Can Canadian troops disarm US citizens

[Diesel 007]

during civil emergencies?

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Sticks]

Running late for work, have not read the article, but I doubt that this would be any different than the US stepping into other countries doing the same thing under the guise of "UN Sanctioned". If the US did indeed make an agreement with our Northern neighbors in the event of a civil uprising (constitutional right???) then we are FUBAR, unless the US armed forces decide to tell the Gov't to pound sand and repel the invasion.

I will read the article when I get home and edit as needed.

[lacrosse50]

I just finished reading the article, and it looks like a deal was signed Feb 14th that says that US/Canadian troops can be used by the other government in civilian emergency scenarios. The article is primarily concerned with the Canadian side of the equation (it's a Canadian website, after all) but they do mention that some groups in the US are less than tickled about the deal as well. They mention a US blog that raises the question "would foreign troops be bound by posse comitatus?".

I'd imagine that any troops that cross a border would be under, at the tactical level at least, the control of whatever nation controls the soil they are standing on. That said, they could conceivably be used to get around some restrictions.

When Ron Paul first mentioned the NAFTA highway the mainstream media laughed him off the podium. Now McCain, Clinton, and Obama have all made statements and taken positions on NAFTA. Maybe I'm just a nutter, but I worry about some of the steps towards "one world" that we seem to have taken.

[Reborn]

They could try..........I don't think they would like the outcome.....I think they have a French hertiage .......enough said.

[sojourner]

Do the canuk troops have the drop on the US citizen? Does the US citizen have the will to exercise his/her god-given rights on US soil?

[deadeye72]

If they come in as U.N. peacekeepers just remember, those blue helmets make great targets.

[Ram Rod]

Does the US citizen have the will to exercise his/her god-given rights on US soil?

I do. I have the will and the means. Every time I hear more propaganda like this---the more ready I become!

[cupsz71]

They could try..........I don't think they would like the outcome.....I think they have a French hertiage .......enough said.

SOME have a French heritage, and this Manitoba boy ISN'T one of them.

But back to the article........just read it. Sound like a domestic "back-up plan" do to both county's military & resources being stretched thin because of war. If a domestic attack (god forbid) happen again on U.S. or Canadian soil...I believe the general idea is to get the closest troops on scene to secure and provide assistance ASAP. The debate on IF foriegn troops would be "stomping on 2nd Ammendment rights" and "who's in charge" as I see it, is a short term issue only and the details will be sorted out. (relax people, and stops feeding the paranoia
the terrorits want)
Protecting citizens and soveriegn territory from further attacks is the first and foremost priority. Neither country can afford to let ANY domestic crisis or attack get out of hand. They are too far "entwined" with each other physically/economically and culturally (lived 16 miles for US border most of my life - married a American girl & have a family - going for US citizenship as I type this.) so I figure that more than qualifies me to offer a unique perspective on how both countries interact & see each other.

But just a kind reminder to those who forget and feel the need to rally around 9-11 - Canada lost citizens and felt shock & pain too - and haven't forgotten, and will offer any assistance it can - especially to the United States.

IMHP - In a world where "friends" of the US are shrinking into the shadows, one really shouldn't poke a finger and complain at one of the biggest allies/friends the US. has. The WAR of Terror isn't just a US. problem, it's a GLOBAL problem - although admittedly the US seems to be the primary target & taking the lead on fighting it, but your "neighbors to the north" aren't going to sit on their hands when push comes to shove.

I'm actuall quite shocked that people are OFFENDED with the fact that help is being made available from both sides of the border - and it is overshadowed by the FEAR of NOT having the right to grab yer' gun and go door to door taliban hunting by private citizens.

[sojourner]

cupsz71 - no animosity from me to our Canadian allies. My only point is that I am a citizen of a sovereign country. I will not willingly bow down to anyone whose authority I choose not to recognize. And that includes jihadists, un troops (with or without blue helmets), allies like canada, drug smugglers, illegal aliens, etc. ...

If an external entity wants to "help" me by taking away my means of self defense, defense of my state, and defense of my constitution. Then heck no, I will not seek or accept their "help". If they want to help without stepping on the US constitution and my rights, I'll gladly accept their help.

Nothing more or nothing less.

[bigiceman]

I do not immediately jump upon the insidious fears this agreement brings to many. I will say that a radio comment I heard does ring true.

90% of US military forces when asked said they would not participate in activities like gun grabs that violated the rights of fellow US citizens. I wonder how the Canadians would feel about taking away the guns from people who are not their fellow citizens? Whe the Chinese wanted to quash the students and people in Tienaman Square they brought in troops from rural provinces because the local troops either did refuse or they were afraid they would refuse to brutally supress the demonstrators.

That does give you something to think about.

[SammyIamToday]

cupsz71 - no animosity from me to our Canadian allies. My only point is that I am a citizen of a sovereign country. I will not willingly bow down to anyone whose authority I choose not to recognize. And that includes jihadists, un troops (with or without blue helmets), allies like canada, drug smugglers, illegal aliens, etc. ...

If an external entity wants to "help" me by taking away my means of self defense, defense of my state, and defense of my constitution. Then heck no, I will not seek or accept their "help". If they want to help without stepping on the US constitution and my rights, I'll gladly accept their help.

Nothing more or nothing less.

Great post. +1

[TyC]

I was living Ottawa, the capitol of Canada, during the 9-11 attack. I walked past the US embassey everyday. The fence around it is thick wrought iron and about 7 feet high and a good city block long. It was completly full of flowers and signs saying how the citizens of Canada would support us and help us and that we were in their prayers and thoughts. It was a beautiful sign of the friendship that our countries share.

I will always respect canadiens because of that.

But I wouldnt give up my right to bare arms to anyone.

[obxned]

We get many Canadian visitors to our area, and we welcome them. If they come as armed foreign invaders, they will be treated as just that.

[64zebra]

.....well, I'll give this to the wife as an excuse to go get some more ammo for the rifle

[packinnova]

I have no malice towards most of the Canadians and have no problem with them coming to help or us helping them. The issue, as I see it anyway, is simple. We can't even trust our own folks not to violate our rights and come door to door taking arms during a disaster. Do you actually think the Canadian military or LE will take issue with being ordered to do the same? Not because they're Canadian, but because they don't value the constitution the same way we do, nor do they know most of the laws, so they would therefor not have any compunction about being ordered to take arms during an emergency. That's the only issue (and a far fetched one) that I see with this concept.