, you should look into the number of service weapons lost by or stolen from active duty police officers in Canada... I could tell you but I don't want to ruin it. Then look at some of the individual cases individually and try to imagine a galaxy where a regular owner wouldn't be charged and have his entire collection seized.

In keeping with my car analogy, your van was stolen and used in a crime so we're going to confiscate your pickup truck in an effort to deter further criminal behaviour on the part of criminals.... BTW, we're only confiscating it because you added racing stripes and it's now a "racing style pickup" as a result of the addition.

Our working "assumption" in doing that is no one needs a racing pickup truck and we are committed to keeping Canadians safe.

As a PS, I would observe that the reason you find the car analogy faulty is for two reasons: first your vehicle is important to you and you and you use it every day. Secondly, `by exposure, knowledge and experience, you instantly realize how utterly foolish (and useless) my proposition is.

If so, all I can say is welcome to the shooting sports club....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was speaking very generally about the analogy and about banning classes of weapons. 

I can't offer any defense of the current proposed legislation

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was speaking very generally about the analogy and about banning classes of weapons. 

I can't offer any defense of the current proposed legislation

So in other words you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion. You prefer to talk in vague minalities that you can't be pinned down on and could mean anything.

Yeah. We know.

[Army Guy]

On 12/14/2024 at 8:18 AM, Michael Hardner said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Well, studies did find a reduction in mass shootings in this category during a ban on semi automatic weapons, according to the Wikipedia summary of this study.

I've never understood why guns should deserve special protection from safety legislation.  I think that it offends some people's concept of free will somehow.

I wish we would stop comparing the US gun culture to Canada's, they are not the same, the liberals have a habit of doing this to prove their point, however none of their points address canadian problems.

There are no property rights in Canada, this could be about almost anything they just happened to pick fire arms...meaning the government does not need much of an excuse to seize your land, home, car, anything really....there are hundreds of examples of them offering below market value for anything they need...and in case of fire arms the second culling of fire arms is not covered under the funds set aside, those firearms will be returned with no compensation at all...So ya there is no free will 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

  

There are no property rights in Canada, this could be about almost anything they just happened to pick fire arms...meaning the government does not need much of an excuse to seize your land, home, car, anything really....there are hundreds of examples of them offering below market value for anything they need...and in case of fire arms the second culling of fire arms is not covered under the funds set aside, those firearms will be returned with no compensation at all...So ya there is no free will 

I've heard this complaint before. Which countries have property rights exactly? I'd be interested in case law around such things

[Army Guy]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I've heard this complaint before. Which countries have property rights exactly? I'd be interested in case law around such things

As mentioned earlier, Finland tops the list when it comes to property rights. With a score of 8.17 in the property rights index, Finland demonstrates a high level of protection and respect for property owners. Other countries with strong property rights include Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Luxembourg.

https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/which-country-has-the-most-property-rights-in-the-world/

 

It is not a complaint, it is a fact the government can take or seize personal property as it sees fit, they do it all the time for drug charges, firearm infractions, hunting and fishing infractions, putting in new highways, or expanding a military base, the list is endless....and don't be looking at fair market value, as the federal government sets fair market value, not your local area or what homes have been going for that day...in the case of fire arms, there are hundreds of examples that will be seized with no compensation at all..becasue parliament did not give any funds to that portion of the ban....you either turn it in, or become a criminal....

[herbie]

We may be f*cked, but we'll never be as f*cked as someone who touts anything but Dark Ages feudalism as Marxism.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which countries have property rights exactly? I'd be interested in case law around such things

Implicit in your question is the notion that property rights shouldn't exist or that they should be malleable... subject to the whim of the government of the day. I know that's not what you said directly, and probably not even what you meant by it. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either but if you think about it, there isn't much middle ground between that and the notion of ironclad possession/property rights.

There are some compelling arguments on both sides I think. How would you ever expand a highway if property rights were constitutionally enshrined and inviolate. On the other hand, how do you stop JT from radical overreach by random OIC other than by an election that stomps him into the ground. This particular overreach is galling because its sole purpose is to create an election wedge issue... and nothing else.

I've used several analogies about automobiles vs the gun grab and I'm sure some folks look at it askance. The situation really is analogous though, if you happen to be all in on climate change there could easily come a time when you can no longer drive your grandfather's 1960 convertible Cadillac without a carbon permit. After that, you won't be able to drive it at all and it becomes worthless as a result. Next, because it's value is now zero and nobody needs a gas guzzling boat of a car it will be confiscated and crushed.

Sounds like paranoid delusion...right Herb?

Well, as it stands now, the only connection I have left to my grandfather is an old 38-55 rifle, and the only connection to my great-grandfather is the Marlin 32 special he was carrying when he went through the ice and drowned on a trapline in NW Ontario. 

If you choose not to care about my two rifles getting seized for purely political reasons, you can expect an equal measure of ambivalence from me when it eventually comes to your authority to retain that treasured Caddy.  

I just don't get the thinking here, it's a big change to what I always considered the norm in Canada. WTF happened to us... I feel as though I wasted 32 years of my life on something that I don't even recognize anymore.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, Venandi said:

1. Implicit in your question is the notion that property rights shouldn't exist or that they should be malleable... subject to the whim of the government of the day. I know that's not what you said directly, and probably not even what you meant by it. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either but if you think about it, there isn't much middle ground between that and the notion of ironclad possession/property rights.

2. There are some compelling arguments on both sides I think. How would you ever expand a highway if property rights were constitutionally enshrined and inviolate. On the other hand, how do you stop JT from radical overreach by random OIC other than by an election that stomps him into the ground. This particular overreach is galling because its sole purpose is to create an election wedge issue... and nothing else.

3. I've used several analogies about automobiles vs the gun grab and I'm sure some folks look at it askance. The situation really is analogous though, if you happen to be all in on climate change there could easily come a time when you can no longer drive your grandfather's 1960 convertible Cadillac without a carbon permit. After that, you won't be able to drive it at all and it becomes worthless as a result. Next, because it's value is now zero and nobody needs a gas guzzling boat of a car it will be confiscated and crushed.

4. Sounds like paranoid delusion...right Herb?

5. If you choose not to care about my two rifles getting seized for purely political reasons, you can expect an equal measure of ambivalence from me when it eventually comes to your authority to retain that treasured Caddy.  

6. I just don't get the thinking here, it's a big change to what I always considered the norm in Canada. WTF happened to us... I feel as though I wasted 32 years of my life on something that I don't even recognize anymore.

1. Well, theoretically any country can pass any law so...  "Shouldn't" ?  I asked because I only had a vague idea of what property rights are.   I am asking because I don't have the knowledge.  Which also means I don't have an opinion.  The article about Finland cited above didn't add any information, it just said Finland had strong rights.

2.  Ok.

3.  I don't think that would be so shocking.  I recall having to have an old car get adjusted for something or other because of emissions law.

4. It's hard to say.  The yardstick for assessing paranoid is very flexible around here.  I think that the government may be behind it.

5. Well, I have to deal with people on here saying that Climate Change, which is at minimum a global risk, is actually a hoax.

6. You may be feeling negative because competing media - within and across platforms - are one-upping each other in declaring emergencies.   

[Venandi]

The buyback is going to cost you somewhere in the vicinity of 800 million dollars when all is said and done. In eight pages, we've pretty much covered all there is to cover in terms of efficacy/cost now so I'm not going to beat this horse any further.

The link below is simply food for thought, mostly aimed at anyone still on the fence... if nothing else it's good to see the first glimmers of reporting on the subject that aren't a version of "keeping Canadians safe" propaganda. I think the message is now getting out in a manner that allows people to make informed, rather than emotional decisions:

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/gage-haubrich-the-gun-ban-is-not-working-trudeau-already-knows-this

Edited December 16, 2024 by Venandi

[cannuck]

On 12/6/2024 at 5:05 PM, Aristides said:

No such thing as martial law in Canada.

I hope you meant that as sarcasm.   Or did you forget Crise d'Octobre?  My Father and Father-in-law left our base in the West for Montreal to be exactly that: armed enforcement of military law under the War Measures Act.  The Big Turd is the only PM in the Empire to have declared war on his own country.

As far as buy-back weapons going to Ukraine: only a total fool would suggest such idiocy.  The logistics of supporting a myriad of different sporting rifles with non-NATO ammunition is simply ridiculous (this expressed by my Son-in-law, a retired infantry brigade officer).

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Venandi said:

The buyback is going to cost you somewhere in the vicinity of 800 million dollars when all is said and done. In eight pages, we've pretty much covered all there is to cover in terms of efficacy/cost now so I'm not going to beat this horse any further.

there is no chance that it gets done for $800 million. Every single gun law and gun program the liberals have ever brought out has exceeded its budget by 10 times and they are grossly underestimating the number of guns and they are not including a number of costs involved.

And they're not just going to randomly send the guns to ukraine to dispose of them as Trudeau suggested. You can't just give every soldier a different type of gun even if they're similar models. That's just not how armies work

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

there is no chance that it gets done for $800 million

No doubt, I simply rounded up the Parliamentary Budget Officer's own estimate. 

People who support this action will argue tooth and nail to discount and dismiss realistic estimates and will also dismiss previous cost explosions out of hand. They think the government is right... the government on the other hand knows full well that it's being wildly optimistic. There's a reason we've seen no action to date, it's a cheap, easily achieved wedge issue for JT. 

The 800 million price point and the 98% vs 2% issue should be sufficiently eye popping for any 10 year old with a hand held calculator to question the cost vs efficacy equation. 

Letting them chew on their own numbers just seemed more effective than trying to defend my own estimate from a full frontal attack. Anyone who doesn't get it at an 800 million price point is sufficiently removed from reality that reality will hide itself from their gaze anyway. 

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Venandi

[Aristides]

12 hours ago, cannuck said:

I hope you meant that as sarcasm.   Or did you forget Crise d'Octobre?  My Father and Father-in-law left our base in the West for Montreal to be exactly that: armed enforcement of military law under the War Measures Act.  The Big Turd is the only PM in the Empire to have declared war on his own country.

As far as buy-back weapons going to Ukraine: only a total fool would suggest such idiocy.  The logistics of supporting a myriad of different sporting rifles with non-NATO ammunition is simply ridiculous (this expressed by my Son-in-law, a retired infantry brigade officer).

There is no such thing as martial law in Canada. The Emergency Act which replaced the War Measures Act does not suspend the Charter of Rights or habeas corpus. Maybe you should read it.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Aristides

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

Maybe you should read it.

The act provides the PM and cabinet the powers to respond to 4 different categories. 

-Public welfare - natural disasters, epidemics and the like

-Public order issues - civil unrest... bouncy kingdom emergencies for example

-International emergencies that effect Canada

-War and armed conflict emergencies - pretty broad in scope but can include things like sabotage, terrorism, and violence in support of overthrowing a duly elected government.

The National Defence Act, CISS Act and a couple of others (as I recall) have some overlap too.  Lot's of reading there and enough overlap  to make situational vagaries confuse the heck out of me. Luckily, the JAG provides interpretive opinions on a case by case basis if/when required.  

Not only are blanket statements above my pay grade, they usually are the first to get mortally wounded on first contact. I'm guessing that your's could easily be overtaken by circumstances and prove incapable of keeping you warm... even on a summer night.

Good luck with all that reading.... it's too deep for me.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Venandi

[cannuck]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:37 PM, Aristides said:

There is no such thing as martial law in Canada. The Emergency Act which replaced the War Measures Act does not suspend the Charter of Rights or habeas corpus. Maybe you should read it.

You said no such thing, I provided you with a historical fact that there has been.  Secondly: if we actually HAD any kind of personal rights and freedoms there is no way our so-called "government" could have done what they did to the protesters who didn't to the woke line.  The laughable "charter" written by the Big Turd and Roy Romanow specifically avoided protection of your property - and Little Turd showed us why.

[taxme]

On 12/6/2024 at 7:17 AM, ExFlyer said:

The US has more than 40,000 gun deaths in 2023. That is as many as Israel has killed in Gaza since the war began.

Murdering Israelis. There are a lot more than 40,000 now that have been murdered since the war began. Most of those 40,000 murders in America were due to black on black killings. They seem to like shooting and killing each other. 

[Aristides]

On 12/17/2024 at 4:17 AM, Venandi said:

The act provides the PM and cabinet the powers to respond to 4 different categories. 

-Public welfare - natural disasters, epidemics and the like

-Public order issues - civil unrest... bouncy kingdom emergencies for example

-International emergencies that effect Canada

-War and armed conflict emergencies - pretty broad in scope but can include things like sabotage, terrorism, and violence in support of overthrowing a duly elected government.

The National Defence Act, CISS Act and a couple of others (as I recall) have some overlap too.  Lot's of reading there and enough overlap  to make situational vagaries confuse the heck out of me. Luckily, the JAG provides interpretive opinions on a case by case basis if/when required.  

Not only are blanket statements above my pay grade, they usually are the first to get mortally wounded on first contact. I'm guessing that your's could easily be overtaken by circumstances and prove incapable of keeping you warm... even on a summer night.

Good luck with all that reading.... it's too deep for me.

It clearly states that the Charter of Rights remains in effect and it does not suspend habeas corpus. It must be passed by the House and Senate and an inquiry held and report tabled within a year. It is not martial law.

[Venandi]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

It clearly states that the Charter of Rights remains in effect and it does not suspend habeas corpus. It must be passed by the House and Senate and an inquiry held and report tabled within a year. It is not martial law.

Yes it does.... and yet:

We all clearly saw the effects of what can be done during the trucker protest. Before that happened, if I had suggested to you that joint bank accounts could be frozen (FROZEN is well worth shouting BTW) simply because one of the account holders contributed $50 to a legitimate Go Fund Me cause you wouldn't have believed it.

If I would have suggested that bogus media reports (about funding from foreign bad actors) would be used to justify it you wouldn't have believed that either. You would rightly point out that government has its own intelligence sources and wouldn't use open source reporting for such an unprecedented seizure.

Taken a step further, you would never have believed (and perhaps still don't) that the media and government would actually collaborate on that effort in a manner that both entities could easily walk back after the fact. Nor would you even acknowledge that the "walk back" plan is actually formulated in advance of deployment. And when I say you wouldn't have believed it I include myself... and a whole bunch of other people all around the globe.

Hunters laptop and the signatures of 50 high level retired analysts is a classic example of what I mean. Anyone with a tarnished secret decoder ring knew exactly what was going on there the minute it happened. The media participation in that was what surprised me... but that's another thread entirely.

Habeas corpus has an easily invoked caveat once a national emergency is declared for cause... "unless lawful grounds are shown" is pretty powerful when used in that context. From a simple soldiers perspective, invoking the act itself has a high (meaning very high) threshold because of its power to suspend/modify the rights you refer to, that's the point of it and in this particular case, it's misuse, misapplication, and over the top intrusion was on full display for the entire world to see. Given your quote above, you should be even more horrified by it all than I was.

Again, from a simple soldiers perspective (I'm no lawyer) it was a horrid example of the very abuse of power your quote (appears) to deem unlawful... I would add sneaky and immoral to that as well, but that's just me.

If you want to examine all of the legal parameters and the overlap of other acts like the National Defence Act and the CSIS Act you'll have to do it with someone smarter than me.  From a soldiers perspective, The JAG provides thoughtful guidance/opinion on such matters in advance of any contemplated action being taken. The JAG folks Know all about such things, they even have a seat in the TOC to provide advice/guidance on the Law of Armed Conflict. 

Seems to me that there's more to all this than meets the eye and blanket pronouncements about complicated legal issues which have caveats on the caveats is the foundation upon which disappointment is constructed in the real world.

To say that I was disappointed in the government's action would be a huge understatement.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2024 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, taxme said:

Murdering Israelis. There are a lot more than 40,000 now that have been murdered since the war began. Most of those 40,000 murders in America were due to black on black killings. They seem to like shooting and killing each other. 

Man, you are so full of $hit So topped up with BS I am pretty sure your hair is turned brown LOL

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Man, you are so full of $hit So topped up with BS I am pretty sure your hair is turned brown LOL

You forgot something... let me get that for ya:

 

Boo Hoo, sucks to be a LOSER like you LOL.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor baby...

Sad sad little man...You have fallen so far ..... So sad that all you got left is to whimper and whine

Sad Sad Sad

Ho Humm ...... Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw 

Ha Ha Ha 

LOL LOL LOL

Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

[cannuck]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:37 PM, Aristides said:

There is no such thing as martial law in Canada. The Emergency Act which replaced the War Measures Act does not suspend the Charter of Rights or habeas corpus. Maybe you should read it.

Sorry not to have mentioned this in my earlier reply to your post:

You need to know the history of what the government and courts have done and continue to do to citizens who don't toe the Uniparty line (dictated by institutions).   Find out what happened to Andy McMecen when he LEGALLY defied the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.  The government and courts assaulted his farm, his income, his financial property and courts adjudicated that even though he was charged with a crime (taking his own truck) when NO illegal act had been committed (clearly stated in Justice Ross Whimmer's summary) and put him in jail - visiting daily to tell him he could be released as soon as he disavowed his relationship with the group "Farmers for Justice".

ALL of this quickly forgotten part of our history clearly violates anything and almost everything in the 1960 bill of rights and 1982 so-called "Charter of Freedoms and Rights".   The truckers' fates were simply too loud and visible to be forgotten, but the precedent that WE HAVE NO SUCH FREEDOM AND RIGHTS was clearly demonstrated by Ralph Goodale's assault on Andy's rights, freedoms and property (the latter carefully left out of Big Turd's declaration) to attempt to keep the CWB alive and deny Western farmers of their rights to buy, grow and sell their own crops.

[taxme]

On 12/19/2024 at 5:13 AM, ExFlyer said:

Man, you are so full of $hit So topped up with BS I am pretty sure your hair is turned brown LOL

I know, truth hurts all Marxists like you. At least my shit smells like roses. You are pretty much wrong again. I only wear white hair now. 🤡

[taxme]

On 12/20/2024 at 8:30 AM, cannuck said:

Sorry not to have mentioned this in my earlier reply to your post:

You need to know the history of what the government and courts have done and continue to do to citizens who don't toe the Uniparty line (dictated by institutions).   Find out what happened to Andy McMecen when he LEGALLY defied the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.  The government and courts assaulted his farm, his income, his financial property and courts adjudicated that even though he was charged with a crime (taking his own truck) when NO illegal act had been committed (clearly stated in Justice Ross Whimmer's summary) and put him in jail - visiting daily to tell him he could be released as soon as he disavowed his relationship with the group "Farmers for Justice".

ALL of this quickly forgotten part of our history clearly violates anything and almost everything in the 1960 bill of rights and 1982 so-called "Charter of Freedoms and Rights".   The truckers' fates were simply too loud and visible to be forgotten, but the precedent that WE HAVE NO SUCH FREEDOM AND RIGHTS was clearly demonstrated by Ralph Goodale's assault on Andy's rights, freedoms and property (the latter carefully left out of Big Turd's declaration) to attempt to keep the CWB alive and deny Western farmers of their rights to buy, grow and sell their own crops.

It is hard to believe that there are many stunned people here in Canada that cannot see that Canada is coming very close to becoming a Marxist controlled country. From censorship laws, to attacks on freedom of speech and assembly, to freezing peoples bank and credit card accounts, as examples, should tell everyone that these are not conservative attacks on freedoms, but they are left wing liberal and NDP communist attacks on freedom of speech and rights in Canada. Some truckers went to prison and two are still in prison because of that Marxist dictator in Ottawa because that pos did not like to see freedom in action. The gay boy does look a lot like Castro's son alright. 

Now Canada needs to get rid of the egg and milk communist marketing boards. That should help in bringing down the price of eggs and milk and butter. I know that comrades exflyer and herbert want to keep those marketing boards around, both being Marxists. We need less government and more freedom. Works for me.