High River residents furious after RCMP seize ‘substantial’ number of firearms from evacuated ho

page: 2
105
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
This is nothing but criminal looting of private property. A pretext for illegal search and seizure. That the government does have the authority under "conditions" to loot and pillage on private property.




posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I'm sure u.s. lawmakers will (had already) seen this and will try to pull this move in the u.s. if they haven't already.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


It seems to me that this was most likely just a bad decision by someone who shouldn't be in a position of authority.

The argument that they're "coming for your guns" in every way they can is a nonsense, this gathering of a few weapons is not going to even make a dent in gun ownership, and it causes more outrage than any other measure they could inflict.

The real story here is that the RCMP thought they had the right to just enter homes without permission, without a warrant, and seize private property. The fact that they only took the guns is perhaps indicative of their fears over unrest in the coming days and weeks.

I think it's clear that this is not about securing people's belongings, this was about removing weapons to prevent unrest.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Here is an interesting article that shows that there is a global effort by those in power to use any, and every excuse they can to disarm citizens.


Except that the guns will be returned.

Why make absurd and exaggerated accusations when the actual story is disturbing enough?



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
If a hundred thousand dollars in firearms were lost to the RCMP in this flood, how much life and property was lost due to the time and effort put into securing the firearms? Millions maybe?

It just goes to show that common sense is almost always lost in the formalities of government organization. I'm sure that the reasoning seemed to make sense to those searching the homes. The thought that they were looting homes and violating peoples personal property likely didn't occur to the guys doing it.

I find it hard to believe that the people in a small town of 13,000 in Canada were not capable of doing a better job protecting themselves and their property from the flood waters. The efforts to protect the elderly, animals and last stragglers should have been a joint effort of the citizens as well as the RCMP.

When I was a child in Oklahoma, our town flooded and my father was out in his duck hunting boat rescuing people off of their roofs right along with the fire department. Any help was welcomed. Here in Long Island, after hurricane Sandy last year, the majority of support through the weeks of Marshal law and lack of electricity and plumbing came from the people themselves and their neighbors. People secured the safety of their families and then spent weeks securing it for other elements in their community. It was a jointed community effort and it worked well.

If anything comes out of this it should be the realization that our livelihood should first be the responsibility of ourselves, then our neighbors and then it should be backed up and helped out by the government or law enforcement agencies that WE put in place to be a last measure.

Evacuation orders are not an end all measure. They should be heeded by those incapable and unwilling to take the risk of protecting their own property. Those who ARE capable will take measures to protect their families and neighbors property that are not able to do so themselves. The various agencies that come to support them are strangers to the community and cannot be relied on. If left alone to make decisions about protecting the property or people left behind, they will almost surely neglect to address some of the most important elements.

Although the gun issue is taking front stage now, in the end, I imagine it will be one of the smaller issues that were neglected in the whole process here. Going through peoples homes and looking for weapons is a huge waste of time. What kinds of things were neglected while they were doing this? It is an irresponsible and dangerous waste of time as well as a huge mismanagement of money and resources. How much money was spent paying for this illegal search and seizure? Who is going to pay for it? The same people who are going to pay hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars getting their firearms back? What about little granny down the road that drowned while waiting for help, meanwhile the RCMP were rummaging through Ralph's hunting gear? How many animals and pets were left behind in the very same homes that the guns were taken out of?

People,.. do the right thing. Let the weapons go, it is not the big issue here. The guys doing the deed knew not what they were doing. Take this opportunity to build some common sense, accountability and strict regulation into the RCMP and other government run organizations. Be accountable for what these organizations do with your money and resources, and how they prioritize their actions. Let them know that they are here to back you up, not run the show. Take the responsibility back and carry the burden yourselves.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vonclod
ya im very curious as to how they went about doing this..did they only search homes that were on the old registry? restricted weapons such as handguns and center fire semi auto rifles are still registered. did they break and enter?, what else might they have dug/snooped through?..very troubling, the rcmp are a goon sqaud unto themselves never mind the govt


All federal, state and city law enforcement are goon squads and will trample on any of our rights if given the order and opportunity to do so!



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
After reading the attached article a few things struck out to me as very odd.

1. They took the guns to protect the gun owners investment? How about anything else of value that may have been left, why only guns?

2. In order to get the guns back they need to show proper paperwork. Somehow I suspect it won't be that simple.

3. What right did they have to enter the homes and search them to begin with?

4. Why not just patrol and protect the homes? If they had the ability to search them and to now keep the home owners out, why couldn't they keep out looters?

The whole thing stinks....


All excellent points Mountain Laurel.

Also...why do the owners need to prove ownership?

Surely, all they need to do is provide proof that they live in the house where the guns were illegally taken from, since the police will have made a record of which property they removed from which house.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TopsyTurvyOne
WATCHA GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?


WATCHA GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

LOAD GUNS, LOAD GUNS

THATS WHAT WERE GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR GUNS!



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quauhtli

I find it hard to believe that the people in a small town of 13,000 in Canada were not capable of doing a better job protecting themselves and their property from the flood waters. The efforts to protect the elderly, animals and last stragglers should have been a joint effort of the citizens as well as the RCMP.



what exactly is the point of that statement?..you can only sandbag so much.. thats like saying oklahomans should of been able to better protect themselves from a tornado, you cant mess with mother nature this was a very big flood not just affecting 13000 in high river, downtown calgary was evacuated and under water as well..i believe 70,000- 100,00 were evacuated in total



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dominar
Thread already posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com
edit on 29-6-2013 by Dominar because: (no reason given)


But this one is better. Has more up front info then the other.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Here is an interesting article that shows that there is a global effort by those in power to use any, and every excuse they can to disarm citizens.


Except that the guns will be returned.

Why make absurd and exaggerated accusations when the actual story is disturbing enough?



Still, they illegally entered peoples homes and took their firearms. They won't specify how many firearms they took and I wonder how many loops you will have to go through to get your guns back (and what if the proof got destroyed in the flood?)

Not to mention there are several dozen RCMP officers patrolling the area and the residents ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED IN. If your home had water in it you might as well tear it down now.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I thought Canada was anti Gun ownership



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by TopsyTurvyOne
WATCHA GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?


WATCHA GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

LOAD GUNS, LOAD GUNS

THATS WHAT WERE GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR GUNS!


good to hear, my friend.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Learned that on the old "Perry Mason" show.

I have a suggestion for Albertans. You're rich. Man up, like Ontario, and get your own provincial police force. Being policed by a federal law enforcement unit like the Mounties is what it is.

We have a few Mounties in Ontario, but the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) haul most of the law enforcement freight outside of the big cities, who have their own departments.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dominar
Thread already posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com
edit on 29-6-2013 by Dominar because: (no reason given)


That was about a flood causing the evacuating a town. This thread is about the confiscation of firearms under the guise of an evacuation. We gotta have enough thread clarity to distinguish issues, or important points like this are going to be lost in the mass of angry astroturfing and troll responses.

I am glad this was highlighted separately or I would have missed it.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
I thought Canada was anti Gun ownership


Canada is a "Just me!" zone. Nobody else can do it, just me.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
I thought Canada was anti Gun ownership


Canada has a vibrant gun culture. The progressives are loud though, so it appears Canada is anti-gun.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013
It seems to me that this was most likely just a bad decision by someone who shouldn't be in a position of authority.
...


That's what they say to cover their behinds. Gun restrictions in Canada are even more strict than in most states in the U.S.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca...



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk

Except that the guns will be returned.

Why make absurd and exaggerated accusations when the actual story is disturbing enough?



First of all, "the owners will have to prove the guns are theirs". There was a flood in that area, what if the receipts they had are all soiled and can't be read? If this is the case it means it could take weeks or months for these people to get their firearms. In the story the RCMP don't even say "the guns will be returned as soon as possible", they just say "they will be returned", heck if they return the firearms 8 months from now they were returned right?... But then the residents would have no protection for that time.

Second, the "absurd and exaggerated accusations" is believing the lies from the RCMP on why they did this, not to mention that what right did they have to take the private property from these people when it would have taken less manpower just to patrol the area to secure ALL belongings?

You should also read the responses from the other members in this thread, they make a lot of good points.

edit on 29-6-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Does this mean that "a man's home is his castle" only applies if his castle is impenetrable?

I guess that's why it pays to keep your guns locked up in a secure gun safe. If someone wants to take my guns without my permission, they had better come prepared. They'll be needing something akin to a dozer to dislodge my safe and probably a tow truck to lift it and carry it off.

P.S., I'm a supporter of stricter gun laws but if this happened to me, I'd be pissed off too! Furthermore, I'd just bet that any future mandatory evacuations in Canada don't go as smoothly as this one did.





new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join