"Its the new bunjee jumping"

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113678

Fellow Firearms Owners,

I have been advised by a very credible inside source that the Conservative Party has folded regarding our rights, in light of the recent Dawson College shooting involving legally-registered restricted firearms.

Before I go further, allow me to say that I don't have the time to post much these days due to other commitments. Those who have been here for a few years know me. And they know that I am by nature and training not inclined towards unwarranted excitability. For those who don't know me, I am a long-standing CGN member (well before the current board came to exist) who also happens to have 26 years of infantry experience, training, and service to Canada - including combat operations in Afghanistan. No "horn-tooting" intended. Just some basic credentials for those who may be new to the board since I went on hiatus. I am NOT an "excitable" guy.

With that out of the way, I am sorry to say that I have been privvy to a personal warning that the current minority government is about to announce the prohibitiion of all currently-restriced long-guns. It is a very serious warning, coming from a very well-connected individual within the Canadian firearms industry. I have known this source for 25 years, and am taking his warning at full face-value. He got the warning from sources which cannot be named, but are fully conversant with what is going on.

The essence is that all currently-restricted long-guns will be banned. It is not clear whether or not they will be grandfathered. The prohibition will apparently be legislative rather than OIC in nature. I am told that much like the previous OICs, the announcement will occur after the fact with zero warning for those who own (or would aspire to own) restricted long-guns. My source told me to expect a 10:00 announcement to the effect that as of 09:00 that same day, the new laws/regulations are extant. You and I know exactly why they will take that approach - no last-minute buying spree is possible.

There has been no indication that the forthcoming ban will impact upon handguns. There IS an expectation that the restricted long-gun ban will extend to the limited range of non-restricted semi-automatic long-guns currently available for Canadian purchase. This includes the SKS, Norinco M305 (M-14), Robarm M-96, Armalite AR-180B, and others of the ilk.

There is no knowledge regarding whether or not the impending semi-auto long-gun ban will incorporate a grandfathering clause. If so, then it would behoove prospective owners to buy now. As in right now. If there is no grandfathering clause, then at the very least those in possession of restricted firearms will be eligable for monetary compensation related to their seized personal property. Personal property rights and related reimbursement are a cornerstone of the Conservative government platform. Notwithstanding the recent turn-about on the taxation of income trusts, the Conservatives don't dare simply seize our restricted long-guns without due compensation. It is an admittedly small consolation, but at least you won't be out of pocket if you purchase an AR-15 receiver tomorrow only to legislatively lose it the day after....

Sorry to be the bearer of horrifically bad news, but as a firearms owner of 25 years I felt compelled to share this news with the board. If it turns out that my impeccable source is wrong and political pressure deems that the restricted long-gun ban will not happen? Fine - I will eat crow, and be quite happy to do so.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that such is going to be the case. We owners of mil-style semi-autos are about to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

I for one, will be mailing back my Conservative Party membership and "sustaining donor" cards with a very tersely-worded letter. Lacking a party that actually represents my interests, I will be opting out of the Canadian democratic process. That is how seriously I view these impending developments.

Take it for what you will. If I am "crying wolf", then so be it - I will eat my words and suck up the ridicule after the fact. But I am here to tell you that as of today? I was told by a VERY reliable insider of 25 years standing that this is what our Conservative Government is about to enact.

Not much warning on that Income Trusts tax, was there. You want to talk about blind-sided? Wait for it....

Forewarned is forearmed.

Right or wrong, I remain

See, the stupid thing about the torture debate is this:

Torture is NOT used by the Americans and Israelis as primarily a means of obtaining information. It is used primarily as a form of arbitrary punishment and to instill terror, not much different than medieval torture chambers. Obtaining reliable information is a secondary motive. Basically, torture as practiced by the American/Israeli axis is terrorism squared.

Presumbably when the Liberals return to power and their politically correct goons (the RCMP) come for your long guns you won't mind a bit of arbitrary drowning/interrogation...

The argument against waterboarding is that it creates the illusion of drowning and death.

To the same extennt that russian roulette is torture because it creates the same fear.

In both cases no permanent physical harm is created. Russian Roulette is considered torture so should waterboarding.

This doesnt say you do or dont do it, if you have to engage in torture this would be the torure you engage in, no death no physical harm.

However, you still need to answer the question of whether you want to enage in this. Does Sullivan get a little breathless over this, sure, but his point is that this is torture remains apparently true.

I am open to argument that this isnt torture, I have been trying to figure out where this fits. But when compared to Russian roulette and the fact that it creates the illusion of imminent death seems to put it in this category.

I for one am quite willing to send the next bunch of captured terrorists over to bob's house for a week or two of 'progressive' indoctrination. That'll teach em.

"Torture is NOT used by the Americans and Israelis as primarily a means of obtaining information. It is used primarily as a form of arbitrary punishment and to instill terror, not much different than medieval torture chambers. Obtaining reliable information is a secondary motive. Basically, torture as practiced by the American/Israeli axis is terrorism squared."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Thank you bob I needed that!

Jim Pook - I don't care how urgent or important you believe your information is. I'm sick of off-topic link dumps/commentary and I thought I'd made myself clear on that matter.

There is a readers tips post below. Use it.

If Canadian Gun Nutz wants to get their views out, then they should make their page accessable to the public.

How about all terrorists being questioned are given the choice-waterboarding or beheading.

Alan Colmes already looks as if he's been tortured a few times too many...

How about all terrorists being questioned are given the choice-waterboarding or beheading.

Or a nice club sandwich made with non-Halal turkey and lots of bacon.

Relevant to this is if Waterboarding is considered torture, or better yet is by some and not by others. Where does the responsibility lay for ordering.

Ignatieff has argued that while these things may be necessary to obtain information, but that he would never support. His argument is essntially that the " moral" inquisitor, when faced with the ticking bomb would make the choice to torture despite the fact that it is illegal.

So, even though it looks like Iggy wont win, should he win most officers in the armed forces can expect to be hung out to dry. On one hand Iggy will tell them that it is moral and correct to torture, even though it is illegal. But the essence of a moral choice is to be willing to face the consequences. i.e. it was worth it I saved millions of lives from an atomic bomb.

The point here is not that it the task shouldnt be done it is that now that Iggy stands on the verge of potentially being in charge he believes it should be the responsibility of the interrogator only...and only in 20 20 hindsight will you be able to determine the legality and justice of the torture.

While Iggy was an academic it was an interesting argument, but if I were an officer in the Forces I would be quite concerned over the fact that my civilian boss will not back me up, although he will tell me privately that I am doing the right thing, sometimes, if I uncover valuable information.

The difference is I think waterboarding is torture but I dont believe a host of other techniques are, stress positions, bright lights etc. They are odious and to be used in certain circumstances, I also think that offending certain religous sensibilities is fair game.

One tactic was to tell these islamic fanatics that the woman interviewing them, bad enough, was menstruating, even worse, then they would throw red stained panties at them, highly offenisive to a muslim, and then not let them cleanse themselves. Clearly offensive, but is that torture in the general sense? If you did that to a devout Hindu would it offend them so deeply.

No physical harm, no threat of death, but it plays off of their superstitions. IS this the equivalent of taking someone afraid of heights up the CN tower and interviewing them on the roof?

Iggy's position is dangerous but appealing to those in power because they can push it to the man/woman in the room and avoid overall responsibility. But I would say it, like many of his positions, is a drawing room or salon argument as they would never have to face it themselves.

I am curious, do others believe there are limits on what we should and shouldnt condone, what direction should our soldiers be given so they know they are free from prosecution? Are we in such a nihilistic or existential fight that it doesnt matter...does our conduct matter in the long run, even if the enemy is nihilistic and the fight to the death?

Many questions for a Sunday and perhaps too serious, curious about others thoughts. You can think waterboarding crosses a line or doesnt, the bigger question is are we in such a fight that whatever lines there are are irrelevant, so even if waterboarding is torture it doesnt matter....

I would rather have seen Olberman or Matthews waterboarded than Colmes. He's just so, well, pathetic.

The eco-wackos object to water sports becuase they claim is disturbes the sea critters when its the eco-wackos themselves that drive the sea critters crazy

Kate:

Sorry about that. I didn't see the open forum until after you posted. I guess I didn't look far enough down the page.

As for the Gun Nutz site. I have nothing to do with them other than being a "member", same as I am with you here. I didn't realize that the link would not work for others.

I won't let it happen again.

Best wishes,
Jim Pook

You Know what... Where I grew up our childhood games were tougher than this!

What a bunch of horsecrap!

BUNGIE JUMPING is for the truly insane and crazy