Canadian elected's weighing in.... Scary

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: slowdime
Gridlock caused by childish political maneuvers by our elected officials is detrimental to everyone regardless of ideology.


It is only detrimental to people who leech off of the government. Those are usually people of liberal ideology. I prefer complete gridlock. In fact, I welcome it with open arms. Gridlock equates to less legislation passed. That equates to fewer laws passed. Which almost always equates to more freedom and less taxes. I see the government shutting down as a solution, not a problem. I wouldn't miss it one bit. Then again I've survived by providing for myself for the last 62 years. All the government has done is take from me, while producing nothing. Why would I miss that? Being upset about less government, or government gridlock, is like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, because it feels good when you stop.

 

[AZjeff]

Originally Posted By: slowdime
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
The 2nd Amendment guarantees it. Darn Constitution.

Man, I come here to read about oil. Should know better. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind.


Nope. The board rules prohibiting political discussion don't seem to matter. Threads are started on hot button issues and the entire thread usually consists of like minded people having a figurative circle jerk.


Your replies have been well put and respectful. It's impossible to have this conversation without both sides resorting to name calling and poor verbal behavior. I disagree with you and find some of your statements contradictory but find no reason to be abusive.

Going back to oil now. Carry on. Sorry for the hijack Canada.

Great state we live in ain't it BillT !!

 

[BubbaFL]

Originally Posted By: slowdime
If you had read my earlier post you would know that I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm opposed to unfettered access by anyone.


"I'm not opposed to democracy, I'm just opposed to unfettered access to the ballot box by anyone".

"I'm not opposed to freedom of speech, I'm just opposed to unfettered access to pen and paper by anyone"

"I'm not opposed to due process, I'm just opposed by unfettered access to legal representation by anyone"

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: slowdime
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I don't understand how the unregulated access and possession of a deadly weapon is an intrinsic human right.


Speaking of slippery slope fallacy.....


Maybe a thorough reading of the US Constitution would help.

Of course, those who oppose gun ownership and other Constitutional rights usually engage in anti-Constitutional rhetoric anyway.

Quote:
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.


Like Russia and some South American countries?


If you had read my earlier post you would know that I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm opposed to unfettered access by anyone.

And Russia and South America are both places with some degree of internal conflict and by some metrics can be considered developing. The industrialized nations I was referring to are in western and northern Europe.


OK, let's curb this wild tangent at this point. This thread is about Canada. We already have an extensive firearms licencing process with training courses and an RCMP background check to aide in keeping something that can be used in a dangerous manner out of the hands of somebody with a touch of the crazy.

The issue brought up in the OP is the misunderstanding of those existing laws by our elected officials, particularly pertaining to restricted firearms and the ATT (authorization to transport) as it applies to people who have already done the SECOND COURSE, had the MORE EXHAUSTIVE background check, and obtained the approval to procure and handle restricted firearms. Supposedly, making the ability to take those to different authorized ranges easier (as you cannot hunt with a restricted) through the elimination of the call-in for an ATT is going to somehow turn these people into homicidal maniacs, despite the fact that the RCMP already checked, and they aren't. Also, it will somehow provide them with the ability to procure an automatic weapon able to take down a Russian fighter jet

On top of that there is the criminal element as already discussed that these people believe are somehow going to be deterred from further criminal activity by the government levying additional restrictions on the law abiding. This is despite the fact that these people should already know (as there have been government discussions on the bloody issue!) that the VAST majority of crime involving guns in Canada, particularly in urban centres like the GTA, are performed with illegally obtained guns by people who do not have a license to own a gun, let alone a restricted (all hand guns are restricted) and in turn that gun came from somebody (or a group) that also was not licensed to obtain, sell or possess these devices. This was why the firearms community was in an uproar about the proposed handgun ban in the GTA by Olivia Chow, as it would only penalize the law abiding, not the gang bangers actually committing the crimes with their Glock's smuggled in from Detroit.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: slowdime
Ignoring your logical fallacies, here's evidence that increased gun ownership does in fact correlate with an increase in violent crime.


Then why doesn't the crime rate increase every year? Millions of new firearms are manufactured and sold every year. The opposite has happened. The "Study" you link to is nonsense.

 

[Robenstein]

The Department of Justice figures on violent crime in the USA back in 2011 showed that violent crime was at a 40 year low despite there being 8 years since the sunset of the assault weapons ban and MILLIONS of new arms hitting the streets.

If you you look at violent crime in general and not gun deaths, the evidence shows that when you take guns away, the violence gets worse. People have a harder time procuring guns, but they still do, and if they cannot find them they use alternative lethal means. In the UK and Australia for instance, you saw a massive rise in stabbing and assaults. Also many anti gun people like to skew the gun death figures by tossing in suicides to make the number artificially high.

Armed people deter predators...how do I know? Well I carry a pistol and have had to pull it twice. One time saved me from getting stabbed by a carjacker. Thankfully the visual alone made him run for the hills.


As for the assertion that countries like Russia don't count because of internal strife, well what is going to happen if that comes here? I would like to be armed and able to protect myself if my nation collapses into shambles.

 

[slowdime]

Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
The 2nd Amendment guarantees it. Darn Constitution.

Man, I come here to read about oil. Should know better. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind.


Nope. The board rules prohibiting political discussion don't seem to matter. Threads are started on hot button issues and the entire thread usually consists of like minded people having a figurative circle jerk.


Your replies have been well put and respectful. It's impossible to have this conversation without both sides resorting to name calling and poor verbal behavior. I disagree with you and find some of your statements contradictory but find no reason to be abusive.

Going back to oil now. Carry on. Sorry for the hijack Canada.

Great state we live in ain't it BillT !!


Thanks for the kind words, Jeff. Political debate on the internet is a recipe for bringing out juvenile behavior, but as you said, I think you and I kept it civilized.

I'm not going to bother addressing anyone else in this thread, not for lack of debate ammo, but for lack of interest in engaging any further.

Sorry that the left is coming to destroy America, darn commies and their healthcare and stuff..

And 1000 apologies for the threadjacking, Canada!

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I read the quotes in the original post, they do make sense.

What is the problem?
What part makes sense?


All of it. It may be out of context as the language of the legislation that is being debated is not presented.

In any case, proper and logical framework around gun ownership should be designed so that you do not have situations like this where the police are afraid of everyone and the first reaction is to shoot to kill:

http://www.newser.com/story/207663/oklahoma-troopers-heres-why-we-shot-a-pastor.html

 

[Smokescreen]

It is interesting that those that are frequently derailing this thread about Canada are not from Canada and do so with such a wide range of stuff that is barely applicable to the topic. Please USA guys, get with it.

We as citizens of our respective countries know the problems that can be associated with guns. The problem is the ones making the laws are so corrupt that the views they are bringing forward are so far off reality that it impacts everyone with a broad brush and ultimately will take the guns from those that are responsible with them and leave the criminals and potentially corrupt governments. Until the system is cleansed the problem remains.

 

[Alfred_B]

@Smokescreen, I thought Canada is a democracy and the legislators are elected. If that is the case, they do what their constituents have asked them to do.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Smokescreen, I thought Canada is a democracy and the legislators are elected. If that is the case, they do what their constituents have asked them to do.

That is kind of the problem, the average Canadian who votes, doesn't have a gun and doesn't think its a big problem if no one else has one either, as they are either stupid dangerous toys or tools to murder innocent animals...
As a politician in an urban riding(most are urban these days) you don't have to know much about the issues, and can only get into trouble by supporting any type intelligent discussion of gun ownership.

 

[Alfred_B]

@Indylan, are your police afraid of the civilians and shoot to kill, then ask questions, upon any hint of trouble? Do you have massacres periodically?

If not, then you guys must be doing something right.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Smokescreen, I thought Canada is a democracy and the legislators are elected. If that is the case, they do what their constituents have asked them to do.


Canada has a parliament under a constitutional monarchy, which is fundamentally different from the United States.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/book/chapter_4-e.html

 

[Smokescreen]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Smokescreen, I thought Canada is a democracy and the legislators are elected. If that is the case, they do what their constituents have asked them to do.

That is kind of the problem, the average Canadian who votes, doesn't have a gun and doesn't think its a big problem if no one else has one either, as they are either stupid dangerous toys or tools to murder innocent animals...
As a politician in an urban riding(most are urban these days) you don't have to know much about the issues, and can only get into trouble by supporting any type intelligent discussion of gun ownership.


Yep. The votes of the urban have influence on the rural, regardless of knowledge base.

In the USA its a little different type of problem where the lobbyists for various industries can completely purchase politicians to push their agenda.

Government only have the power that the citizens grant them. The more the citizens want the government to do for them, the more the government can dictate.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Indylan, are your police afraid of the civilians and shoot to kill, then ask questions, upon any hint of trouble? Do you have massacres periodically?

If not, then you guys must be doing something right.

We still have the odd cop killing or civilian massacre, which tend to be done with legal type long guns, because they are convenient to own. There are hand guns on the streets as well, but they tend to be used only on other thug types.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
In the USA its a little different type of problem where the lobbyists for various industries can completely purchase politicians to push their agenda.


I think lobbying in general has helped gun owners far more than it' has hurt them. The NRA, along with the very powerful gun lobby they support, has a lot of pro gun muscle. The anti's have nowhere near the political muscle and clout the pro gun people have. This is a good thing for gun owners. Even Bloomberg with all of his billions hasn't made a dent in gun owners rights. Even though he constantly spending and trying, he is getting defeated left and right..

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Indylan, are your police afraid of the civilians and shoot to kill, then ask questions, upon any hint of trouble? Do you have massacres periodically?

If not, then you guys must be doing something right.


Why don't you move there?

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Indylan, are your police afraid of the civilians and shoot to kill, then ask questions, upon any hint of trouble? Do you have massacres periodically?

If not, then you guys must be doing something right.

We still have the odd cop killing or civilian massacre, which tend to be done with legal type long guns, because they are convenient to own. There are hand guns on the streets as well, but they tend to be used only on other thug types.



I live in Cleveland....long guns are rarely used by the thug element. Gun control with the drug dealer, crack head, meth head thug element is non existent. We have a prison gang named the Heartless Felons that has over 600 members who routinely execute rival gang members. This happens daily within 10 miles of my home. Many people are armed to defend their lives.

This place is the jungle...

 

[OtisBlkR1]

Originally Posted By: slowdime
[
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace, that's about as accurate as saying that the death penalty is a deterrent against murder, it still happens anyhow.


your kidding with this right ?

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@Indylan, are your police afraid of the civilians and shoot to kill, then ask questions, upon any hint of trouble? Do you have massacres periodically?

If not, then you guys must be doing something right.


Why don't you move there?


Why should I? If you want armed to teeth vigilante society, why don't you move to a place like that?