Quote of the day—Jake Fogleman

According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). They said Canadians had only turned in 160 of the recently-outlawed firearms for destruction since the announcement of the ban.

The buyback scheme is the result of a May 2020 regulation from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banning 1,500 “assault weapons” by make and model. It was enacted in response to a high-profile mass shooting in Nova Scotia, in which a gunman used illegally-obtained weapons to murder 22 people.

The ban provided a two-year amnesty period from its announcement for gun owners to comply but prohibited them from using any weapon affected by the ban going forward. The government estimates that approximately 72,000 gun owners and 105,000 firearms are affected by the policy.

Jake Fogleman
Canadians Aren’t Turning in Their Guns
December 28, 2021
[I know some people affected by this. We I talked about this before it was certain and they were quite concerned. I made a few suggestions but they were noncommittal as to what action they are going to take. I’m hoping to see them face to face sometime soon so I can get an update.

We live in interesting times.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jake Fogleman

  1. So now Canada too, eh?

    A few years back it was New York and Connecticut, trying to get legal weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens with a mandatory buyback… and even in New York and Connecticut, non-compliance was massive.

    One is tempted to call that the rule rather than the exception.

  2. I have to wonder if the point isn’t so much to get people to turn in their guns, as to make them afraid to take them out to the range, educate their kids, etc.

    Oh, sure, collect as many as possible. But by making them effectively unusable, it becomes far more difficult to maintain skills and knowledge for one’s self, let alone pass it along. After a generation or two it doesn’t matter that the grandchildren find Pappy’s AR-15 behind a false wall in the closet. They will have no idea how to even check to see if it’s functional. They’ll just call the authorities to deal with it, and hope they don’t get prosecuted for unknowingly being in possession for years.

    It’s a generational stigmatization approach, not unlike what was done with tobacco in the US.

    • Definitely is that. But it can also backfire on them. Just as the 92′ Clinton gun and magazine ban did.
      It’s funny to hear that the Canadians haven’t gone full Australian yet.
      And I have heard and suspect that Canada has the same rural/urban thing that America does.
      What goes on in the city don’t fly round these parts?

    • Like it or not, actions taken by the officials do have an impact. And it is not only guns. How are you going to keep that gas powered leaf blower running if you live in a law abiding area? Will not some Karen turn you in if you use it? Of course, if there are enough of you – and with the right attitudes – then you can create your own ‘no go’ area or subculture, but the law abiding have difficulty in adapting to the life of an outlaw.

      The same goes for anything made illegal. And it has been going on for centuries. The first instance that I heard of was a King banning the grinding stones (just two rocks slightly modified) for producing flour. And in the Elizabethan era the officials licensed the companies allowed to produce starch (used to keep those collars stiff). Making it by soaking grain/beans and then evaporating the water was illegal.

  3. This is what happens when the law makers themselves constitute the boldest, most powerful, depraved and dangerous organized crime syndicate in the nation.

    Naturally, the more principled, honest, productive, aware, morally strong and confident citizens are the primary targets of the syndicate’s ire because your very existence represents a continuous, clear and present danger to the future and security of the official crime ring. When liars rule, truth tellers are an ever-present irritation, a danger to the integrity of the system, even “a threat to national a security” as it were. The evil powers-that-be require ignorant, confused, weak, frightened, needy, greedy, distracted, immoral, intimidated and suggestible subjects.

    This is in every character and essence the tactical landscape of the Dark Ages.

    It’s best you understand the context then, especially including the heuristics presented to you by that understanding. For example, if this is a repeat, or continuance, of the Dark Ages then we should look for the civil, or secular powers to be aligned in some significant way with a global ecclesiastical power and those two powers would also be aligned with captains of industry. It would be essentially a two-pronged (secular and religious, civil and ecclesiastical if you like, some form of church/state) system, with the merchants of the world playing a cooperating role as well.

    Follow those “dark ages heuristics” further and you’ll discover things you could not or would not otherwise. And although you may be shocked, surprised or horrified by what you discover, you shouldn’t be. We’ve seen all the elements before, just not on this scale. IOW, the characters, traits and roles of the ancient types point us directly to the present day antitypes and we can thus recognize the emerging system easily.

  4. Are you sure that they are not going to find significant numbers of game fish in Canadian lakes with unusually high iron concentrations in them in the next few years? I am sure that must be how most Canadians complied with the mandate. Unwise to keep the firearms around but a nice way to tell the powers that be to shove something up where it is very dark!

Comments are closed.