Canadian Politics - an embarassment

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadian Politics - a

Strict gun control falls apart when you can just buy a gun out of state though, Think Not. Much of our gun problem in Canada is with guns coming in from your country, for instance.

 

[ottawabill]

RE: Canadian Politics - a

Our handgun control actually works fairly well. Yep lots of urban crimials have then but they are not in the hands of everyone. where our laws got stupid was will the long gun control. It has cost a fortune and really does nothing to stop murders or holdups. Just made farmers and hunters into criminals if they didn't register. More then owning a gun the problem in the U.S. is a mentallity problem. Every household in Switzerland has a gun ready to defend the country but their gun murder rate is lower than Canada...

A bit of the old guns don't kill people ..people kill people

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Canadian Politics - a

Strict gun control falls apart when you can just buy a gun out of state though, Think Not. Much of our gun problem in Canada is with guns coming in from your country, for instance.

I don't doubt that. I was quoting statistics to get a more accurate picture. Homocides are going to occur, and criminals do most of it. They can smuggle it in if they had to.

If you're letting in people with arms, you should have a chat with your immigration officials letting them in.

You can stop it as much as we can stop illegal immigration coming in from Mexico.

 

[Knightman]

I for one prefer to make criminals out of those that are already criminals and leave people that simply want to carry on their lives alone. The current gun control method in Canada is totaly non-effective and is nothing but a huge waste of money and personal. The same goes for all our drug control regulations, neither of which has anything to do with personal freedoms. let us save ourselves a lot of time and money and get rid of a great deal of these half-baked solutions and the politicians that think them up...........

 

[Once Proud Canadian]

Hi again.

The point about gun control I was trying to make was this: Our Government (include our national police force in here too) did not make the gun control laws to reduce crime or prevent homocides, or to reduce suicides or any of the hype they used.

A government working for the people is not afraid of the people. Our government has fallen so far into the sump hole of lies, corruption, deceit and dishonour that they are very definitely concerned and see as a way to control the population the control of guns. It was a masterful stroke. Canadians being what we are - law abiding people for the most part, signed up our guns, or had them destroyed or whatever.

Hitler had it right when he said one does not give guns to the people you have defeated.

One just has to look at the order of aliegence a politician has to understand where the problems are. The order is:
(1) Party, (2) Him/herself, (3) His/her family, friends, (4) The lobby groups (in order of size orf payback, (5) His/her supporters (in order of size of contribution, (6)Maybe the Country and constituants.

That is what is wrong with the system!!

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadian Politics - a

The government didn't take guns away from anybody though, Once. They just required that guns be registered. You can still go buy a gun tomorrow if you want.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canadian Politics - a

The government didn't take guns away from anybody though, Once. They just required that guns be registered. You can still go buy a gun tomorrow if you want.

Not a handgun though. They will take those away at the border.

 

[Chake99]

RE: Canadian Politics - a

The system is not as big a mess as you make it out to be.

300 in the house of commons is not that huge, it definately is not a strain on Canada's wallet, and the more they are, the more your represenative is acountable to you the voter, and the more important what you think is.

I will also say, as you are probably the type of person who hates the senate =D that I do not see much (yes it could be better) that is wrong with the senate either, what it is is a place for people who represent the priministers that appointed them to look over legislation. In a way its a representation of our past, it also is a place where senators can look over legislation while not having to worry about appeasing the populace so much as pragmatism.

Of course they never do anything but recommend a couple changes and that is the way it should be, they are not elected.

I do not see what is so wrong about gun-control though, do you honestly think that the government of Canada fears an armed overthrow?

Or that they are going to halt election and the Liberals are going to declare themselves a totalitarian regime?

Because that is what you are suggesting and it sounds like a pile of paranoid BS.

People do kill people but guns sure help a lot, so much that if it wasn't for the gun that was so easily accessible the killing may not have occurred

How is gun-control not democratic? These are the men we elected! If you are so fed up with them run as an independant yourself!

It will reduce crime, I doubt drastically, and not an amount worth the money they have paid, but it would have been worth the original estimate.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadian Politics - a

They should. No civilian has a purpose for a handgun. You are, once again, incorrect though Toro. You can own a handgun in Canada if you have the right permits.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canadian Politics - a

They should. No civilian has a purpose for a handgun. You are, once again, incorrect though Toro. You can own a handgun in Canada if you have the right permits.

The purpose is protection. Where can you buy a handgun? How many people own handguns? Who determines why you can have a handgun? If its almost impossible to own a handgun for whatever reason, there is a defacto ban on handguns.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadian Politics - a

Protection from what? Who are you going to shoot? Do you the stats on who gets shot by legally owned handguns in the US? Family members...usually by accident...are at the top of the list.

You can own a handgun here for target shooting. It is not that hard to get one. I know a couple of people who have them.

 

[bluealberta]

In addition to the problems mentioned already about our system, is the most obvious one. Parties will do anything to stay in power, and that means they have to pander to the areas with the most votes, Ontario and Quebec. Virtually every policy the LIbs have now are results of special interest demands from those two provinces. This necessarily means the rest of the country gets ignored. How many elections have we had where we have all heard that the make up of the government will be decided in Ontario? or Quebec? This is the reality of this country, so maybe we should just let those two provinces vote, because when you think about it, the rest of us really only vote for an increased majority, or more opposition members. The decision has already been reached by the time Ontario and Quebec have their votes counted. Until there is another way to ensure each voters vote actually counts, and here I agree with the Rev that PR may be the way to go, the system will continue to be dictated by those two provinces, with marginal input from the other eight and the territrories.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canadian Politics - a

Protection from what? Who are you going to shoot? Do you the stats on who gets shot by legally owned handguns in the US? Family members...usually by accident...are at the top of the list.

You can own a handgun here for target shooting. It is not that hard to get one. I know a couple of people who have them.

I'd certainly be interested in knowing from your friends how easy it was to get. But if you come to the border with a handgun, the government does take it away from you. They give it back when you return.

Protection from crime. I'm not arguing the statistics because you're right about the dangers of guns. But if someone has broken into my home and is threatening my family, I cannot defend them. At that point in time, all the arguments against gun control go out the window.

 

[The Philosopher]

Mulroney realized that he needed to get Quebec and Ontario to win, that's why he moved to a riding in Quebec, even though he spoke very little French. Harper should really do the same, but with so many Bloc members there he'd risk losing, not the same times I guess.

Harper is trying to take Ontario and Martin is trying to maintain it. No one cares about the East (Newfoundland 6 votes /Maritimes 24 votes) or the West (Praries/BC 24 votes). They only care about Ontario worth 24 votes and Quebec worth 24 votes. The Conservatives have most of the West and that won't change soon and the Liberals have most of the East and that won't change soon. Quebec is mostly Bloc, which only leaves Ontario as a battleground.

If Duceppe leaves the Bloc Quebecois it is possible to open up Quebec again. BUT, unless something major happens it'll come down to buying votes, whether it be the NDP, the Liberals, or the Conservatives. In Ontario you'll hear all three parties offering that province everything, while Saskachewan, Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland get no offers.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canadian Politics - an embarassment

Mulroney realized that he needed to get Quebec and Ontario to win, that's why he moved to a riding in Quebec, even though he spoke very little French. Harper should really do the same, but with so many Bloc members there he'd risk losing, not the same times I guess.

Mulroney spoke fluent French growing up on the north shore.

Harper's probably finished. If he can't capitalize on the corruption in the Liberal Party after 15 years of rule, he's never going to break through.

 

[peapod]

Well than maybe you should get yourselves a new leader, and get rid of the religion. One of my brothers is a stauch conservative, greedy little prick, I can say that coz he my brother Even he cannot stomach harper anymore.

 

[jimmoyer]

Perhaps some warnings about Democracy's one major tendency:

The Separation Divorce Syndrome.

Separate and subdivide endlessly into smaller and smaller groups until each individual represents himself.

As capitalism strives for monopoly, so does Democracy strive for endless individuation.

Both systems have great promise, but both always strive for the worst goal possible.

We want our needs represented and so we endlessly desire to split away from another group who battles for their own needs.

This endless mitosis, this endless bifurcation, so to speak, runs parallel to the idea of interest groups.

Perhaps we should remember that there should be no end goal, but it is the process, the battle itself is the prime directive that made democracy more successful than any other system on the planet.

Why? Because no group has a monopoly on the truth, or on the right cause.

The battle binds us to deal with each other.
We should not endlessly divorce ourselves from other groups, states, provinces...

This cross-acculturation was taught to us in all our anthropology courses.

The battle over shared resources will be endless and never will a perfect status be achieved.

And so battle on and bind yourself to those who think otherwise, for that's the juice of a great energy.

Without process, a land lies inert.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canadian Politics - an embarassment

As capitalism strives for monopoly

Enterprises strive for market share but there are, with one or two exceptions, no monopolies. Capitalism thrives on competition because competition spurs innovation which destroys monopolies.

 

[jimmoyer]

But this thread is on the Canadian improvement on democracy or its embarrassments, and so I only wanted to point out that democracy in all its various flavors holds promise only in the process, the opportunity to battle.

The end result of those battles never please the great majority. Never.

And thus the tendency to split or separate manifests if one interest group does not get what it wants.

How you can create an apparatus that will encourage debate and thus slow down any progress legitimately or illegitimately, and also create an apparatus that can actually get things done is a great riddle.

Secession always lurks in democracy.

Compromise gains a disappointed majority.

There's only one bright shining institution that the Brits and Canadians have: the QUESTION PERIOD.

Press conferences and Press secretaries in America don't hold a candle to that great institution.

 

[peapod]

A question jimmy what kind of medication are you on :lol: :lol: I won't wait for your reply...I am gonna go see starwars now