Canadian Politics

[Brandon]

27 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

I’ll give it to you straight up.  I have taught gr. 12 Law for about a dozen years, and I have several police officer friends, they come to my class as guest speakers.  Yes, about 90% of the criminals they deal are repeat offenders.  Yes, the correctional system has a high number of Aboriginal inmates.

But to say our crime rate would be lower if we didn’t have any Aboriginals?  

So basically you are agreeing with me with the numbers and that poverty + culture equals higher crime rates?   

Clearly crime rate would reduce if you removed poverty + cultures that promote crime.  Are you saying that if you removed 75% of the criminals from Manitoba that someone else would take their spot?  Maybe for organized crime but for all other crime that's a ridiculous statement. 

I don't understand why you added all those other bullet points,  at no point did I place blame on anyone for why crime is high aside from saying culture + poverty.  It comes off very weird.    Currently we have a very relaxed justice system and based off what you said it clearly is not working since it's a higher repeat offender rate.   I gave you an example that people purposely cause crime because they want someone to take care of them during winter months.  That shows how relaxed our system is. 

I'm not sure if the term is snowflake (i'm old)  but I don't get why folks like Tracker and Mark H are so terrified about offending despite the numbers showing the truth?  It's a dangerous mindset to have. Need to face reality instead of fantasy and being afraid to tackle the truth will never solve anything.  Move on from blaming residential schools that was a valid response many years ago,  now days it's a totally different reason for why things are the way they are.   

For the record back in my day I took Grade 12 law and my teacher told us about how it's normal on reserves for parents to pass around their under age daughters around the community for sexual favors and tried to pass that off that  it's not a bad thing because that's normal in their culture.   Maybe it's my mindset but personally I don't believe that's right... but since my Grade 12 law teacher said so I should accept it?  

 

 

 

[Mark H.]

13 minutes ago, Brandon said:

So basically you are agreeing with me with the numbers and that poverty + culture equals higher crime rates?   

Clearly crime rate would reduce if you removed poverty + cultures that promote crime.  Are you saying that if you removed 75% of the criminals from Manitoba that someone else would take their spot?  Maybe for organized crime but for all other crime that's a ridiculous statement. 

I don't understand why you added all those other bullet points,  at no point did I place blame on anyone for why crime is high aside from saying culture + poverty.  It comes off very weird.    Currently we have a very relaxed justice system and based off what you said it clearly is not working since it's a higher repeat offender rate.   I gave you an example that people purposely cause crime because they want someone to take care of them during winter months.  That shows how relaxed our system is. 

I'm not sure if the term is snowflake (i'm old)  but I don't get why folks like Tracker and Mark H are so terrified about offending despite the numbers showing the truth?  It's a dangerous mindset to have. Need to face reality instead of fantasy and being afraid to tackle the truth will never solve anything.  Move on from blaming residential schools that was a valid response many years ago,  now days it's a totally different reason for why things are the way they are.   

For the record back in my day I took Grade 12 law and my teacher told us about how it's normal on reserves for parents to pass around their under age daughters around the community for sexual favors and tried to pass that off that  it's not a bad thing because that's normal in their culture.   Maybe it's my mindset but personally I don't believe that's right... but since my Grade 12 law teacher said so I should accept it?  

 

 

 

You said if we didn’t have Aboriginals our crime rate would be lower.  All of my ‘bullet points’ are to show that the issues with Aboriginals and crime rate are a collective responsibility.  You can’t just abuse a segment of your population, leading to widespread poverty, and then somehow dismiss them - we are living with the legacy of pushing them aside, of categorizing then as wards of the state and of putting them into residential schools.  No, you don’t take this grade 12 teacher’s for it, I pointed you to some credible sources. 

[Brandon]

2 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

You said if we didn’t have Aboriginals our crime rate would be lower.  All of my ‘bullet points’ are to show that the issues with Aboriginals and crime rate are a collective responsibility.  You can’t just abuse a segment of your population, leading to widespread poverty, and then somehow dismiss them - we are living with the legacy of pushing them aside, of categorizing then as wards of the state and of putting them into residential schools. 

So getting rid of assault rifles will help them how?   Will this gun ban drop the aboriginal crime rates?   

My original point was that no it will not.   

With those types of gun the organized crime who carries them will just keep smuggling them over the border.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Brandon

[Mark H.]

1 minute ago, Brandon said:

So getting rid of assault rifles will help them how?   Will this gun ban drop the aboriginal crime rates?   

My original point was that no it will not.   

With those types of gun the organized crime who carries them will just keep smuggling them over the border.

Ok, I’m not defending the gun laws.  I was responding to what you said about our First Nations people. 

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Ok, I’m not defending the gun laws.  I was responding to what you said about our First Nations people. 

I said they make up a large majority of our prison population. They don't tend to have assault rifles.

So how does banning assault rifles lower the crime rate.

You (more so Tracker) made it seem like I'm a racist because I brought up facts and numbers. I just find that weird.

 

 

[SpeedFlex27]

14 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Not really.  Candidates run on specific platforms so when they win and push for those it’s no surprise.  Secondly we don’t live on a dictatorship anyway.  If majority of Canadians disagree liberals lose next election.  That simple.  For all those people upset the problem is there is no right of Center opposition currently.  

Liberals didn't win the last election. They just got more seats in a minority government which means Trudeau doesn't have the political right or moral authority to decree a ban on guns unilaterally. Debate it in the H of C in the form of a Bill & pass it using the same democratic tools always used.  That would be to pass First, Second & Third readings in the House by convincing the other parties to support the bill as we are in a minority. Then send it to the Senate for approval & finally Royal Assent by the Governor General.  Otherwise, what's the point? I'm not debating the merits of the ban. Just how it was done It's wrong. 

[Mark H.]

13 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I said they make up a large majority of our prison population. They don't tend to have assault rifles.

So how does banning assault rifles lower the crime rate.

You (more so Tracker) made it seem like I'm a racist because I brought up facts and numbers. I just find that weird.

 

 

That you don’t seem to see the history (those bullet points) I provided as the primary reason there are so many Aboriginal people in our prisons - I find that weird.  I understand your point about the assault rifle comparison. 

[Mark H.]

14 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Not really.  Candidates run on specific platforms so when they win and push for those it’s no surprise.  Secondly we don’t live on a dictatorship anyway.  If majority of Canadians disagree liberals lose next election.  That simple.  For all those people upset the problem is there is no right of Center opposition currently.  

So, when Harper ran on reducing the  GST, for example, it still went through the House of Commons.  I don’t agree that having something in an election platform means you can ignore established parliamentary procedures. 

[The Unknown Poster]

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

So, when Harper ran on reducing the  GST, for example, it still went through the House of Commons.  I don’t agree that having something in an election platform means you can ignore established parliamentary procedures. 

Generally I agree with you.  This is a regulation. Controversial sure. But they can also be defeated in the house if there isn’t support for the coming legislation anyway. I’m not a liberal supporter but I don’t equate this with it being okay for anything they want.  In this specific case I’m ok with it.  

[The Unknown Poster]

2 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Liberals didn't win the last election. They just got more seats in a minority government which means Trudeau doesn't have the political right or moral authority to decree a ban on guns unilaterally. Debate it in the H of C in the form of a Bill & pass it using the same democratic tools always used.  That would be to pass First, Second & Third readings in the House by convincing the other parties to support the bill as we are in a minority. Then send it to the Senate for approval & finally Royal Assent by the Governor General.  Otherwise, what's the point? I'm not debating the merits of the ban. Just how it was done It's wrong. 

Nah. They did win. I didn’t like it either. But they won. That’s our system.  

[Rich]

22 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Generally I agree with you.  This is a regulation. Controversial sure. But they can also be defeated in the house if there isn’t support for the coming legislation anyway. I’m not a liberal supporter but I don’t equate this with it being okay for anything they want.  In this specific case I’m ok with it.  

So you are okay with it only because you agree with it?    I also think the regulation makes sense, but they should follow proper procedures.  This feels all kinds of wrong to slip this in while a much much bigger national emergency is going on.  It is a dangerous precedent and the start of conditioning that this is okay.  It is doing these kinds of things on something that won't be largely contested that leads to problems later.    Slippery slope.

Edit:  And to add, one of your arguments is that they can be defeated in the house if there isn't enough support.  The purpose of the debate and bringing this to the house of commons is to bring the issue out to the public and people can be aware of the arguments by all parties.  Reporters can report on it.  By forcing this through, you are bypassing that and jeopardizing enough people to be aware that if they disagree, they can act on it the next election.

[Tracker]

In Canada, at least, the politicians are at the mercy of the electorate. The Liberals are moving ahead with their stated agenda, which is supported in this case, by a large majority of Canadians and long overdue. Harper dismantled the gun registry which was utilized some 500 times per day by Canadian police, and that was against popular opinion. but Harper did it anyways. The reality is that right-wing governments are far more likely to institute repressive measures, as shown in the US and the Philippines, as well as many other cases. Anyone remember the High River Flood in Alberta a few years ago? After the town was evacuated, the RCMP went door to door, kicking in doors ostensibly to make sure that any firearms left behind were not stolen. Apparently only a few were found and this act was defended by the then Solicitor-General and an explanation was promised "soon". It still has not come. BTW- many of the homes were left unlocked and the doors still got smashed in. Getting rid of people-killing firearms by order in council is not ideal but quite legal and within precedent.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Tracker

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

So you are okay with it only because you agree with it?    I also think the regulation makes sense, but they should follow proper procedures.  This feels all kinds of wrong to slip this in while a much much bigger national emergency is going on.  It is a dangerous precedent and the start of conditioning that this is okay.  It is doing these kinds of things on something that won't be largely contested that leads to problems later.    Slippery slope.

Edit:  And to add, one of your arguments is that they can be defeated in the house if there isn't enough support.  The purpose of the debate and bringing this to the house of commons is to bring the issue out to the public and people can be aware of the arguments by all parties.  Reporters can report on it.  By forcing this through, you are bypassing that and jeopardizing enough people to be aware that if they disagree, they can act on it the next election.

Yup. I’m okay with it because I agree with it.  People have to be careful not to draw false equivalency between them doing their for their specific scenario and it being okay for everything else. It isn’t. And they won’t.  
 

It’s an issue where most people understand why assault weapons are bad.  So yeah If you hve an issue with me being okay with it, that’s your prerogative.  
 

I really doubt anyone has an issue solely because they want the process to be respected. And I bet they’d be fine if the president of the US executive ordered a ban on the same weapons too.  Some things need to happen fast for obvious reasons.  This is one of them.  There is still enough wiggle room (probably too much) for the gun nuts to keep their weapons anyway. And there will be plenty of debate. And if the liberals are wrong then they’ll lose a confidence vote and the election. Bet that won’t happen. 
 

I just happen to believe there is no debate required on the necessity of weapons like this.  

[Fatty Liver]

21 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yup. I’m okay with it because I agree with it.  People have to be careful not to draw false equivalency between them doing their for their specific scenario and it being okay for everything else. It isn’t. And they won’t.  
 

It’s an issue where most people understand why assault weapons are bad.  So yeah If you hve an issue with me being okay with it, that’s your prerogative.  
 

I really doubt anyone has an issue solely because they want the process to be respected. And I bet they’d be fine if the president of the US executive ordered a ban on the same weapons too.  Some things need to happen fast for obvious reasons.  This is one of them.  There is still enough wiggle room (probably too much) for the gun nuts to keep their weapons anyway. And there will be plenty of debate. And if the liberals are wrong then they’ll lose a confidence vote and the election. Bet that won’t happen. 
 

I just happen to believe there is no debate required on the necessity of weapons like this.  

Reformacons are upset, ramming a gun bill through deprives them of a long drawn out debate which would give them plenty of media face-time, allow them to rile up their voter base and most importantly beg for more donations.

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I really doubt anyone has an issue solely because they want the process to be respected. I just happen to believe there is no debate required on the necessity of weapons like this.  

That is exactly what I have an issue with.  I don’t own guns, never have, never will.  I have an issue with a PM being able to arbitrarily decide that an issue does not require debate. I don’t care what the issue is, it should go through the mandated  readings in the house and then be sent to the senate.  If this wasn’t an emergency a year ago, then it’s not an emergency now. 

[Brandon]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I just happen to believe there is no debate required on the necessity of weapons like this.  

Well the gun nuts will claim that they like to collect....

Personally (only my opinion),  only the Military and law enforcement should have access to these types of guns.   I don't believe you need a Call of Duty weapon to gun down a raging moose / bear.....

[Tiny759]

2 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Well the gun nuts will claim that they like to collect....

Personally (only my opinion),  only the Military and law enforcement should have access to these types of guns.   I don't believe you need a Call of Duty weapon to gun down a raging moose / bear.....

I’m going to assume you don’t own any guns based of this post?

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

I’m going to assume you don’t own any guns based of this post?

I've shot and handled... never owned and really no reason to.  I don't hunt and based on my time playing Rainbow 6 Vegas... I'm more of a shield and pistol guy. 

[Tiny759]

6 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I've shot and handled... never owned and really no reason to.  I don't hunt and based on my time playing Rainbow 6 Vegas... I'm more of a shield and pistol guy. 

Ok and that’s fine, owning one is not for everybody. But there is a couple point you made that aren’t consistent I would say. First off, collecting is one reason people own a restricted gun, but so is target shooting and competition shooting. As for “only military and law enforcement” should have these types of  guns, I don’t think you understand the difference between what a military use and what is made available to public. Most of the guns banned were restricted guns, meaning no you can’t hunt with them. But they are not used in military, only made to look like a model. Restricted guns are usually semi, and for example an M16 is chambered in .223. That’s barely enough to take down a deer. In fact, the hunting rifles that are Not being banned will most likely appear in a higher caliber. And yes these hunting rifles can be semi-auto too. These guns aren’t automatic like you see in military or in call of duty. Those are prohibited in Canada and have been since the 1970/1980s (I cant remember the exact year). Too add, restricted and non-restricted guns have a maximum magazine size of of 5. While handguns have 10. The ruger mini 14 can hold 10 too since it fits a certain handgun magazine but it’s illegal to do so. The only type of guns that don’t have a limit on magazine size, is rim-fire guns. These are chambered in a .22 and below. (I do think this should be brought to the 5 magazine limit too) 
so to sum up, these guns are not used by military, these aren’t call of duty guns, they are guns which are classified as restricted, which are being used for collecting, target and competition, but not hunting. 

[Brandon]

Sounds like a lot of grey area....  fortunately Trudeau is an expert on this and will make the judgement rather then consulting with others. .

[Tiny759]

3 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Sounds like a lot of grey area....  fortunately Trudeau is an expert on this and will make the judgement rather then consulting with others. .

Now this gave me a good laugh 

[SpeedFlex27]

Amazing that we're here debating democracy vs an autocracy. 

[Mark H.]

9 hours ago, Tiny759 said:

Ok and that’s fine, owning one is not for everybody. But there is a couple point you made that aren’t consistent I would say. First off, collecting is one reason people own a restricted gun, but so is target shooting and competition shooting. As for “only military and law enforcement” should have these types of  guns, I don’t think you understand the difference between what a military use and what is made available to public. Most of the guns banned were restricted guns, meaning no you can’t hunt with them. But they are not used in military, only made to look like a model. Restricted guns are usually semi, and for example an M16 is chambered in .223. That’s barely enough to take down a deer. In fact, the hunting rifles that are Not being banned will most likely appear in a higher caliber. And yes these hunting rifles can be semi-auto too. These guns aren’t automatic like you see in military or in call of duty. Those are prohibited in Canada and have been since the 1970/1980s (I cant remember the exact year). Too add, restricted and non-restricted guns have a maximum magazine size of of 5. While handguns have 10. The ruger mini 14 can hold 10 too since it fits a certain handgun magazine but it’s illegal to do so. The only type of guns that don’t have a limit on magazine size, is rim-fire guns. These are chambered in a .22 and below. (I do think this should be brought to the 5 magazine limit too) 
so to sum up, these guns are not used by military, these aren’t call of duty guns, they are guns which are classified as restricted, which are being used for collecting, target and competition, but not hunting. 

Thst’s a good summary of what’s actually going on, thanks. 

[The Unknown Poster]

10 hours ago, Tiny759 said:

Ok and that’s fine, owning one is not for everybody. But there is a couple point you made that aren’t consistent I would say. First off, collecting is one reason people own a restricted gun, but so is target shooting and competition shooting. As for “only military and law enforcement” should have these types of  guns, I don’t think you understand the difference between what a military use and what is made available to public. Most of the guns banned were restricted guns, meaning no you can’t hunt with them. But they are not used in military, only made to look like a model. Restricted guns are usually semi, and for example an M16 is chambered in .223. That’s barely enough to take down a deer. In fact, the hunting rifles that are Not being banned will most likely appear in a higher caliber. And yes these hunting rifles can be semi-auto too. These guns aren’t automatic like you see in military or in call of duty. Those are prohibited in Canada and have been since the 1970/1980s (I cant remember the exact year). Too add, restricted and non-restricted guns have a maximum magazine size of of 5. While handguns have 10. The ruger mini 14 can hold 10 too since it fits a certain handgun magazine but it’s illegal to do so. The only type of guns that don’t have a limit on magazine size, is rim-fire guns. These are chambered in a .22 and below. (I do think this should be brought to the 5 magazine limit too) 
so to sum up, these guns are not used by military, these aren’t call of duty guns, they are guns which are classified as restricted, which are being used for collecting, target and competition, but not hunting. 

So no necessity then.  

[Fatty Liver]

12 hours ago, Tiny759 said:

Ok and that’s fine, owning one is not for everybody. But there is a couple point you made that aren’t consistent I would say. First off, collecting is one reason people own a restricted gun, but so is target shooting and competition shooting. As for “only military and law enforcement” should have these types of  guns, I don’t think you understand the difference between what a military use and what is made available to public. Most of the guns banned were restricted guns, meaning no you can’t hunt with them. But they are not used in military, only made to look like a model. Restricted guns are usually semi, and for example an M16 is chambered in .223. That’s barely enough to take down a deer. In fact, the hunting rifles that are Not being banned will most likely appear in a higher caliber. And yes these hunting rifles can be semi-auto too. These guns aren’t automatic like you see in military or in call of duty. Those are prohibited in Canada and have been since the 1970/1980s (I cant remember the exact year). Too add, restricted and non-restricted guns have a maximum magazine size of of 5. While handguns have 10. The ruger mini 14 can hold 10 too since it fits a certain handgun magazine but it’s illegal to do so. The only type of guns that don’t have a limit on magazine size, is rim-fire guns. These are chambered in a .22 and below. (I do think this should be brought to the 5 magazine limit too) 
so to sum up, these guns are not used by military, these aren’t call of duty guns, they are guns which are classified as restricted, which are being used for collecting, target and competition, but not hunting. 

Lawn darts were banned in 1989, they basically served the same purpose, fun and competition.......get in line Bucko, it's your turn! 😁