Terrorist close to home.......

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
How was he allowed to own all that in Canada? I thought the laws were more restrictive.

And why do Canadians still submit to Her Majesty?


Judging by the letter, I don't think he was "allowed" to own any of it.


Well if they're known to be in his possession and known to be illegal, and there is an imminent threat, do Canadian laws allow for more active means of retrieving them?

Of course if terror is on his mind, I'd think that bombs would unfortunately be his first tool. The guns only there to protect the bomb. Scary to have to think about that...

 

[bvance554]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Overkill,

You familiar what happened in Oklahoma City ?



The van full of fertilizer? Yes.
Wouldn't have happened with organic fertilizer!!!
Would you crawl back in your hole please?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Icecube
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
How was he allowed to own all that in Canada? I thought the laws were more restrictive.

And why do Canadians still submit to Her Majesty?


Because she is our Queen, our Head of state. Kind of cool if you ask me (and this comment comes from a French Canadian, ......how about that!!!!)


But despite being a constitutional monarchy, everything else was severed it seems by the acts of 31 and 82. So given that all legislative and true executive power is separate and distinct, what's the point of submitting to her?

Do Canadians still chant "God save the Queen" at every opportunity, like good subjects of then Crown? Honest question... Sorry it's OT.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
The media may have decided that you were not interested in such a story.

The media is also lazy and couldn't be bothered with checking court dockets, particularly with respect to lower courts. Unless an officer or a prosecutor or defence lawyer want the publicity, it often escapes the notice of the media. We've had murders in this province go without any media notice.

CT8: As for being subjects, that's a bit of a semantics issue. From a purely legal perspective, we're not subjects of the British Crown since we're not a colony. As it stands now, Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and the Queen of England as two separate offices.

And yes, "God Save the Queen" still has its place here.

 

[Shannow]

Not to make light of the old stick, but Queen Betsy of Buckinghuge Palace was her self the target of a terror threat on Remmbrance Day (11/11)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/queen-elizab...108-11j7z3.html

 

[andyd]

The Queen of England is a fine old lady. I'm glad the plot was foiled.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Icecube
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
How was he allowed to own all that in Canada? I thought the laws were more restrictive.

And why do Canadians still submit to Her Majesty?


Because she is our Queen, our Head of state. Kind of cool if you ask me (and this comment comes from a French Canadian, ......how about that!!!!)


But despite being a constitutional monarchy, everything else was severed it seems by the acts of 31 and 82. So given that all legislative and true executive power is separate and distinct, what's the point of submitting to her?

Do Canadians still chant "God save the Queen" at every opportunity, like good subjects of then Crown? Honest question... Sorry it's OT.


No, I don't believe I've uttered, or ever heard somebody utter those words in my life.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
How was he allowed to own all that in Canada? I thought the laws were more restrictive.

And why do Canadians still submit to Her Majesty?


Judging by the letter, I don't think he was "allowed" to own any of it.


Well if they're known to be in his possession and known to be illegal, and there is an imminent threat, do Canadian laws allow for more active means of retrieving them?

Of course if terror is on his mind, I'd think that bombs would unfortunately be his first tool. The guns only there to protect the bomb. Scary to have to think about that...


Judging by this caption:

Quote:
City police raided the Kawartha Heights Blvd. home of Mohammed Aqeeq Ansari and seized several firearms two years ago.


I don't think he actually "voluntarily" gave them up. I think it is a matter of legal language that, after they seized the list of stuff, that he then had to "forfeit" these items, to the Crown, under the Criminal Code, regardless of the fact that he actually didn't have them in his possession. Or at least that's the way I'm reading it

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
Yes, hope the effort aims terrorist Johns and Janes with their arsenals too.
Well, you won't hear about it on this forum though.

 

[stockrex]

Lonewolves are everywhere,

One very close to me,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting


what the, they took his guns cuz of storage violation??

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2013/03/07/man-has-to-give-up-20k-worth-of-guns

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
Lonewolves are everywhere,

One very close to me,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting


what the, they took his guns cuz of storage violation??

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2013/03/07/man-has-to-give-up-20k-worth-of-guns



Looks that way. Appears the current story is an evolution of that one. I'm imagining the "unsafe storage" raid was just a front for the investigation that resulted in the article I posted.

 

[L_Sludger]

I've got nothing positive to say about Pakistan.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
I've got nothing positive to say about Pakistan.

ahh, how abut garlic naan? how about tandoori fish...

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not to make light of the old stick, but Queen Betsy of Buckinghuge Palace was her self the target of a terror threat on Remmbrance Day (11/11)

I think that would have been rather counterproductive in the long run.

Overkill: Courts are generally closed with "God Save the Queen."

 

[simple_gifts]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
I've got nothing positive to say about Pakistan.


But they elected a woman as prime minister of a predominantly Muslim country over 25 years ago; sort of dismantles the narrative you've heard recently, no?

 

[kozanoglu]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
I've got nothing positive to say about Pakistan.


But they elected a woman as prime minister of a predominantly Muslim country over 25 years ago; sort of dismantles the narrative you've heard recently, no?


He does not have a narrative. What he has is his subjective take. His hate.
It is ok to hate Muslims, they are the negroes of the century.

 

[Stelth]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Some serious ordnance on that list.
Sarcasm?


Hardly. A Kriss Vector, a Bushmaster ACR, a S&W 500 and 460, as well as a Skorpion - this guy could have done a lot of damage. And an SKS isn't a toy either.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not to make light of the old stick, but Queen Betsy of Buckinghuge Palace was her self the target of a terror threat on Remmbrance Day (11/11)

I think that would have been rather counterproductive in the long run.

Overkill: Courts are generally closed with "God Save the Queen."


Tells you how many times I've been to court then, LOL!

 

[kozanoglu]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/07/calgary-man-skyscraper-explosives_n_6121488.html

I read if the person is not Muslim it is not considered terrorism.
In Canada, a John, with tons of explosives and building plans including Veterans Affairs building and plans to restructure.

I point fingers.

 

[Garak]

Go get a giant ticket on the 401 and don't do the voluntary payment, but show up for court and stay until the end. Then you'll see.