Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Proud to be Canadian!
I got this in an e-mail, I don't know who wrote it, but I couldn't agree more if I had of wrote it my self!
A Letter to the Editor (excellent letter)
So many letter writers have explained how this land is made up of immigrants. Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today's Canadian is not willing to accept the new kind of immigrant any longer.
Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to Canada, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in Halifax and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new Canadian households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labour laws to protect them. All they had were the skills, craftsmanship and desire they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Canadians fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden , Poland and so many other places. None of these first generation Canadians ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Canadians fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the Freedom as one people. When we liberated France, no-one in those villages was looking for the Ukrainian-Canadian or the German-Canadian or the Irish-Canadian. The people of France saw only Canadians.
And we carried one flag that represented our country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be a Canadian. They stirred the melting pot into one red and white bowl.
And here we are in 2009 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes a Canadian passport and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being a Canadian is all about. Canadians have been very open-hearted and open-minded regarding immigrants, whether they were fleeing poverty, dictatorship, persecution, or whatever else makes us think of those aforementioned immigrants who truly did ADOPT our country, and our flag and our morals and our customs. And left their wars, hatred, and divisions behind. I believe that the immigrants who landed in Canada in the early 1900s deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags, fighting foreign battles on our soil, making Canadians change to suit their religions and cultures, and wanting to change our countries fabric by claiming discrimination when we do not give in to their demands.
Its about time we get real and stand up for our forefathers rights, we are CANADIAN Lest we forget it!!! I am a Native of this Country & proud of it!
NO MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
NO MORE not saying CHRISTMAS in stores and our schools!
MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!
I Want my Canada of birth BACK !!!
P.S. -- Please pass this on to everyone you know!!!
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!!
Hope this letter is read by millions of people all across Canada !!!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Right Turn Clyde
I was talking to my grandson the other day and he was saying that his mom (my daughter) said there are not two people inside of us like I had told him earlier.
I beg to differ!
I had told him that:
We (man) is capable of doing what ever anyone before him has done. (good or bad) given the same life the same upbringing the same time and space as say Columbus.
It could have been anyone that discovered America. Old Chris was not chosen by the gods to discover America. He ended up discovering America because of the decisions he made in his life (the roads he traveled) right from birth.
The roads you travel and the things you accomplished are decided by the decisions you make in your life, the choice's you make determine the road you will travel. And the road you travel through life leads you to where you end up at the end of your time here in this life
If you choose to do good things, then you will travel that road. (Right Turn)
That same rule applies if you choose to do bad things. Then that is the road you will travel. (Left Turn)
Take Hitler (or any other person from man's history if you like)Hitler got to where he was by the decisions he made in life which lead him through the roads he traveled.(Left Turn)
If you (or anyone for that matter) where to make the same decisions as Hitler you would end up where Hitler ended up in life. You would have ended up traveling the same road he traveled. (Left Turn)
This would also apply to anyone else in our history male of female.
Take the Dali lama, if you where in the same situation, the same place the same time the same environment around you the same upbringing and you made the same dissensions that the Dali Lama has made to end up where he is today, then you would or could be the Dali Lama.
He wasn't born to be the Dali Lama and it wasn't fate that made him do good things, he just made the right decisions at every cross road in his life that lead him threw the many roads he traveled to end up where he is today. (Right Turn)
When you choose to do good, it's a mental choice, you know right from wrong, you choose good or bad. And in turn this leads you to the next cross road in your life, which leads you to your next decision and so on so forth.
It only stands to reason that if Hitler was in the same time and space as the Dali Lam and Hitler made the same decisions the Dali Lama has made in his life, the road Hitler would have trailed would be where the Dali Lama is today.(Right Turn)
Two people, both completely different people from our history. One that has done nothing but good and one that has done nothing but bad, but if they had of made the same decisions as their counter part, they both could have ended up in the others place in history.
Hitler and the Dali Lama had the choice to do good or evil and by those choices, they ended up traveling the roads that lead them to their place in our history.
You can choose to do good (that's the good person inside you)or you can choose to do bad. (That’s the bad person inside you)
Thus there are indeed two people inside you and you have the choice of which one you let run your life and lead you through the roads you travel.
That being said:
You could have done what ever anyone before you has done in our history, If you had of been raised in the same situation and had of choose to make those same decisions, then that is the road you would have travel in life.
You have the choice of the road you want to travel in life by the decisions you make and you will end up where your decisions have taken you.
There are two people inside you, Good and Evil it is up to you to make that decision, no one else can do that for you.
Enjoy the ride my friend and remember, the final decision is always up to you!
So you have no one to blame but your self for the roads you have to travel through life!
Right Turn Clyde!
R.Coldguy
I beg to differ!
I had told him that:
We (man) is capable of doing what ever anyone before him has done. (good or bad) given the same life the same upbringing the same time and space as say Columbus.
It could have been anyone that discovered America. Old Chris was not chosen by the gods to discover America. He ended up discovering America because of the decisions he made in his life (the roads he traveled) right from birth.
The roads you travel and the things you accomplished are decided by the decisions you make in your life, the choice's you make determine the road you will travel. And the road you travel through life leads you to where you end up at the end of your time here in this life
If you choose to do good things, then you will travel that road. (Right Turn)
That same rule applies if you choose to do bad things. Then that is the road you will travel. (Left Turn)
Take Hitler (or any other person from man's history if you like)Hitler got to where he was by the decisions he made in life which lead him through the roads he traveled.(Left Turn)
If you (or anyone for that matter) where to make the same decisions as Hitler you would end up where Hitler ended up in life. You would have ended up traveling the same road he traveled. (Left Turn)
This would also apply to anyone else in our history male of female.
Take the Dali lama, if you where in the same situation, the same place the same time the same environment around you the same upbringing and you made the same dissensions that the Dali Lama has made to end up where he is today, then you would or could be the Dali Lama.
He wasn't born to be the Dali Lama and it wasn't fate that made him do good things, he just made the right decisions at every cross road in his life that lead him threw the many roads he traveled to end up where he is today. (Right Turn)
When you choose to do good, it's a mental choice, you know right from wrong, you choose good or bad. And in turn this leads you to the next cross road in your life, which leads you to your next decision and so on so forth.
It only stands to reason that if Hitler was in the same time and space as the Dali Lam and Hitler made the same decisions the Dali Lama has made in his life, the road Hitler would have trailed would be where the Dali Lama is today.(Right Turn)
Two people, both completely different people from our history. One that has done nothing but good and one that has done nothing but bad, but if they had of made the same decisions as their counter part, they both could have ended up in the others place in history.
Hitler and the Dali Lama had the choice to do good or evil and by those choices, they ended up traveling the roads that lead them to their place in our history.
You can choose to do good (that's the good person inside you)or you can choose to do bad. (That’s the bad person inside you)
Thus there are indeed two people inside you and you have the choice of which one you let run your life and lead you through the roads you travel.
That being said:
You could have done what ever anyone before you has done in our history, If you had of been raised in the same situation and had of choose to make those same decisions, then that is the road you would have travel in life.
You have the choice of the road you want to travel in life by the decisions you make and you will end up where your decisions have taken you.
There are two people inside you, Good and Evil it is up to you to make that decision, no one else can do that for you.
Enjoy the ride my friend and remember, the final decision is always up to you!
So you have no one to blame but your self for the roads you have to travel through life!
Right Turn Clyde!
R.Coldguy
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Nothing to Worry about
There are only two things in life that are worth worrying about; whether you'll be healthy or whether you'll get sick.
If you're healthy there's really nothing to worry about, If you get sick there's still only two things worth worrying about, whether you'll get better or whether you'll die.
If you get better there's really nothing to worry about, If you die there's still only two things worth worrying about, whether you'll go to heaven or whether you'll go to hell.
If you go to heaven there's really nothing to worry about and If you go the hell you'll be so dam busy shaking hands with old friends you won't have time to worry.
So enjoy life my friend!!!
Because as long as you have old friends like me.
You really don't have anything to worry about.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
Old Friend
R.Coldguy
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Your Right to Bear Arms
In no way shape or form do I claim any credit for any of the work that went in to putting this to gather.
I just think it's important that Canadians know they have the right to bare arms.
R.Coldguy
How the Firearms Act (Bill C-68)Violates the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (Summary)
Summary of the study prepared by Dr. Ted Morton for:
The Responsible Firearm Owners of Alberta,the Responsible Firearm Owners Coalition of British Columbia and the Recreational Firearms Community of Saskatchewan.
First presented in Saskatoon, October 5, 2002
In 1995 the federal government introduced Bill C-68, a bill to change firearms legislation in Canada. After passage it is correctly identified as "Statutes of Canada 1995, Chapter 39."
It incorporates two parts: the new Firearms Act and changes to the existing Criminal Code. Throughout this paper the legislation will be referred to by it's short title The Firearms Act.
In 1999 when the Supreme Court rejected Alberta's (and seven other government's) constitutional challenge that the Firearms Act was outside of the federal government's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court began by declaring that:
"The issue before this Court is not whether gun control is good or bad, whether the law is fair or unfair to gun owners, or whether it will be effective or ineffective in reducing the harm caused by the misuse of firearms."
That was true for the law of federalism. It is not true under the Charter of Rights. If a law is found to violate a Charter right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that the law is "rationally connected" to its purpose and that it impairs the rights involved "as little as possible." While the [stated] purpose of the Firearms Act -- to reduce the use of firearms in violent crime -- is laudable and shared by all law-abiding Canadians, its licensing and registration requirements do nothing to achieve this end.
As summarized below, the Firearms Act violates the Charter in many ways. If the Supreme Court applies the same Charter rules to law-abiding firearm owners as it has to drunk-drivers, drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, single parent welfare recipients, abortion providers, murderers, refugee claimants and owners of child pornography, that is -- if it applies the law of the land even handedly -- then it will be forced by its own precedents to declare the Firearms Act unconstitutional.
Right to Liberty
The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the right to liberty (section 7 of the Charter) to protect "an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference." The
Firearms Act interferes with this liberty by making illegal the mere act of owning a firearm inside one's own home. It does so without any evidence of harm to others, the prerequisite for limiting a citizen's freedom.
Right to Security of the Person
The Firearms Act violates the right to security of the person (section 7) by taking away the ability of citizens to defend their own homes and property. The right to bear arms for the protection of one's home, family and property has been recognized in English common law for over 200 hundred years. It is affirmed in the writings of Locke and Blackstone. This right is imported into Canadian law by the preamble to the BNA Act (1867) and by section 26 of the Charter.
The Firearms Act deprives Canadians of this right by making them completely dependent upon prompt police response in the case of home invasion and robbery. This deprivation is especially harsh for the thousands of Canadians who live in rural areas where police response is often hours after a 911 call has been placed.
Right to Procedural Fairness
The manner in which the Firearms Act is administered and enforced violates the rules of procedural fairness mandated by section 7 of the Charter ("principles of fundamental justice"). In the context of their abortion ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal law must be enforced evenly in all parts of Canada. Seven provinces and territories have refused to administer the Firearms Act, creating a "checker-board" pattern of enforcement. What is legal in one part of Canada is illegal in another, and vice versa. The Charter does not permit this.
The selective enforcement of the Firearms Act also violates procedural fairness. Since the licensing requirements came into effect in 2000, no charges have been laid except as an additional charge in cases where a firearm has been used in the commission of a separate crime. This double standard violates the principle of uniform enforcement established in the Court's abortion ruling.
It also discriminates against individuals who are younger, poorer, less educated, urban and members of visible minorities -- the groups more prone to use firearms in the commission of a crime -- and in favour of unlicensed collectors, farmers, ranchers and hunters, who are generally older, more educated, more affluent and rural/small town. This double standard violates one of the oldest principles of Canada's rule of law tradition: "equality in the application and administration of the law."
Section 7
The Firearms Act violates the section 7 principle prohibiting unlimited administrative discretion. As Justice Conrad observed in her judgment in the Alberta Court of Appeal: "The entire licensing scheme is at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer. It is a discretion without minimum standards, or any absolute standards for that matter." This violates the rule of law requirement that, in the words of Dicey, prohibit "government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint."
Right against unreasonable search and seizure
Section 8 of the Charter prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the police. The courts have interpreted this to require the police to procure a search warrant from a judge before conducting a search, except in narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., "hot pursuit" or probable loss of evidence).
The importance of the warrant requirement is heightened when the premises being searched are a home. Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant "reasonable notice." Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures -- in private homes -- without prior judicial approval, they violate section 8 of the Charter.
The search and seizure powers granted by the Firearms Act are also unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes "at any reasonable time" and to search "any place where the inspector believes...there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]" and "may open any container...examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it"; and "require any person to produce for examination or copying any records books of account or other documents." Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police "fishing expeditions" imposed by the section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Right to privacy
The Supreme Court has also interpreted section 8 to impose a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from government, and applied this principle to protect impaired drivers, marijuana growers, and single parent welfare recipients. An applicant for a firearms license (POL or PAL) under the Firearms Act is forced to answer personal questions about his or her mental health history, personal finance, bankruptcy, drug use, job loss, and relationship breakdowns. The use of similar -- indeed, LESS intrusive -- questions about welfare applicants' personal lives was recently declared unconstitutional by an Ontario court. The use of these highly intrusive questions in the Firearms Act has already been condemned by the federal Privacy Commissioner.
Right to be presumed innocent
Two sections of the Firearms Act (ss.112.4 and107) place the burden of proof on the accused to prove his innocence. This violates the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Canada, this ancient right in all English-speaking democracies is given new constitutional protection by section 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court has used the right to the presumption of innocence to overturn other sections of the Criminal Code that punish drug-dealers (Oakes, 1986), impaired drivers (Whyte, 1988), pimps (Downey, 1992) and murderers (Chaulk, 1990). The courts will be obliged to extend the same constitutional right to law-abiding firearm owners.
Right against arbitrary detention
Section 9 of the Charter protects the right against arbitrary detention. The courts have interpreted detention to include being detained by police investigators to be asked questions.
(Therens, 1985) Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize police to demand of any person in a house being searched to provide them with assistance. The Act's use of phrases such as "cause to be used," "cause to be reproduced," "shall," and "require" indicate the coercive nature of the "request" for assistance and therefore constitute a detention as defined in earlier cases.
These detentions must be deemed arbitrary when they occur in the context of the two kinds of warrantless searches authorized by the Act. (See "Right against unreasonable search and seizure," above.) The detention is also arbitrary in the context of a warrantless search because it is "at the absolute discretion of the police officer." (Hufsky, 1988).
Right to freedom of expression
Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of expression. The courts have interpreted this to protect not just written or spoken words, but also "expressive" activity such as marching in a protest rally. (Irwin Toy, 1989) The courts have also identified "individual self-fulfillment" as a core good advanced by freedom of expression. Linking these two, the BC Court of Appeal has ruled that "the personal belongings of an individual are an expression of that person's essential self" and that the possession of child pornography is therefore protected by section 2(b) of the Charter. (Sharpe, 1999)
Under these precedents, ownership of firearms qualifies as a form of expression protected by the Charter. This is doubly true for collectors of antique or rare firearms. It is also true for those who keep a firearm as a family heirloom to commemorate an ancestor's military service or pioneer roots.
These activities are all forms of self-fulfillment. In Keegstra (1990), a case involving hate propaganda, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that an expressive activity is private and not intended for public consumption confers even greater protection on it. If possession of child pornography and racist propaganda are protected by section 2(b), then certainly possession of firearms enjoy the same or greater protection.
Right to bear arms
The right to bear arms has existed in English common law for at least 300 years and is imported into Canadian law by the preamble of the BNA Act, 1867 and section 26 of the Charter. Section 26 declares that traditional rights not listed in the Charter continue to have force and effect in Canada. The first explicit recognition of the right to bear arms in British-Canadian law occurs in the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is re-affirmed by the celebrated Blackstone in his Commentaries as one of the five most important rights of British subjects; and confirmed in several 18th and 19th century precedents.
Although this right is subject to regulation by parliament, in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right. The right to bear arms is thus an historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter.
Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm -- even for purposes of self-defense in one's own home -- it violates this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
Right to counsel upon arrest or detention
Section 10(b) of the Charter protects the right to counsel "upon arrest or detention." The courts have interpreted this to mean that police cannot elicit evidence from suspects until or unless counsel (a lawyer) is present or the suspect has knowingly waived that right.
Those sections of the Firearms Act (ss.102-105) that allow an inspector to demand ANY person in the house to provide assistance are therefore in violation of section 10(b) of the Charter.
Right to property
The right to property is one of the oldest and most fundamental rights in British-Canadian legal history. The protection of private property against state deprivation can be traced to the Magna Carta (1215); the 1688 Bill of Rights; Locke's Second Treatise (1690), and Blackstone's Commentaries. Like the right to bear arms, the right to property is imported into Canadian law by the preamble to the BNA Act, 1867.
The protection of private property rights was one of the highest priorities of the Canadian founders. Canadian citizens' right to private property was confirmed by the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.
In its 1986 Singh ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights continue in force even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Charter -- which property is not. However, the Supreme Court has established that it may confer judicially enforceable constitutional protection on "unwritten constitutional principles" that are fundamental to Canadians' historical sense of justice.
The Court should be encouraged to add the right to private property to the five principles to which it has already given this protection: judicial independence, federalism, democracy, rule of law and minority rights. Indeed, without respect for the right to private property, these others would quickly become irrelevant.
Equality Rights
Section 15 of the Charter prohibits the government from discriminating against Canadians on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, particularly members of minority groups that have been historically disadvantaged. While some of the prohibited grounds of discrimination are enumerated in section 15, the Court can add new groups if it deems them to be "analogous" to the enumerated groups.
The Firearms Act discriminates unfairly and unreasonably against the following non-enumerated minorities in Canada:
rural Canadians and non-aboriginals who depend upon firearms for their livelihood.
Rural Canadians are represented by less than 31% of MPs in Parliament, and consequently their legitimate interests are systematically neglected by the majority of MPs who come from urban and suburban constituencies. Rural Canadians -- farmers, ranchers, trappers, and hunters -- regularly and lawfully employ firearms to make their living.
The effect of the Firearms Act is to impose taxes and a heavy regulatory burden on the tools of their trade. The Firearms Act also forces them to disclose sensitive personal and financial information, and threaten them with fines and/or incarceration if they fail to comply. It also has the effect of stigmatizing rural Canadians as somehow responsible for the increase in the illegal use of firearms, when in fact this is predominately an urban trend. This is precisely the type of unfair stereotyping of a politically vulnerable minority that section 15 prohibits.
The Firearms Act's exemptions for Aboriginals discriminate against similarly situated non-aboriginals on the basis of their race. Parliament realized that many Aboriginals farm, ranch, trap, or hunt for their living and therefore provided exemptions for this sub-group of Aboriginals. While this exemption is reasonable, it is under-inclusive because it excludes non-Aboriginals who farm, ranch, trap, or hunt for their living.
The Supreme Court has declared in Vriend (1998) and Law (1999) that statutes that confer a benefit but do not extend the benefit to a similarly situated minority (enumerated or analogous) violate section 15.
Section 27
Section 27 directs the courts to interpret the rights protected in the Charter in a manner that is consistent with the protection and preservation of Canada's multicultural heritage.
The lawful and legitimate use of firearms -- during the early years of settlement and still today by ranchers, farmers, trappers and hunters -- is an integral part of Canada's multicultural heritage.
Section 27 thus enhances all of the preceding rights of Canadian firearm owners.
Section 1
To the extent that the Firearms Act restricts any of the rights listed above, the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that such restrictions are "reasonable." To do this, the Supreme Court has developed the "Oakes test", which requires the government to demonstrate that the Act: serves an important public policy objective. is rationally connected to that objective. impairs the right in issue as little as possible does more good than harm (proportionality).
While the purpose of the Firearms Act -- the reduction of illegal use of firearm violence -- easily qualifies as an important public policy objective, the means used to achieve this objective utterly fail the last three rules of the Oakes test.
In 1995 when the Firearms Act was enacted, there was no demonstrable need for new restrictions on firearm owners:
• Homicides were at a 25-year low.
• Firearms-related suicides were at a 25-year low.
• Hospitalizations due to firearms were at an 8-year low.
The Firearms Act goes much further than just creating a screening process for those who wish to acquire firearms. It criminalizes the very possession of a firearm in the absence of any wrongdoing or threat of harm to others.
Despite the mandatory registration of "restricted" weapons since 1969 robbery rates increased over next 20 years, as did the number of restricted weapons offenses. Handguns have required registration since 1934.
Three-quarters of all firearms-related deaths are suicide. Suicide is not a crime; does not threaten public safety; and would not be affected by registration requirements.
Over 90 percent of firearms-related violence involves handguns (mostly unregistered). Registering long-guns (shotguns and rifles) will have no effect on this.
In all violent crimes in Canada in 1996, only 3 percent involved any type of firearms. Knives and hockey sticks are a more prevalent form of assault weapon.
The Firearms Act targets the wrong demographic group. Most firearm-related crimes are committed by younger, urban residents with criminal records. The legal use of firearms is concentrated in older, rural and small town residents. Requiring the latter to register their firearms will have no effect on the former.
Evidence presented by the Justice Department to Parliament to justify the need for C-68 in 1995 has since been repudiated as inaccurate by the RCMP. The RCMP stated that the Justice statistics overstated the number of firearms used in violent crimes in 1993 by a factor of 9 (623 compared to 73 in reality).
Costs of implementing the Firearms Act have soared from the government's initial estimate of $85 million dollars over five years to over $670* million by July, 2002 -- with no measurable reduction in firearm-related violence.
This money has been spent primarily on hiring bureaucrats to run the new registry, not on law-enforcement officers. This money could be more effectively spent on longer incarceration of those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes and cracking down on gun smuggling -- the primary source of firearms used in crime in Canada. (*The Auditor General said in December of 2002 that the costs would be $1 BILLION by 2005)
There is no systematic verification of the accuracy of the information reported on registrations. The RCMP has said that it would take another 8.8 years to verify the accuracy of registration information on all shotguns and rifles. In 2002, eight firearm officers responsible for verification have resigned.
It was recently disclosed that one out of every six firearms registered has no serial number. This missing information will defeat one of the stated purposes of the Act: assisting police in tracing stolen firearms and firearms used in crimes.
The government's claim that the Firearms Act would deliver more effective screening of firearm owners has been contradicted by recently disclosed CFC information. Between 1979 and 1999 under the old FAC system, the "rejection rate" for applicants was .76 percent. Since 1999, the rejection rate for license applications under the new system is .38 percent, only half of the old rate. It is twice as easy for marginal applicants to become licensed under the new law.
Recent studies indicate that tougher gun control laws do not result in reduced crime rates or increased public safety. Indeed, they suggest the opposite.
In the United States, state attempts to regulate the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens have resulted in higher violent crime (81%) and murder (127%) rates than in states without such laws. (Lott)
Since Great Britain banned all private ownership of handguns in 1997, violent crime rose 10 percent the next year and more than doubled from 1996 to 2000. (Malcom)
In Australia, since stringent new gun control laws were introduced in 1997, homicides involving firearms have doubled and armed robberies have increased 166 percent. (Mauser)
In 1983, New Zealand discontinued universal registration of firearms after that country's police declared that the policy was a complete failure.
In sum, there is no rational connection between the objectives of the Firearms Act and the means used to implement it. It violates multiple sections of the Charter of Rights and is having no effect on reducing the use of firearms in crime or better protecting public safety.
Fair-minded judges will have no choice but to declare the Firearms Act unconstitutional and to dismiss any criminal charges brought against law-abiding Canadian citizens for alleged violations of the Act. No Canadian can be convicted or punished for violating a law that is itself unconstitutional.
This study of the Firearms Act was directed by Dr. Ted Morton of the University of Calgary and financed by:
THE RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS OWNERS OF ALBERTA
Box 74, Amisk, AB T0B 0B0 780-888-2417 blued1@telusplanet.net
THE RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS OWNERS COALITION OF BC
PO Box 93052, Langley, BC V3A 8H2 www.rfocbc.com
THE RECREATIONAL FIREARMS COMMUNITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
Box 462, Moose Jaw, SK S6H 4P1 www.rfcsask
FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO YOUR PROVINCIAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED
Contact:
BruceMontague.ca. Donate NOW.
CdnShootingSports.org. CSSA. Join Now.
FirearmsPositive.com.
HandGunban.org.
Hands Off My Handguns!
Gun-control.ca.
DumbLaw.ca.
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I just think it's important that Canadians know they have the right to bare arms.
R.Coldguy
How the Firearms Act (Bill C-68)Violates the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (Summary)
Summary of the study prepared by Dr. Ted Morton for:
The Responsible Firearm Owners of Alberta,the Responsible Firearm Owners Coalition of British Columbia and the Recreational Firearms Community of Saskatchewan.
First presented in Saskatoon, October 5, 2002
In 1995 the federal government introduced Bill C-68, a bill to change firearms legislation in Canada. After passage it is correctly identified as "Statutes of Canada 1995, Chapter 39."
It incorporates two parts: the new Firearms Act and changes to the existing Criminal Code. Throughout this paper the legislation will be referred to by it's short title The Firearms Act.
In 1999 when the Supreme Court rejected Alberta's (and seven other government's) constitutional challenge that the Firearms Act was outside of the federal government's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court began by declaring that:
"The issue before this Court is not whether gun control is good or bad, whether the law is fair or unfair to gun owners, or whether it will be effective or ineffective in reducing the harm caused by the misuse of firearms."
That was true for the law of federalism. It is not true under the Charter of Rights. If a law is found to violate a Charter right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that the law is "rationally connected" to its purpose and that it impairs the rights involved "as little as possible." While the [stated] purpose of the Firearms Act -- to reduce the use of firearms in violent crime -- is laudable and shared by all law-abiding Canadians, its licensing and registration requirements do nothing to achieve this end.
As summarized below, the Firearms Act violates the Charter in many ways. If the Supreme Court applies the same Charter rules to law-abiding firearm owners as it has to drunk-drivers, drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, single parent welfare recipients, abortion providers, murderers, refugee claimants and owners of child pornography, that is -- if it applies the law of the land even handedly -- then it will be forced by its own precedents to declare the Firearms Act unconstitutional.
Right to Liberty
The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the right to liberty (section 7 of the Charter) to protect "an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference." The
Firearms Act interferes with this liberty by making illegal the mere act of owning a firearm inside one's own home. It does so without any evidence of harm to others, the prerequisite for limiting a citizen's freedom.
Right to Security of the Person
The Firearms Act violates the right to security of the person (section 7) by taking away the ability of citizens to defend their own homes and property. The right to bear arms for the protection of one's home, family and property has been recognized in English common law for over 200 hundred years. It is affirmed in the writings of Locke and Blackstone. This right is imported into Canadian law by the preamble to the BNA Act (1867) and by section 26 of the Charter.
The Firearms Act deprives Canadians of this right by making them completely dependent upon prompt police response in the case of home invasion and robbery. This deprivation is especially harsh for the thousands of Canadians who live in rural areas where police response is often hours after a 911 call has been placed.
Right to Procedural Fairness
The manner in which the Firearms Act is administered and enforced violates the rules of procedural fairness mandated by section 7 of the Charter ("principles of fundamental justice"). In the context of their abortion ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal law must be enforced evenly in all parts of Canada. Seven provinces and territories have refused to administer the Firearms Act, creating a "checker-board" pattern of enforcement. What is legal in one part of Canada is illegal in another, and vice versa. The Charter does not permit this.
The selective enforcement of the Firearms Act also violates procedural fairness. Since the licensing requirements came into effect in 2000, no charges have been laid except as an additional charge in cases where a firearm has been used in the commission of a separate crime. This double standard violates the principle of uniform enforcement established in the Court's abortion ruling.
It also discriminates against individuals who are younger, poorer, less educated, urban and members of visible minorities -- the groups more prone to use firearms in the commission of a crime -- and in favour of unlicensed collectors, farmers, ranchers and hunters, who are generally older, more educated, more affluent and rural/small town. This double standard violates one of the oldest principles of Canada's rule of law tradition: "equality in the application and administration of the law."
Section 7
The Firearms Act violates the section 7 principle prohibiting unlimited administrative discretion. As Justice Conrad observed in her judgment in the Alberta Court of Appeal: "The entire licensing scheme is at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer. It is a discretion without minimum standards, or any absolute standards for that matter." This violates the rule of law requirement that, in the words of Dicey, prohibit "government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint."
Right against unreasonable search and seizure
Section 8 of the Charter prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the police. The courts have interpreted this to require the police to procure a search warrant from a judge before conducting a search, except in narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., "hot pursuit" or probable loss of evidence).
The importance of the warrant requirement is heightened when the premises being searched are a home. Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant "reasonable notice." Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures -- in private homes -- without prior judicial approval, they violate section 8 of the Charter.
The search and seizure powers granted by the Firearms Act are also unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes "at any reasonable time" and to search "any place where the inspector believes...there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]" and "may open any container...examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it"; and "require any person to produce for examination or copying any records books of account or other documents." Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police "fishing expeditions" imposed by the section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Right to privacy
The Supreme Court has also interpreted section 8 to impose a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from government, and applied this principle to protect impaired drivers, marijuana growers, and single parent welfare recipients. An applicant for a firearms license (POL or PAL) under the Firearms Act is forced to answer personal questions about his or her mental health history, personal finance, bankruptcy, drug use, job loss, and relationship breakdowns. The use of similar -- indeed, LESS intrusive -- questions about welfare applicants' personal lives was recently declared unconstitutional by an Ontario court. The use of these highly intrusive questions in the Firearms Act has already been condemned by the federal Privacy Commissioner.
Right to be presumed innocent
Two sections of the Firearms Act (ss.112.4 and107) place the burden of proof on the accused to prove his innocence. This violates the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Canada, this ancient right in all English-speaking democracies is given new constitutional protection by section 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court has used the right to the presumption of innocence to overturn other sections of the Criminal Code that punish drug-dealers (Oakes, 1986), impaired drivers (Whyte, 1988), pimps (Downey, 1992) and murderers (Chaulk, 1990). The courts will be obliged to extend the same constitutional right to law-abiding firearm owners.
Right against arbitrary detention
Section 9 of the Charter protects the right against arbitrary detention. The courts have interpreted detention to include being detained by police investigators to be asked questions.
(Therens, 1985) Sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize police to demand of any person in a house being searched to provide them with assistance. The Act's use of phrases such as "cause to be used," "cause to be reproduced," "shall," and "require" indicate the coercive nature of the "request" for assistance and therefore constitute a detention as defined in earlier cases.
These detentions must be deemed arbitrary when they occur in the context of the two kinds of warrantless searches authorized by the Act. (See "Right against unreasonable search and seizure," above.) The detention is also arbitrary in the context of a warrantless search because it is "at the absolute discretion of the police officer." (Hufsky, 1988).
Right to freedom of expression
Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of expression. The courts have interpreted this to protect not just written or spoken words, but also "expressive" activity such as marching in a protest rally. (Irwin Toy, 1989) The courts have also identified "individual self-fulfillment" as a core good advanced by freedom of expression. Linking these two, the BC Court of Appeal has ruled that "the personal belongings of an individual are an expression of that person's essential self" and that the possession of child pornography is therefore protected by section 2(b) of the Charter. (Sharpe, 1999)
Under these precedents, ownership of firearms qualifies as a form of expression protected by the Charter. This is doubly true for collectors of antique or rare firearms. It is also true for those who keep a firearm as a family heirloom to commemorate an ancestor's military service or pioneer roots.
These activities are all forms of self-fulfillment. In Keegstra (1990), a case involving hate propaganda, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that an expressive activity is private and not intended for public consumption confers even greater protection on it. If possession of child pornography and racist propaganda are protected by section 2(b), then certainly possession of firearms enjoy the same or greater protection.
Right to bear arms
The right to bear arms has existed in English common law for at least 300 years and is imported into Canadian law by the preamble of the BNA Act, 1867 and section 26 of the Charter. Section 26 declares that traditional rights not listed in the Charter continue to have force and effect in Canada. The first explicit recognition of the right to bear arms in British-Canadian law occurs in the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is re-affirmed by the celebrated Blackstone in his Commentaries as one of the five most important rights of British subjects; and confirmed in several 18th and 19th century precedents.
Although this right is subject to regulation by parliament, in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right. The right to bear arms is thus an historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter.
Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm -- even for purposes of self-defense in one's own home -- it violates this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
Right to counsel upon arrest or detention
Section 10(b) of the Charter protects the right to counsel "upon arrest or detention." The courts have interpreted this to mean that police cannot elicit evidence from suspects until or unless counsel (a lawyer) is present or the suspect has knowingly waived that right.
Those sections of the Firearms Act (ss.102-105) that allow an inspector to demand ANY person in the house to provide assistance are therefore in violation of section 10(b) of the Charter.
Right to property
The right to property is one of the oldest and most fundamental rights in British-Canadian legal history. The protection of private property against state deprivation can be traced to the Magna Carta (1215); the 1688 Bill of Rights; Locke's Second Treatise (1690), and Blackstone's Commentaries. Like the right to bear arms, the right to property is imported into Canadian law by the preamble to the BNA Act, 1867.
The protection of private property rights was one of the highest priorities of the Canadian founders. Canadian citizens' right to private property was confirmed by the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.
In its 1986 Singh ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights continue in force even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Charter -- which property is not. However, the Supreme Court has established that it may confer judicially enforceable constitutional protection on "unwritten constitutional principles" that are fundamental to Canadians' historical sense of justice.
The Court should be encouraged to add the right to private property to the five principles to which it has already given this protection: judicial independence, federalism, democracy, rule of law and minority rights. Indeed, without respect for the right to private property, these others would quickly become irrelevant.
Equality Rights
Section 15 of the Charter prohibits the government from discriminating against Canadians on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, particularly members of minority groups that have been historically disadvantaged. While some of the prohibited grounds of discrimination are enumerated in section 15, the Court can add new groups if it deems them to be "analogous" to the enumerated groups.
The Firearms Act discriminates unfairly and unreasonably against the following non-enumerated minorities in Canada:
rural Canadians and non-aboriginals who depend upon firearms for their livelihood.
Rural Canadians are represented by less than 31% of MPs in Parliament, and consequently their legitimate interests are systematically neglected by the majority of MPs who come from urban and suburban constituencies. Rural Canadians -- farmers, ranchers, trappers, and hunters -- regularly and lawfully employ firearms to make their living.
The effect of the Firearms Act is to impose taxes and a heavy regulatory burden on the tools of their trade. The Firearms Act also forces them to disclose sensitive personal and financial information, and threaten them with fines and/or incarceration if they fail to comply. It also has the effect of stigmatizing rural Canadians as somehow responsible for the increase in the illegal use of firearms, when in fact this is predominately an urban trend. This is precisely the type of unfair stereotyping of a politically vulnerable minority that section 15 prohibits.
The Firearms Act's exemptions for Aboriginals discriminate against similarly situated non-aboriginals on the basis of their race. Parliament realized that many Aboriginals farm, ranch, trap, or hunt for their living and therefore provided exemptions for this sub-group of Aboriginals. While this exemption is reasonable, it is under-inclusive because it excludes non-Aboriginals who farm, ranch, trap, or hunt for their living.
The Supreme Court has declared in Vriend (1998) and Law (1999) that statutes that confer a benefit but do not extend the benefit to a similarly situated minority (enumerated or analogous) violate section 15.
Section 27
Section 27 directs the courts to interpret the rights protected in the Charter in a manner that is consistent with the protection and preservation of Canada's multicultural heritage.
The lawful and legitimate use of firearms -- during the early years of settlement and still today by ranchers, farmers, trappers and hunters -- is an integral part of Canada's multicultural heritage.
Section 27 thus enhances all of the preceding rights of Canadian firearm owners.
Section 1
To the extent that the Firearms Act restricts any of the rights listed above, the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that such restrictions are "reasonable." To do this, the Supreme Court has developed the "Oakes test", which requires the government to demonstrate that the Act: serves an important public policy objective. is rationally connected to that objective. impairs the right in issue as little as possible does more good than harm (proportionality).
While the purpose of the Firearms Act -- the reduction of illegal use of firearm violence -- easily qualifies as an important public policy objective, the means used to achieve this objective utterly fail the last three rules of the Oakes test.
In 1995 when the Firearms Act was enacted, there was no demonstrable need for new restrictions on firearm owners:
• Homicides were at a 25-year low.
• Firearms-related suicides were at a 25-year low.
• Hospitalizations due to firearms were at an 8-year low.
The Firearms Act goes much further than just creating a screening process for those who wish to acquire firearms. It criminalizes the very possession of a firearm in the absence of any wrongdoing or threat of harm to others.
Despite the mandatory registration of "restricted" weapons since 1969 robbery rates increased over next 20 years, as did the number of restricted weapons offenses. Handguns have required registration since 1934.
Three-quarters of all firearms-related deaths are suicide. Suicide is not a crime; does not threaten public safety; and would not be affected by registration requirements.
Over 90 percent of firearms-related violence involves handguns (mostly unregistered). Registering long-guns (shotguns and rifles) will have no effect on this.
In all violent crimes in Canada in 1996, only 3 percent involved any type of firearms. Knives and hockey sticks are a more prevalent form of assault weapon.
The Firearms Act targets the wrong demographic group. Most firearm-related crimes are committed by younger, urban residents with criminal records. The legal use of firearms is concentrated in older, rural and small town residents. Requiring the latter to register their firearms will have no effect on the former.
Evidence presented by the Justice Department to Parliament to justify the need for C-68 in 1995 has since been repudiated as inaccurate by the RCMP. The RCMP stated that the Justice statistics overstated the number of firearms used in violent crimes in 1993 by a factor of 9 (623 compared to 73 in reality).
Costs of implementing the Firearms Act have soared from the government's initial estimate of $85 million dollars over five years to over $670* million by July, 2002 -- with no measurable reduction in firearm-related violence.
This money has been spent primarily on hiring bureaucrats to run the new registry, not on law-enforcement officers. This money could be more effectively spent on longer incarceration of those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes and cracking down on gun smuggling -- the primary source of firearms used in crime in Canada. (*The Auditor General said in December of 2002 that the costs would be $1 BILLION by 2005)
There is no systematic verification of the accuracy of the information reported on registrations. The RCMP has said that it would take another 8.8 years to verify the accuracy of registration information on all shotguns and rifles. In 2002, eight firearm officers responsible for verification have resigned.
It was recently disclosed that one out of every six firearms registered has no serial number. This missing information will defeat one of the stated purposes of the Act: assisting police in tracing stolen firearms and firearms used in crimes.
The government's claim that the Firearms Act would deliver more effective screening of firearm owners has been contradicted by recently disclosed CFC information. Between 1979 and 1999 under the old FAC system, the "rejection rate" for applicants was .76 percent. Since 1999, the rejection rate for license applications under the new system is .38 percent, only half of the old rate. It is twice as easy for marginal applicants to become licensed under the new law.
Recent studies indicate that tougher gun control laws do not result in reduced crime rates or increased public safety. Indeed, they suggest the opposite.
In the United States, state attempts to regulate the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens have resulted in higher violent crime (81%) and murder (127%) rates than in states without such laws. (Lott)
Since Great Britain banned all private ownership of handguns in 1997, violent crime rose 10 percent the next year and more than doubled from 1996 to 2000. (Malcom)
In Australia, since stringent new gun control laws were introduced in 1997, homicides involving firearms have doubled and armed robberies have increased 166 percent. (Mauser)
In 1983, New Zealand discontinued universal registration of firearms after that country's police declared that the policy was a complete failure.
In sum, there is no rational connection between the objectives of the Firearms Act and the means used to implement it. It violates multiple sections of the Charter of Rights and is having no effect on reducing the use of firearms in crime or better protecting public safety.
Fair-minded judges will have no choice but to declare the Firearms Act unconstitutional and to dismiss any criminal charges brought against law-abiding Canadian citizens for alleged violations of the Act. No Canadian can be convicted or punished for violating a law that is itself unconstitutional.
This study of the Firearms Act was directed by Dr. Ted Morton of the University of Calgary and financed by:
THE RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS OWNERS OF ALBERTA
Box 74, Amisk, AB T0B 0B0 780-888-2417 blued1@telusplanet.net
THE RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS OWNERS COALITION OF BC
PO Box 93052, Langley, BC V3A 8H2 www.rfocbc.com
THE RECREATIONAL FIREARMS COMMUNITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
Box 462, Moose Jaw, SK S6H 4P1 www.rfcsask
FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO YOUR PROVINCIAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED
Contact:
BruceMontague.ca. Donate NOW.
CdnShootingSports.org. CSSA. Join Now.
FirearmsPositive.com.
HandGunban.org.
Hands Off My Handguns!
Gun-control.ca.
DumbLaw.ca.
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
On Religion and War By R.Coldguy
All this ta-do about Religion being the cause of all wars.
Religion isn’t the cause of war. MAN IS!!!
Wars are MAN made!
As are all the religions of the world.
And if you take the time to look them both up in the Webster’s Dictionary God and Superman both have the same qualifications.
But no one’s running around saying Superman is a God now are they? (well other than me that is)
God is a belief, just as Santa Clause is a belief.
This does not make God real, any more than believing in Santa Clause
Make’s him real.
But when the little children believe in Santa Clause, He has a tendency to show up on Christmas morning bringing gifts.
We really can’t say the same for people that believe in God now can we?
At least I don’t ever remember God showing up on Sunday morning, not in all the years that I attended church anyway.
And when you get right down to it Santa Clause has been bringing nothing but happiness to the little children of the world.
God on the other hand lets millions of his little children die from starvation every year!
Bottom line people;
Religion doesn’t start wars man does and we have a far better chance that Superman will save the world than we do that all those unanswered prayers to God will.
And to tell you the truth, if I’m going to believe in some imaginary person bringing peace happiness and good will to all men.
I think I’ll stick with Santa Clause.
He has a better batting average than God. And to my knowledge there’s never been a war fought in the name of Santa :)
R.Coldguy
Religion isn’t the cause of war. MAN IS!!!
Wars are MAN made!
As are all the religions of the world.
And if you take the time to look them both up in the Webster’s Dictionary God and Superman both have the same qualifications.
But no one’s running around saying Superman is a God now are they? (well other than me that is)
God is a belief, just as Santa Clause is a belief.
This does not make God real, any more than believing in Santa Clause
Make’s him real.
But when the little children believe in Santa Clause, He has a tendency to show up on Christmas morning bringing gifts.
We really can’t say the same for people that believe in God now can we?
At least I don’t ever remember God showing up on Sunday morning, not in all the years that I attended church anyway.
And when you get right down to it Santa Clause has been bringing nothing but happiness to the little children of the world.
God on the other hand lets millions of his little children die from starvation every year!
Bottom line people;
Religion doesn’t start wars man does and we have a far better chance that Superman will save the world than we do that all those unanswered prayers to God will.
And to tell you the truth, if I’m going to believe in some imaginary person bringing peace happiness and good will to all men.
I think I’ll stick with Santa Clause.
He has a better batting average than God. And to my knowledge there’s never been a war fought in the name of Santa :)
R.Coldguy
Friday, July 10, 2009
On the Homelss by R.Coldguy
House the Homeless
We here in BC (Canada Really) want to house the homeless. And yet I pass one of our fellow Canadians on occasion when I’m out for my morning walk.
Usually (or lets say more times than not) when I pass him on the trail, he is standing in front of his shopping cart with one of those little camping type mirrors shaving or brushing his teeth. (Using a city spigot)
Now here is a man that gets up pretty much the same time of day nearly everyday (that I have seen him anyway) that still has the self esteem that most business men have that go to nine to five jobs every day.
This man doesn’t want to be housed! He has give up on society (but not him self) he just doesn’t want to be a part of it anymore! (And I really can’t blame him)
We have welfare for those that want or need it; we don’t need to house the homeless!!! Why not try giving the homeless money for all the garbage ($/lb) they collect instead of just for pop cans and plastic bottles.
I’m willing to bet that Vancouver would be as clean if not cleaner than China or Japan in four to six months.
Give them all camouflage jump suits and the City will be cleaned up before the Olympics and the visitors won’t even see them J
Maybe if we got rid of the people that want to home the homeless that would probably save enough to pay the homeless for keeping our city clean.
I mean they’re coming here from all over Canada!!!
Why not put them to work???
Ya Ya I know, that’s Union work, well if it is then the Union workers are doing a piss poor job!
R.Coldguy
We here in BC (Canada Really) want to house the homeless. And yet I pass one of our fellow Canadians on occasion when I’m out for my morning walk.
Usually (or lets say more times than not) when I pass him on the trail, he is standing in front of his shopping cart with one of those little camping type mirrors shaving or brushing his teeth. (Using a city spigot)
Now here is a man that gets up pretty much the same time of day nearly everyday (that I have seen him anyway) that still has the self esteem that most business men have that go to nine to five jobs every day.
This man doesn’t want to be housed! He has give up on society (but not him self) he just doesn’t want to be a part of it anymore! (And I really can’t blame him)
We have welfare for those that want or need it; we don’t need to house the homeless!!! Why not try giving the homeless money for all the garbage ($/lb) they collect instead of just for pop cans and plastic bottles.
I’m willing to bet that Vancouver would be as clean if not cleaner than China or Japan in four to six months.
Give them all camouflage jump suits and the City will be cleaned up before the Olympics and the visitors won’t even see them J
Maybe if we got rid of the people that want to home the homeless that would probably save enough to pay the homeless for keeping our city clean.
I mean they’re coming here from all over Canada!!!
Why not put them to work???
Ya Ya I know, that’s Union work, well if it is then the Union workers are doing a piss poor job!
R.Coldguy
On Pot by R.Coldguy
It's time People!!!
In or around 1942 during the second war Trudeau and his friends drove their motorcycles wearing Prussian military uniforms, complete with pointed steel helmets.(protesting the War)
His wife Margaret smoked pot with the Rolling Stones in or around 1977 and was once quoted saying: It was easy to get marijuana,” We grew it in our gardens in the summertime” and yet we voted him in as prim Minster and excepted her with open arms as the youngest first lady of Canada. (This is over 30 years ago people)
The people running our government now where all around in 1969 when Woodstock was such a big hit with the young at heart, when the so called flower children of that time where preaching love and peace and yes smoking pot!! (This was 40 years ago)
And if anyone in a government position today say’s they didn’t try pot at some time in their life I would have to say they are lying through their teeth!!!
In the 19th century, Queen Victoria was told to smoke marijuana to treat menstrual cramps. The good things that marijuana does or can do is endless (look it up)
The list of prominent people that have smoked pot is endless, to long for this comment at any rate. (again look it up)
Let’s face it People, pot has been around since we lived in caves and it’s going to be around long after man kind has killed off all human life on this planet!!!
Ask anyone that grows pot if they want it legalized and I guaranty you that they will say NO!!! They make way to much money growing pot..
All this makes me wonder WHY doesn’t the government want to legalize pot??
Could it be that the drug lords, the politicians, the judges, the lawyers and the rich in general
are making way to much money of this cash cow????
The war on drugs can’t be won!!!! It’s a waste of our tax payer’s money; put the money into educating the people instead of incarcerating them!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see." - Thomas Jefferson 1781.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decriminalize drugs (All Drugs) stop putting our children friends and neighbors in jail and ruining there lives for such stupid laws as smoking pot.
Canada and the USA spend millions/billions on the war on drugs. a war that Canada and the USA are losing!!!
What a waste of taxpayers money!!!
Stop the drug dealers the cartel the crime on the streets and stop wasting money on a war that we can't win!!!
We are wining the war on cigarettes and we are wining it with advertising not putting honest people in jail!!!
Put the criminals in jail and use the money to educate the public about drugs and to help the addicts with there addictions. Drug addiction is a sickness just like being an alcoholic is a sickness!!! you don't put alcoholics in jail for drinking and you don't wast tax payers money on fighting the cause of there addiction (alcohol). So why are we wasting money on fighting drugs???
Decriminalize drugs and let the police fight real crime.
And for you bleeding hearts that are saying I must be a druggie.
I don't drink, I don't smoke and I don't do drugs!!!!
I just don't agree with putting our children in jail and ruining there lives when we can educate them against falling in to the trap of drug addiction.
Most crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol and yet the it;s legal!!!
People smoke pot and get happy and yet it's illegal ???
Do your research on drugs and stop listening to what the government and bible thumpers are telling you!!!
Stop the war on drugs!!! it's not working!!! All it's doing is putting money in the pockets of the judges, the lawyers, the police and criminals of our country.
R.Coldguy
In or around 1942 during the second war Trudeau and his friends drove their motorcycles wearing Prussian military uniforms, complete with pointed steel helmets.(protesting the War)
His wife Margaret smoked pot with the Rolling Stones in or around 1977 and was once quoted saying: It was easy to get marijuana,” We grew it in our gardens in the summertime” and yet we voted him in as prim Minster and excepted her with open arms as the youngest first lady of Canada. (This is over 30 years ago people)
The people running our government now where all around in 1969 when Woodstock was such a big hit with the young at heart, when the so called flower children of that time where preaching love and peace and yes smoking pot!! (This was 40 years ago)
And if anyone in a government position today say’s they didn’t try pot at some time in their life I would have to say they are lying through their teeth!!!
In the 19th century, Queen Victoria was told to smoke marijuana to treat menstrual cramps. The good things that marijuana does or can do is endless (look it up)
The list of prominent people that have smoked pot is endless, to long for this comment at any rate. (again look it up)
Let’s face it People, pot has been around since we lived in caves and it’s going to be around long after man kind has killed off all human life on this planet!!!
Ask anyone that grows pot if they want it legalized and I guaranty you that they will say NO!!! They make way to much money growing pot..
All this makes me wonder WHY doesn’t the government want to legalize pot??
Could it be that the drug lords, the politicians, the judges, the lawyers and the rich in general
are making way to much money of this cash cow????
The war on drugs can’t be won!!!! It’s a waste of our tax payer’s money; put the money into educating the people instead of incarcerating them!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see." - Thomas Jefferson 1781.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decriminalize drugs (All Drugs) stop putting our children friends and neighbors in jail and ruining there lives for such stupid laws as smoking pot.
Canada and the USA spend millions/billions on the war on drugs. a war that Canada and the USA are losing!!!
What a waste of taxpayers money!!!
Stop the drug dealers the cartel the crime on the streets and stop wasting money on a war that we can't win!!!
We are wining the war on cigarettes and we are wining it with advertising not putting honest people in jail!!!
Put the criminals in jail and use the money to educate the public about drugs and to help the addicts with there addictions. Drug addiction is a sickness just like being an alcoholic is a sickness!!! you don't put alcoholics in jail for drinking and you don't wast tax payers money on fighting the cause of there addiction (alcohol). So why are we wasting money on fighting drugs???
Decriminalize drugs and let the police fight real crime.
And for you bleeding hearts that are saying I must be a druggie.
I don't drink, I don't smoke and I don't do drugs!!!!
I just don't agree with putting our children in jail and ruining there lives when we can educate them against falling in to the trap of drug addiction.
Most crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol and yet the it;s legal!!!
People smoke pot and get happy and yet it's illegal ???
Do your research on drugs and stop listening to what the government and bible thumpers are telling you!!!
Stop the war on drugs!!! it's not working!!! All it's doing is putting money in the pockets of the judges, the lawyers, the police and criminals of our country.
R.Coldguy
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Spring
She looked dirty and mean one hell of a sight.
As I walked into her room last night.
Moving up slowly to be by her side,
I knew by her look I'd offended her pride.
So many months since we've been together,
Seeing her now it seemed like forever.
Touching her seat so soft and smooth,
She started to warm up to my every move.
Rubbing her legs one at a time,
I knew deep inside that she'd always be mine.
Pulling her gently, I stood her up straight,
Both of us knowing, we just couldn't wait.
Climbing on her, I whispered with pride,
Now and forever, I'll be by you're side.
I knew all the right buttons to push,
To make all her juices flow in a rush.
Pushing it harder she started to growl,
Ramming it home, she started to howl.
Hitting the pavement, I let out a yell,
Thank God for summer, winter is Hell!!!
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
RColdguy
It’s about a motor cycle
Shame on you
A Mother and her Son
To My Son
My hands were busy through the day; I didn't have much time to play .
The little games you asked me to, I didn't have much time for you.
I'd wash your clothes I'd sew and cook, but when you'd bring your picture book.
And ask me please to share your fun, I'd say: "A little later son.
I'd tuck you in all safe at night, and hear your prayers, turn out the light.
Then tiptoe softly to the door, I wish I'd stayed a minute more.
For life is short, the years rush past, a little boy grows up so fast.
No longer is he at your side, his precious secrets to confide.
The picture books are put away; there ore no longer games to play.
No good night kiss, no prayers to hear, that all belongs to yesteryear.
My hands, once busy, now are still, the days are long and hard to fill.
I wish I could go back and do the little things you asked me to.
Love
Mom
To Mom
Your hands were busy through the day; you didn't have the time to play.
You'd wash my clothes you'd sew and cook; I never knew the time it took.
My picture book I'd bring to you, you'd say there's just too much to do.
I'd ask you please to share my fun; you'd say a little later son.
You'd tuck me in to bed at night; I'd have a dream be scared with fright.
Then run to you climb in your bed, you'd hold me close and pat my head.
You never think when you are young; you’re much too busy having fun.
I never understood you see, those things you did were just for me.
Life is short the years run past; I never knew I'd grow up so fast.
No longer am I at your side, a little guy so full of pride.
The picture book now put away, there are no longer games to play.
No good night kisses or dreams of fear, that all belongs to yesteryear.
I'm grown up now with a family too, it's hard to find the time for you.
I hope you'll try to understand, when I'm not there to hold your hand.
The reasons not that I don't care; the time it seems is just not there.
Remember this when I'm away, I love you mom, more each day.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
R.Coldguy
My hands were busy through the day; I didn't have much time to play .
The little games you asked me to, I didn't have much time for you.
I'd wash your clothes I'd sew and cook, but when you'd bring your picture book.
And ask me please to share your fun, I'd say: "A little later son.
I'd tuck you in all safe at night, and hear your prayers, turn out the light.
Then tiptoe softly to the door, I wish I'd stayed a minute more.
For life is short, the years rush past, a little boy grows up so fast.
No longer is he at your side, his precious secrets to confide.
The picture books are put away; there ore no longer games to play.
No good night kiss, no prayers to hear, that all belongs to yesteryear.
My hands, once busy, now are still, the days are long and hard to fill.
I wish I could go back and do the little things you asked me to.
Love
Mom
To Mom
Your hands were busy through the day; you didn't have the time to play.
You'd wash my clothes you'd sew and cook; I never knew the time it took.
My picture book I'd bring to you, you'd say there's just too much to do.
I'd ask you please to share my fun; you'd say a little later son.
You'd tuck me in to bed at night; I'd have a dream be scared with fright.
Then run to you climb in your bed, you'd hold me close and pat my head.
You never think when you are young; you’re much too busy having fun.
I never understood you see, those things you did were just for me.
Life is short the years run past; I never knew I'd grow up so fast.
No longer am I at your side, a little guy so full of pride.
The picture book now put away, there are no longer games to play.
No good night kisses or dreams of fear, that all belongs to yesteryear.
I'm grown up now with a family too, it's hard to find the time for you.
I hope you'll try to understand, when I'm not there to hold your hand.
The reasons not that I don't care; the time it seems is just not there.
Remember this when I'm away, I love you mom, more each day.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
R.Coldguy
A Special Friend
When he was just a little boy, his Mother said to him one day.
He would never know how close she came, to giving him away.
Feeling so meek and feeble, with little tear drops in his eyes.
He stood up tall with hands on hips and boldly asks her why.
Don't look so sad she said to him, it's really not all that bad.
Your Aunt wanted a boy like you, the son she’d never had.
The two of them had made a pact, that on that special day.
If the newborn were a boy, he'd go home with her to stay.
Now on that special day it seams’s, his mother broke her word.
To let her newborn baby go must have seemed to her absurd.
She cared for him and cherished him, and showed him off with pride.
Never once regretting the pact she'd broke, she'd kept him by her side.
As time moved on the boy grew strong, and he just seemed to know.
That every year about this time, off to his Aunt Nora's he would go.
The summer's that he'd spend with her, full of laughter love and fun.
Had formed a bond between the two of them, like a mother and a son.
They laughed and played through the day, she'd tuck him in at night.
She'd spank his bottom when he was bad, then hug him oh so tight.
The little boy's grown up now, no summers left for him to spend.
With his Aunt Nora, his second Mom, a very special friend.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
RColdguy
I wrote this for my aunt Nora who I loved like a mother!
A Birthday Wish for a Princess
I've referred to you as a princess I truly hope that you won't mind.
For there's no better word you see for someone that's so sweet and kind.
It could be that cute smile you have so pleasant and so sweet.
That brings such joy and happiness to everyone that you meet.
If everyone in this whole wide world had your charm and grace.
I'm sure that they would all agree it would be a far better place.
Your birthday comes but once a year and this will be your 25th.
So for a very special Princess I’ll have to find a very special gift.
Nothing that's too big and balky and I don't want it to be too small.
But it has to be a very special gift the most special of them all.
You have more love than anyone and more than enough affection.
There isn't a single thing you need to complete your Elvis collection.
I thought about calling John Stamos so he could sing a song for you.
But then Greg would probably get jealous and that would never do.
I could hold you ever so gently in my arms and smother you with a kiss.
That would be a very special gift but it would probably upset Chris.
We could go parting with your Grandma that would be lots of fun.
Only when it can time to take you home I'd have to deal with your mom.
Now I think I've found the answer it came to me late last night.
It's really kind of wonderful and I hope you'll think I'm right.
You won't be able to hold it and it would be kind of hard to see.
For this very special gift I've found is just for you from me.
It's a present that suit's a Princess a special present just for you.
It's a Wish for joy and happiness to last your whole life through.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
RColdguy
The Inside You
It's you that I love my darling
I loved “you” when you were in the body of youth.
I loved “you” when you were in the body of motherhood.
I loved “you” when you were in the body of maturity and Grace.
I will still love “you” long after your body no longer exists.
It’s “You” I love my darling, the inside “You”
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
RColdguy
My Little Princess
I watched my life rush past me I hadn’t felt this way in years.
As I held her in my arms as my eye’s filled up with tears.
The Warm feeling I was having way down deep inside.
Were tearing me apart as my heart filled up with pride.
Looking down at my daughter as she lay in that hospital bed.
The day of her own birth started rushing through my head.
So pretty and so perfect oh so wonderful and she’s all mine.
She’ll always be my little princess until the end of time.
As my little girl looked up at me a smile from ear to ear.
She wisped ever so softly so that only I could hear.
I knew that you’d be happy I knew that you’d be glad.
I know that all little girls are very special to you dad.
As I looked down at my daughter as I looked at her little girl.
My head started spinning my thoughts all in a whirl.
How do I tell her how I feel Oh what am I go do?
How do I explain to her that little girls my princess too!
As I hold my new granddaughter oh so gently in my arms.
It came to me that both of them have very special charms.
One a new born baby a very special little princess you see?
And One a young mother who will always be a princess to me.
As I sit here rocking her in my arms the days they drift on by.
Most days’ she’s oh so happy and on other days she’ll cry.
As I sit here, as I wonder that I’ve sat here once before.
Holding a little princess and then I start to sing once more.
Oh so pretty and so perfect oh so wonderful and oh so grand.
As I count each little finger on each of her little hands.
A cute little dimple on each cheek and such a pudgy little nose.
As I count ten little fingers and then I count ten little toes.
I think of all the good times and all the fun we’ve had.
Some were up and some were down some happy and some sad.
As my two little girls look up at me with their beautiful little smile
I can’t help thinking to my self, my life has been all worthwhile.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
Gramps
R.Coldguy
To My Son
When I was young I use to play, high on life, throughout the day.
Then in my teens they came to me, with beer and drugs and smokes for free
I stood up tall, as I would say; I didn't need those things to play.
And on the days there was no fun, they'd plead with me to try just one.
I'd tell them plain as it could be; their artificial fun was just not for me. If you want to be like all the rest, then go ahead and be my guest.
Then on the day I lost my dad, when I was down and feeling sad. They came to me with sympathy; they said they really cared for me. Try this once it's not so bad, it will help you forget your dad.
They were right it worked just fine; it erased the sorrows from my mind. This all seemed so really great to me, to be able to escape reality.
Now whenever I get sad, I'll get high it's not that bad.
The day’s float by the years run past, my minds turned fogy lost in grass. The alcohol has turned me mad; I've lost the friends that I once had.
It seams to me when I was young, they told me this would all be fun. How to explain so that you will know, that there's a better way to go. Except your sorrows and deal with your past, life moves by way to fast. Stand up straight when in a crowd, your one of a kind so stand up proud.
The beer and drugs there still there, the friends that say they really care.
If they are truly friends you know, they will accept your natural glow. You'll have fun that's meant to be, by living your life clean and free.
If you can leave the artificial fun behind, I'm sure in time that you will find.
Sorrows that were meant to be will fade with time just naturally.
So get high on life and have your fun, and make me proud that your my son
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
Dad
R.Coldguy
When One has worked hard all one's life
When one has worked hard all one’s life and now one has retired and one is in
better financial shape now than one has ever been in one’s life.
Yet one’s financial advisor say's that one doesn't have any money to spend?
One has to understand that, one doesn't owe any money to anyone.
So instead of one having creditors at ones door, now one has someone calling one up on
one’s phone or someone sending one e-mails or someone mailing one offers in the mail.
Every one of them, trying to give one, more money to spend!
Yet one’s financial advisor say's one doesn't need any of their money to spend because
One has one’s own money?
One is very, very, confused!!!!!
For one; what is the purpose of one having more money if one never has enough to spend?
For another one; doe's one ever have enough money so that one has enough money to spend?
For another one; who will be the one that ends up with the money that one doesn’t spend?
For another one; who ever the one is that ends up with the money that one doesn't spend.
Will that someone spend one’s money?
Or
Will that someone keep it, so that someone, can give it to someone else not to spend?
To add one more to one’s confusion:
When one owed all the money one had. One had more money for one to spend!
And on one final note:
One thinks that if someone is going to spend the money that one doesn't have enough of yet to spend.
Then one thinks that, that someone, should be, One’s Self !
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
R.Coldguy
I don't want you to die Grandpa
How do I describe the most important part of life to you my darling?
With out death little princess there is no life. Everything that lives die’s this is the way of things, the trees, the flowers, the birds, the bee’s, the animals and yes humans to.
When I was very young, my father’s heart stopped and his body stopped functioning. When they told me of my father’s death, I couldn’t believe it! He was there I saw him just hours ago. I could still see my fathers face in my mind he couldn’t be dead he couldn’t!
I got my hat and coat and I went out for a walk, I needed to be by my self so I could work this out my self. While I was walking I was talking to my father it was like he was still there walking beside me, I could see him I could feel his love and I could feel the closeness and the love inside me that I felt for him.
As we walked along, I told Dad that I couldn’t handle this I was too young to take care of my mother and my sister. Dad just laughed and said; my son you can do what ever you want to do in this world if you try. And then he said something very important to me that helped me through the rest of my life.
Now you my say I’m crazy because my fathers body was no longer able to function in this world and was no longer here with us, but I’m telling you as we walked along I could still see him as if he was right there beside me.
As we walked along he looked into my eyes as he said to me; Son my body has failed me and it is time for me to go, but my love and the love we shared together can live on in you and as long as you keep that love inside your heart I will be with you always to watch over you and to help you as you travel through life
Through the years I have kept my father alive inside me, I can still see his face and I can still hear his laughter, I can still see him dancing with a baby in his arms. I remember his views, his laughter and his love.
Now when ever I make a decision in life Dad is right there with me. I knew how Dad felt and he would not be proud of me if I was doing something wrong to some one else. So I tried to live my life so that he would always be proud of me.
So you see little princess it’s the body that dies not the person inside, the person inside will live on forever as long as there is someone to keep them inside their heart and keep their love alive.
So when my body stops working and it is time for me to move on. Then I will join my father and we will both live inside of you, your mother, your father, your brother and your Grandma to.
As life moves on and as you grow as a young women, I will be there inside your heart, I will be there when you laugh I will be there when you cry I will be there to comfort you when you need someone to talk to. I will be inside you in that special place we keep all the love we feel for each other.
You will have children and they will have children and you will grow old and become a Grandmother your self. And then one day your body will get to old to work anymore and it will stop functioning and then you too will move on to be with me and my father and we will live on in the hearts of your children and your grandchildren.
So you see little princess, Grandpa will never really die, my body will stop working one day because that is the way of things.
But Grandpas love, his laughter and all the memories you have of your Grandpa will live on inside you until one day when it is time and your body no longer can keep going and your body stops working and you move on.
The inside you the love and the warmth that has been pasted on to you from all the generations before you will all be joined again as one big family.
Living on forever in the hearts of our children.
I love you little princess
Gramps
R.Coldguy
What is Love Daddy
What is love daddy, answer me please, when I fall in love daddy will I skin my knees?
How can I explain something to you that poets and scholars have failed to do?
If love is blind daddy then could it be, that I will need glasses to help me see?
The way we use love may seem absurd, but when you think about it, loves just a word.
If love can't be seen daddy and love can't be bought, how will I know how much love that I've got?
Love is a feeling you get deep inside, for things that you cherish and care for with pride.
If you can't touch love daddy and love has no smell, then when I find love how will I tell?
When you find true love take it from me, you don't hold it down you' just set it free.
Please tell me daddy, for I need to know, when you find love can you just let it go?
If it’ is true love I think you will find, it will come back to you, if you just give it time.
When I am lovesick daddy and feeling so low, then is it to a doctor that I must go?
Loves as strong as iron so that it can endure if you try to bend love you'll lose it for sure.
You love mummy, that's what you said, then why do you two wrestle when you go to bed?
Love can be whatever you want it to be you can make love what ever you want don't you see.
If I love those jeans that fit me just right, then should I take them to bed with me at night?
There are many kinds of love my dear, if we go through them all it could take us a year.
Well if I love the dog or even my cat, do I hug them or pet them answer me that?
Love is as fragile as glass my dear; if you handle it gently it will last through the years.
I think love must be the feeling I get deep inside when you hug me and kiss and hold me with pride.
Yes little princess you've got it just right, now jump into bed, I love you, good night.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
Daddy
R.Coldguy
How can I explain something to you that poets and scholars have failed to do?
If love is blind daddy then could it be, that I will need glasses to help me see?
The way we use love may seem absurd, but when you think about it, loves just a word.
If love can't be seen daddy and love can't be bought, how will I know how much love that I've got?
Love is a feeling you get deep inside, for things that you cherish and care for with pride.
If you can't touch love daddy and love has no smell, then when I find love how will I tell?
When you find true love take it from me, you don't hold it down you' just set it free.
Please tell me daddy, for I need to know, when you find love can you just let it go?
If it’ is true love I think you will find, it will come back to you, if you just give it time.
When I am lovesick daddy and feeling so low, then is it to a doctor that I must go?
Loves as strong as iron so that it can endure if you try to bend love you'll lose it for sure.
You love mummy, that's what you said, then why do you two wrestle when you go to bed?
Love can be whatever you want it to be you can make love what ever you want don't you see.
If I love those jeans that fit me just right, then should I take them to bed with me at night?
There are many kinds of love my dear, if we go through them all it could take us a year.
Well if I love the dog or even my cat, do I hug them or pet them answer me that?
Love is as fragile as glass my dear; if you handle it gently it will last through the years.
I think love must be the feeling I get deep inside when you hug me and kiss and hold me with pride.
Yes little princess you've got it just right, now jump into bed, I love you, good night.
Love Always
&
Forever Peace
Daddy
R.Coldguy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)