TexasCHLforum.com

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia ... g.facebook

No place but Canada. Three armed men break into home, homeowner struggles with robber, gets his gun and shoots him. "Munroe faces charges of attempted murder, intent to discharge a firearm, intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless, careless use of a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking."

"Munroe is banned from any contact with two named individuals, must attend court as ordered, keep the peace and be of good behaviour, not leave his residence except for essential activities such as work or medical appointments, remain in Nova Scotia, not consume drugs or alcohol, not possess a cellphone or pager, have no weapons, and answer the door to police when they check at his home."

Wow no cellphone.

That is what we will face if we yield to the liberal agenda and become chattel or subjects of a tyrannical government.

I have checked into it further, near as I can tell it is not fake news or a joke. It is real life in Canada.

Now there may be things we don't know. He may have shot a men outside his home that were fleeing and not a threat to his life. He may have not called the police and then hid the gun in his home. Neighbors could have called the police after hearing gunshots and then confronted the homeowner. Plus the armed men could have been robbing the house as the house may have had drugs and cash. Who knows at this point.

This is the logical extension of the belief that government should be absolutely responsible for all things, including our safety. The people in power get mad when someone demonstrates that mere subjects are capable of providing for their own self defense. It shakes the foundation of their authority.

I have family that lives in Fredericton NB and in neighboring Halifax NS. This sounds about right for that region. Inmates running the asylum.

I suspect that the trafficking charge is telling. I'm not saying that I'm ready to move to the north but I'm skeptical that this is a charge levied against the average father of 2.4 kids suburbanite. There is plenty of room for abuse of power but I suspect that there is more to the story.

parabelum wrote:I have family that lives in Fredericton NB and in neighboring Halifax NS. This sounds about right for that region. Inmates running the asylum.

Fredericton is a cute little town. Worth a stop if your driving to Prince Edward Island.

Many of the Canadian's comments about this recommend the "shoot, shovel, shut-up" method of handling the situation.

philip964 wrote:
No place but Canada. Three armed men break into home, homeowner struggles with robber, gets his gun and shoots him.

When I first read this, I thought it referenced that the homeowner got his OWN gun and shot him. But after reading the story, it appears that the homeowner got the bad guy's gun and used it.

If it had been the former, I would understand why some of the charges might be applied to a person using his own gun in a gun free world (note that I still disagree with them, but at least I recognize the basis in their laws - he would have been a lawbreaker to begin with, and the home invasion uncovered that fact for them).

However this was not the case! He used the bad guy's gun against the bad guy! How in the world can the authorities sleep at night, knowing that he simply used the tool that was brought to the location by the bad guy to be used against him!?!

Even aside from shooting the BG, it appears that by merely disarming him, the home owner would have violated at least 3 laws (unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and improper storage of a firearm). Absolutely crazy for what many consider to be a free state.

philip964 wrote:

parabelum wrote:I have family that lives in Fredericton NB and in neighboring Halifax NS. This sounds about right for that region. Inmates running the asylum.

Fredericton is a cute little town. Worth a stop if your driving to Prince Edward Island.

If there is any truth whatsoever to this story, then I don't think anyplace is worth a stop if you are somehow in Canada. Like the song says, "if you're going through hell, keep on going..."

Vol Texan wrote:

philip964 wrote:
No place but Canada. Three armed men break into home, homeowner struggles with robber, gets his gun and shoots him.

When I first read this, I thought it referenced that the homeowner got his OWN gun and shot him. But after reading the story, it appears that the homeowner got the bad guy's gun and used it.

If it had been the former, I would understand why some of the charges might be applied to a person using his own gun in a gun free world (note that I still disagree with them, but at least I recognize the basis in their laws - he would have been a lawbreaker to begin with, and the home invasion uncovered that fact for them).

However this was not the case! He used the bad guy's gun against the bad guy! How in the world can the authorities sleep at night, knowing that he simply used the tool that was brought to the location by the bad guy to be used against him!?!

His would refer to the closest subject in the sentence which is robber. If there are English scholars out there, please correct me if I'm wrong as I want to improve my writing as it always needs help. Obviously repeating robber would have improved the comprehension.

And yeah charging a homeowner for possession of a gun that was taken from a robber during a robbery is a gross miscarriage of justice even for gun hating Canidians.

philip964 wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

philip964 wrote:
No place but Canada. Three armed men break into home, homeowner struggles with robber, gets his gun and shoots him.

When I first read this, I thought it referenced that the homeowner got his OWN gun and shot him. But after reading the story, it appears that the homeowner got the bad guy's gun and used it.

If it had been the former, I would understand why some of the charges might be applied to a person using his own gun in a gun free world (note that I still disagree with them, but at least I recognize the basis in their laws - he would have been a lawbreaker to begin with, and the home invasion uncovered that fact for them).

However this was not the case! He used the bad guy's gun against the bad guy! How in the world can the authorities sleep at night, knowing that he simply used the tool that was brought to the location by the bad guy to be used against him!?!

His would refer to the closest subject in the sentence which is robber. If there are English scholars out there, please correct me if I'm wrong as I want to improve my writing as it always needs help. Obviously repeating robber would have improved the comprehension.

And yeah charging a homeowner for possession of a gun that was taken from a robber during a robbery is a gross miscarriage of justice even for gun hating Canidians.

Nah, I'm no grammar Nazi (well, I am, but this one was my misunderstanding, not your writing).

Butt aye will tos yew under the buss fer mis spelling!

Ah, 'Newfies'. Always doing the unexpected (and the illogical)......

So... this is what I took away from the article: In a home invasion, the victim will either be charged with a host of felonies or dead. I think in this case you're better off being the real criminal. Got it. Now I know my new profession if I ever move to Canada.