From the people who brought you covid lockdowns, All people banned from wilderness (now with snitch line!)

[Barquentine]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Sauntering around a military is not restricted, the General public have access to the base, you can drive around all you want

I worked construction many times on military bases. First we had to be finger-printed and have background checks done to be allowed to work there. Anyone with any kind of record was refused clearance.

Then we had to sign in at the entrance every morning and produce ID to see if we were on the list of allowed workers.

Once in we had a lot of access to bldgs. Proabably too much. The unionized civilians would all be gone by 3:00 at the latest, leaving large work areas totally abandoned while we were there til 4 or 5:00.

On Fridays everybody, military or civilian ,was gone by noon, leaving the place deserted except for our crew. Weird.

Amd when we built a top security communications and intelligence bldg (we even had to leave our phones at check-in), we had to be followed and observed at all times by commissionaires. Except that they quit at 3:00 and we stayed til 4:00. So much for high security.

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Great analogy, from the great minds who brought us "You can walk into a bank, but for some reason you can't roam around in the vault."

You don't make sense. What I said is more like "You can't walk into a bank after hours."

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

"Polls" lol.

You should do some research for a change. You won't look so stupid.

[Aristides]

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

Protest all you want but you've proven over and over that there's nothing the government says that you would ever, in a million years, say  No to.

It's people like you that give totalitarian, authoritarian, communist, socialist regimes their power.  Read any history book.

I've probably read more history than you ever dreamed of. I'm old enough to have known camp survivors and gone to school with their kids and that's why I think you are an insult to their memory. Yes there was some overreach during Covid but comparing it to what the Nazis did is just a pathetic insult by someone who is really ignorant of history.

For starters I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich when I was 17, all 1250 pages of it and all six volumes of Churchill's The Second World War. Have you?

Edited August 18, 2025 by Aristides

[Barquentine]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Let's be real, an arsonist is going to get back there and start a fire even if there is a ban in place.

Yeah, and criminals will get guns so why have any gun laws. Why make fentanyl illegal? Why have any speed limits? Why have any laws?
It's a really stupid argument you're making. "Criminals will break laws, so why have laws?

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They're incorrect. According to the constitution canadians have the right to freedom of travel

Charter of rights and freedoms
Section 6 – Mobility rights

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right: to move to and take up residence in any province; and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

"These rights are not absolute and are subject to certain limitations, primarily related to general laws and reasonable residency requirements for public services."

You're getting your rights and privileges mixed up again.

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But just banning people from an entire province

Stop lying. Nobody has banned people from an entire province.

Edited August 18, 2025 by Barquentine
adding text

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah, and criminals will get guns so why have any gun laws.

Mostly for safety reasons.  Gun laws don't reduce crime but they do reduce accidents. But - the number one gun law that reduced the largest number of accidents BY FAR is safety training. Turns out education is vastly more important than simply banning people. 

The liberals banned a lot of guns in the last 10 years and violent crime is up.  UNPOSSIBLE!?!?!   

And at the end of the day i can still own and use guns. I have quite a few  

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

It's a really stupid argument you're making. "Criminals will break laws, so why have laws?

It would be, but I never made that argument. 

You made it up because you know i'm right and can't argue with what i DID say.

I said this law won't stop someone already willing to break the EXISTING law regarding arson.  "Oh i was going to commit a major indictable offense that involves massive jail time but now i won't because i'm afraid of getting a fine!!"

So my argument was if we already have a law that won't stop it, how would another law stop it?  You just realized i was right and changed it to 'we shouldn't have any laws" for some stupid reason. 

So now that we've utterly burned down THAT argument of yours, lets go on to the next.  

 

Quote

"These rights are not absolute and are subject to certain limitations, primarily related to general laws and reasonable residency requirements for public services."

Followed by

Quote

You're getting your rights and privileges mixed up again.

Kid, you are 18 different kinds of stupid. 

It says right in the quote YOU provided that they are RIGHTS!!!!!!! 

Not privileges, but rights. 

So no, i'm not getting anything mixed up    LOL your attention span apparently isn't long enough to get past two sentences  LOLOLOL

All rights are subject to necessary restrictions. The often misquoted and actually incorrect but still demonstrative example is "you have the right to free speech but not to shout fire in a crowded theatre". 

But as the courts have said many many many times such restrictions must be REASONABLE and  generally speaking they must not be sweeping and there can't be another way to effectively address the issue. 

Which is why they call it 'overreach".  

During covid the gov'ts tried the argument you're proposing saying it was necessary to restrict travel and force people to stay in one location for covid, or to ban religious services etc.

In the end The courts said "nuh uh", or in some cases the gov't lawyers told the gov't that's what would happen and it wasn't enforced. 

So that's two strikes kiddo    did you want to try again?

 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I worked construction many times on military bases. First we had to be finger-printed and have background checks done to be allowed to work there. Anyone with any kind of record was refused clearance.

Then we had to sign in at the entrance every morning and produce ID to see if we were on the list of allowed workers.

Once in we had a lot of access to bldgs. Proabably too much. The unionized civilians would all be gone by 3:00 at the latest, leaving large work areas totally abandoned while we were there til 4 or 5:00.

On Fridays everybody, military or civilian ,was gone by noon, leaving the place deserted except for our crew. Weird.

Amd when we built a top security communications and intelligence bldg (we even had to leave our phones at check-in), we had to be followed and observed at all times by commissionaires. Except that they quit at 3:00 and we stayed til 4:00. So much for high security.

Not sure of the time line but a lot of things have changed over the last couple of decades, All of our bases use to be restricted access areas closed to the public, Civilian world complained and the rules were changed, with the exception of out of bounds areas, and restricted areas...all for good reasons....most buildings are locked and the area patrolled by MP's and duty staff, along with surveillance equipment. Unit lines with vehicles or other sensitive equipment such as weapons or high value vehicles have a 24/7 duty staff plus some high tech surveillance equipment...

today finger printing and back ground checks are not necessary unless it is for an out of bounds area or restricted area. Not sure on construction teams, as our unit always had a 24 /7 duty staff  on 365 days a year, and then contractors were restricted to the area they were working on...

Each base is different , also each element, ie army, airforce, navy take security matters differently( all had the same rules, just practiced them differently)...Civilian staff  also work much different hours, ie in Gagetown civilian workers worked until 4 pm, with one or more military to supervise, including fridays, with exception to a few special days ...on the military side most fridays afternoons yes we would go to minimum manning and most would be at home. 

I'M very surprised the military let you stay without someone over looking unattended people in the area...that is not the norm...and would raise more than a few eyebrows...and in a restricted area, that would mean someone getting fired or jailed...

Edited August 18, 2025 by Army Guy

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

Don't be an ass, nothing like that happened or could have happened. You people cheapen what happened to Jews and other groups with your ridiculous persecution complex. What a bunch of goddamn children.

The gov't created "voluntary self-isolation camps" in Yukon, for "an infection which is often lethal and often asymptomatic" 😂 and that they can force you take a test for.

If Hitler had those camps, and the asymptomatic pandemic superspreader narrative, and forced people to take a test to see if they were walking around spreading covid, what would he do with them? 

Would he say that the unvaxed are very likely racists and misogynists, say that they put the rest of us in danger, and then ask Canadians if they should be tolerated? Of course he would.

Trudeau literally dipped his toes in the holocaust pool. Tested the waters. 

Now the LPOC know that if they run a COVID V2.0 program, they can convince the vaxtards like you to throw the unvaxed into camps where they're not expected to 'survive'. Then what?

"BRAVO!!!" - Hitler   

20 hours ago, Goddess said:

People like Aristedes et al, they remind me of how even after the incremental injustices and loss of rights of the Jews in Germany, even after all that, as they headed to the gas chambers, some were saying "Yay! They're going to let us shower."

OMG, so true. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You should do some research for a change. You won't look so stupid.

STFU, idjit. 

If you still believe in CBC polling data after all this time then you have absolutely no grasp of statistics whatsoever. 

[Army Guy]

On 8/17/2025 at 11:23 AM, Barquentine said:

Yeah, you can police the roads. Try policing the woods in New Brunswick. (Before or after the fire has started)

The few polls taken show citizens are overwhelmingly in favour of the ban.

Actually we do have Off Road enforcement officers who's job is patrolling the woods to enforce our laws on our trail system, along with DNR which patrol the woods and trails constantly to enforce laws regarding wild life etc....both have powers of arrest and enforce the laws where regular police can't go in a car. ...not to mention RCMP on the water ways, and also doing off road enforcement during major atv or off road events with atv's...

Not to mention regular people that use these trails, they know what is at stake and can and will report any misdeeds to police if need be....

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, Aristides said:

Does it? If you don't intend to break the law, what difference does the fine make? If you do, be prepared to pay whatever it is. 

Then we should apply this logic to everything, 25 K for drinking and driving first offense, 25 K for speeding in a school zone, the law is the law right....where most people disagree is the fine does not match the level of the crime...

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah, and criminals will get guns so why have any gun laws. Why make fentanyl illegal? Why have any speed limits? Why have any laws?
It's a really stupid argument you're making. "Criminals will break laws, so why have laws?

 

The actions the Federal government are taking is against legal gun owners, law abiding gun owners...Not criminals that don't obey those federal laws anyways...thats the problem everyone has, the federal government wants to control illegal firearms form crossing the border, and to restrict guns available to criminals, and like most government policy they decided to attack law abiding and legal gun owners instead of using that money in more policing and controlling borders..

Much like the woods ban, instead of investing more into Forrest management, water bombers, etc, they just restrict people from going into the woods... if this type of action was effective why has not all the provinces acted this way, or maybe it is justy over handed,and does nothing to solve the problems...

[Aristides]

49 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The gov't created "voluntary self-isolation camps" in Yukon, for "an infection which is often lethal and often asymptomatic" 😂 and that they can force you take a test for.

If Hitler had those camps, and the asymptomatic pandemic superspreader narrative, and forced people to take a test to see if they were walking around spreading covid, what would he do with them? 

Would he say that the unvaxed are very likely racists and misogynists, say that they put the rest of us in danger, and then ask Canadians if they should be tolerated? Of course he would.

Trudeau literally dipped his toes in the holocaust pool. Tested the waters. 

Now the LPOC know that if they run a COVID V2.0 program, they can convince the vaxtards like you to throw the unvaxed into camps where they're not expected to 'survive'. Then what?

"BRAVO!!!" - Hitler   

OMG, so true. 

You sure love to make shit up. It must suck to be that paranoid and ignorant of real history.

32 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Then we should apply this logic to everything, 25 K for drinking and driving first offense, 25 K for speeding in a school zone, the law is the law right....where most people disagree is the fine does not match the level of the crime...

Just stay out of the bush. Fines are meant to be deterrents, not penalties.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You sure love to make shit up. It must suck to be that paranoid and ignorant of real history.

Just stay out of the bush. Fines are meant to be deterrents, not penalties.

That's a really odd statement, you are hereby fined $25,000 for said utterance.

Will that deter you from further oddly inane comments.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Just stay out of the bush. Fines are meant to be deterrents, not penalties.

Whenever you get emotionally invested in an argument you tend to go a little off the rails and the logic Department. Fines are deterrence because they're penalties. The penalty is the part that deters you. The vast majority of penalties in the world are in fact deterrents. If there was no penalty nobody would be deterred

[LinkSoul60]

On 8/17/2025 at 7:30 AM, CouchPotato said:

You bet? What kind of an argument is that?

I live in NB, it's been tinder dry for most of the summer, and at no time did I hear anyone complaining that the government wasnt banning people from the forest or fining people 25 k. I have heard people complaining about people having fires or doing careless stuff. 

As for lack of an emergency response, I go hiking and never once have I been injured and seen anyone injured. If lack of an emergency response were an issue why not ban cycling or skateboarding? Why should it matter whether its in the woods or not? If emergency response is an issue right now why would it matter where you are being injured?

'I bet' is not an argument, it's a comment that you guys/gals would also likely be complaining if in fact someone did get injured and wasn't able to get the emergency services they needed in due time.  Of course your side would complain about the government not doing their job like you're complaining here while they are doing their job, whether you agree or don't agree with their decision.

I understand you haven't been injured hiking, but other people have.  Not much more I can in this thread that I haven't already said repeatedly....they made their decision and you have to live with it. And no, it's not getting you one step closer to authoritarianism.   

[CouchPotato]

12 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I understand you haven't been injured hiking, but other people have. 

Sure they have. But people are injured doing tons of other activities. Hiking is nowhere near the most dangerous. So if the government is really concerned about the drain on emergency services right now, why would it matter whether it is someone hiking in the woods? Why not someone playing sports or cycling or skateboarding where injury is far more likely? 

Not that I am arguing in favor of those things. But Susan Holt's comments on why hiking is banned are pure BS.

Edited August 18, 2025 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

'I bet' is not an argument, it's a comment that you guys/gals would also likely be complaining if in fact someone did get injured and wasn't able to get the emergency services they needed in due time.

This is worth commenting on. So to translate what you're saying is that in the absence of an actual argument you have created a fake argument that has no basis in fact or reality but is entirely based on your prejudices and hatred which you then apply to your opponent and argue against.

Well that is certainly special  As in short school bus special.

I lived through a time when there really wasn't any response in the woods and nobody complained. What happened is people got organized and created their own search and rescue groups, which we see to the very day. If you go out into BC and get your truck stuck you don't call the government, you put a post on bc off road and people in the area will come help get you out.  

That is how conservatives handle these kinds of problems. It is liberals and lefties who demand that the government solve everything

Warn people that there are no government services available. Advise them they go into the woods at their own risk. Educate them about the dangers and make sure they're aware of what not to do. And then get the hell out of the way.

You may need a government to wipe your butt for you but most of us don't

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, CouchPotato said:

Sure they have. But people are injured doing tons of other activities. Hiking is nowhere near the most dangerous. So if the government is really concerned about the drain on emergency services right now, why would it matter whether it is someone hiking? Why not someone playing sports or cycling or skateboarding where injury is far more likely?

What exactly do you and AG want me to say....?  You can talk about every activity known to mankind and it's not going to change the fact that your provincial government is doing what they think best.  If you don't like, which obviously you don't, vote for another party your next election.

Like I've said to AG....  if it's hiking you miss I'm sure you'll be back to it after the rains lessens the fire risk.  If it's the typical right wing concerns that your freedom of rights is being taken away, I'm sure they're not and know you'll be living in the same democracy next week that you have your entire life with all your right intact.

[CouchPotato]

9 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

What exactly do you and AG want me to say....?  

What are you talking about? We aren't complaining about you personally. You didn't implement the draconian rules, did you? This is a discussion board. We discuss things. You made a post saying people would be complaining if they didn't get an emergency response on time, and I explained why it's BS that this is even an issue.

Quote

'I bet' is not an argument, it's a comment that you guys/gals would also likely be complaining if in fact someone did get injured and wasn't able to get the emergency services they needed in due time.  

No. It's not that we would likely do that. It's that you bet we would. If emergency services are actually strained right now and people cannot get services in time when they get injured hiking, then the same would occur for people doing several other activities. If that is happening, no one is complaining about it. Or maybe we guys/gals only complain when services are slow when we get injured hiking.

Edited August 18, 2025 by CouchPotato

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

What are you talking about? We aren't complaining about you personally. You didn't implement the draconian rules, did you? This is a discussion board. 

I'm talking AG in particular has come back non-stop saying the same thing you are now...  Yes it's a discussion board and yes, Ive said what Ive said til I'm blue in the face.  I don't see this as a big deal in any shape or form and honestly, find it comical and sad that people are sitting around complaining about it when people have lost their homes and livelihoods.

 

7 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

No. It's not that we would likely do that. It's that you bet we would.

So what's your problem with this....  you can't go hiking or you're a step closer to authoritarianism? 

[CouchPotato]

8 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

So what's your problem with this....  you can't go hiking or you're a step closer to authoritarianism? 

It's important to hold government to account whenever they commit overreach. That is how you maintain a free society. I can survive without hiking for a month. That's not the point. You can survive without a lot of things, that doesn't mean the government should be able to restrict you from doing those things without a really good reason. 

Entering the woods in and of itself is not a fire risk. The fire risk is other things you can potentially do in there. You realize that the fire risk was incredibly high here all summer. People were hiking and entering the woods all the time up until this point. There was no ban until there were fires. But the danger level was always there. Should we have been banned all summer from entering the woods? 

 

Edited August 18, 2025 by CouchPotato

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

It's important to hold government to account whenever they commit overreach. That is how you maintain a free society. I can survive without hiking for a month. That's not the point. You can survive without a lot of things, that doesn't mean the government should be able to restrict you from doing those things without a really good reason. 

 

Yes, I understand your position.  I disagree with it but do understand.

It's only your opinion that the government has overreached here so again, you can hold them accountable the next election.  I don't live in NB nor do I follow your news but will only assume there are many on the opposite side of the fence believing what the government has done is the right thing.  It's a fact of life you can't please everyone, but they're doing what they think is best. 

[LinkSoul60]

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You may need a government to wipe your butt for you but most of us don't

You can't be anything other than an *sshole...can you, *sshole.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

You sure love to make shit up. It must suck to be that paranoid and ignorant of real history.

Just stay out of the bush. Fines are meant to be deterrents, not penalties.

I get it stay out of the bush,or face 25,k fine which is excessive...., and somehow it is not excessive to you...so why are we not fining everyone 25 k for serious offenses...