No fishing for me lately @Ticker the river’s are “flying high” to fish for walleye’s at this moment. ? ???
Gun Petition, Liberals taking away our guns ....
- Thread starter LuvPerch
- Start date
hvyhaul
Well-Known Member
bassaholic
Well-Known Member
Then don't sign and move on.....signedI didn't sign because I don't hunt anymore and because I don't hunt anymore, I don't own a gun anymore, and haven't for years. So to be honest, I really couldn't care less one way or the other. They're going to do what they're going to do. Some will be happy about it, others will be pissed. Same, different day.
But, just to set the record straight here, it was NOT the Liberals who initiated the gun registry, it was initiated by the Conservatives. The first steps toward the Canadian long-gun registry began under the federal Progressive Conservative Party government of Prime Minister Kim Campbell. It was the child of former Conservative Senator Nathan Nurgitz, who wrote then Prime Minister Campbell requesting all guns be registered after the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique shooting.
Like so many other things the Liberals get blamed for, it was the government of Kim Campbell's Conservatives beginning in 1990, who had done a majority of the work towards implementing the gun registry with Bill C-80, a bill that died when the election of 1993 was called, an election that the Liberals won in a landslide. All the Liberals did is take what they liked from that dead Bill, (C-80) tweaked it a bit, and reintroduced it as Bill C-68. Had the Conservatives won the '93 election, THEY would have been the ones to implement the gun registry, NOT the Liberals. Then everyone against it would be pissed at the Conservatives, everyone but those who support the Conservatives. They'd be saying it was a really good idea.
Now, I don't like ANY politician. I think they're all crooked, and they all lie to us, and that is not a partisan thing. Doesn't matter what party they represent, they all lie, and they'll get elected based on how many of us, choose to believe their BS. When we stop believing or simply don't buy into the BS that comes out of their mouths, they don't get elected or re-elected. They're supposed to do what we who put them there tell them to do, but that is NEVER the reality. They get elected and then they tell us what is best for us.
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
I believe it's a good thing to hear differing points of view. They call it conversation or debate and if these things are being talked about, that's NOT a bad thing. It's when they aren't being talked about that it becomes a "bad" thing because then NOBODY is talking about it and when it's something so "controversial" like this is, or many other things that are equally as controversial, because some support, some don't, and some don't care either way because it may no longer impact them personally, that's when it becomes an even greater issue. I also agree with what others have said, while I understand maybe it was posted in a fishing forum by mistake, this is still a fishing forum and this post really has no place here, but it made for interesting reading, so I read it, then offered my thoughts on it.
But here's the thing, NOBODY forced me to read this post, and likewise, NOBODY forced you to read what I posted. You did that of your own free will and as you said to me, if you don't like what I said, then just move on. I believe I made it clear in one of my posts, that I am neither pro gun, nor anti, I just don't own any anymore, but I once owned 7, but because I don't own any anymore, there is NO reason for me to be concerned about this as it will not impact me, unless someone takes a shot at me with one of these weapons they're trying to restrict or prohibit.
While I don't agree or disagree with what the gov't is intending to do, I also understand it if for no other reason, the number of shootings in the last year or so within a 5 minute walk or a 5 minute drive from my home or the fact that a few years ago I had LPS tactical members with their "assault' style weapons, (looked like M-16's to me but I have no idea what they really were) in my yard, one lying in my front garden, 4 others all in full tactical, shields and all walking through my yard all with their weapons aimed at a unit 4 doors away from my house where apparently, the person in that unit at that time had his family at gun point. Freaked my wife out big time when they wouldn't let her come near the house and there was an unmarked cop car from her vantage point partially under our awning. That incident and those more recent shootings gave me reason to start thinking about it a little more, especially the one at the Tim Hortons immediately across the street from where I live where someone was killed. There are kids in this area and one stray bullet is all it takes, but I still am not in favor or against what is being proposed and nothing the government has said nor anything being said here or elsewhere that I've heard or read has given me any reason to jump off that proverbial fence yet, but that doesn't mean that because YOU don't necessarily like what I have to say, that I shouldn't say it. I still have that right in this country to voice my opinion, no differently than you do.
I know, you're more likely to be stabbed, get hit by a car or be in a car accident, or die of an illness than you are to get shot in Canada, but shootings do happen. God forbid anyone of you, whether I have personally met you or not is in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and there's a shooting with one of these weapons and you, your friends, or a family member get hit, especially if its a kid. You might have a change of opinion IF that were to happen to you or your family and friends, and I hope it never does.
I get it, you don't feel you should be punished because of what the criminal element in society is doing but....what would you rather have, some gun control or absolutely none at all and mass shootings as defined as being 4 or more people shot, whether fatally or just wounded, and acts of vigilantism taking place every single day? I know a place where that happens every day, and so do you, we just don't hear about them unless there is a massive casualty event or it happens at a school, but it does happen every day.
I also get that as a law abiding citizen, you want to be able to keep your guns and by all accounts I've seen, use them as you see fit and you don't want to be constrained by even more regulation and more laws. NOBODY wants to be further constrained by more regulations and new laws regarding ANYTHING that is already highly regulated. For example, although I loved being a truck driver and I still miss it, if there was one thing that I couldn't stand it was all the damn regulations. It's one of the most regulated industries and professions out there today and those regulations change all the time. Look at how the Highway Traffic Act has changed. 10-15 years ago, no such thing as "distracted driving." That's a relatively new offense with new fines that keep going up for that offense, as do the demerits but I don't hear anyone really bitching about things like that when they change those regulations and those laws, but when it comes to guns, doesn't matter what side of the border you live on, change those laws, add more regulations or lighten them, or even just the implication that they might, and everyone is gonna bitch about it one way or the other.
Fishing reports??? Don't you know it's winternet season? ? ?
Old Cut LongPointer
Well-Known Member
To sign or not to sign ? That is your Right to choose. To post a diatribe defending your decision is again your Right {free speech} but it helps your case when you/we get our the facts straight. As for banning "assault style guns" ? Last I checked we don't have that classification yet. Well.... I guess you have to start somewhere and what better than a scary looking one ? Politicians ? Most start their careers with good intentions but in order to survive succumb to whatever means possible to stay in power. So … they have a problem. Some whackos go on a shooting spree ! Citizens are outraged and rightly so. They {the politicians} have to do something...right ? What looks good in the press and will appease the masses ? Ban so called assault type firearms ! They are only meant to kill people … right ? Last I checked pretty well every firearm is capable of that. We see them in movies all the time mowing down {usually} the bad guys . So the politicos ban the evil gun in hopes to look like hero's and along the way pick up a lot of votes for their party. So they had to throw a few gun toting rednecks under the bus { no biggie, they probably voted conservative anyway}.
Guys ! I love a good debate but abhor an arguement.
P.S.; The dress is BLUE ! LoL !
Guys ! I love a good debate but abhor an arguement.
P.S.; The dress is BLUE ! LoL !
Apologies all, for stirring it up so bad. Passionate issue. Im very much a proud Canadian, even when I act American. Moved south in 1992 for career advancement and have been fortunate to live and work all over the world including a stint living in China and working all over Asia. Someday I will move back up North and retire near the lake. (hopefully those damn wind turbines will be gone by then, Oops sorry!) One thing I can say: There is no place in the world where they have the freedoms we do in Canada and the USA. Period. Those other places are fun to visit and have there own charms and attractions......but they ain't near as good as it is here. At least we can have this debate, complain about our elected govt and have the right to agree or disagree as we see fit. We'd all be in jail in China and a number of other places Ive been for just the political commentary in this string.
bassaholic
Well-Known Member
When you start your post off with:
"I didn't sign because I don't hunt anymore and because I don't hunt anymore, I don't own a gun anymore, and haven't for years. So to be honest, I really couldn't care less one way or the other."
Now, How am I then to believe you would like to have a discussion about the topic? Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind and stated your point, which is great because you've taken the choice to do so
Bring on the hard water perchin'
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
Bring on the hard water perchin'
I don't do this ice fishing thing, tried it once, got really sick, then we moved to Yellowknife, and there was no way you were gonna get me to go sit on the ice there hoping to catch a fish, not with those winter temperatures ?, but for those who do, good luck to you.
I saw a picture on a FB page yesterday that showed someone sitting at the end of the pier in Pt Bruce earlier this week and there was no ice anywhere to be seen on the lake. But I also saw a picture taken in Pt Stanley of the pier there covered in ice that had been washed up over the pier when the lake was rough not that long ago. I know a lot of people go to the Long Point area or Lake Simcoe to ice fish but with how the weather has been this fall and winter so far, is there any ice thick enough anywhere on Lake Erie or Lake Simcoe to trust it enough to go ice fishing yet this year?
Ticker
Well-Known Member
Yaaah little too much and I dont even own a gun lol
Hoping to hit Nippising next weekend for the first time
Any advice as to where is public exssess?
We are going to motel it and use my new hut
Crestliner16
Well-Known Member
Of the shootings you refer to, how many were carried out using legally-owned, “military-style assault weapons”? If the answer is zero, how can you cite those examples as justification or "understanding" of the proposed bans? Even if the answer isn’t zero, do you think a ban would have stopped those aspiring murderers from illegally obtaining their guns (as many already do), or legally acquiring one of many other non-banned firearms with as much (or more!) destructive capability?
As you imply, gun violence is a growing concern in Canada, particularly for larger cities. And rightfully so. Still, the solution of “banning assault weapons” is nothing more than a symbolic gesture – it’s a low hanging fruit that makes for snappy talking points and tests well with a growing number of folks who aren’t interested in owning/using guns anyway, who don’t understand the nature of most gun crimes in Canada, and who aren’t familiar with Canada’s existing, stringent laws. The public has demanded action but getting at the root causes of violence and cracking down on criminals and illegal guns seems hard… much easier to make a grand show out of “banning” the scary looking guns and confiscating them from relatively cooperative, legal owners. “Taking guns off the street,” they will say …. **roll eyes**
The comparison you make to laws against distracted driving is laughable; I’ll leave you to look up the statistics on how many innocent Canadians are killed by distracted drivers vs. those murdered with guns of any type. Punishing distracted driving is punishing the act, not the tool. If, instead of increasing fines to discourage distracted driving, the government proposed to ban scary looking cars, you can be sure some eyebrows would raise. It seems like hyperbole, but is it really different than the proposed bans of “scary” guns, which will somehow address gun violence? Post-ban (hypothetically), there will still be plenty of legal and illegal guns around with which those so inclined can carry out their violent crimes.
Instead of bans to stop crimes that are (by definition) already illegal, how about a proposal to better enforce EXISTING LAWS, root out those committing ACTUAL GUN CRIMES, and slow the inflow of ILLEGAL GUNS, which might reasonably see support from anti-gunners and gun advocates alike. How about instead of spending tax dollars to buy back scary guns from legal owners, we funnel that money toward understanding and addressing the socioeconomic and mental health circumstances which lead people toward violence. Banning a few guns is a lazy solution and won’t work, unless the goal is simply pandering to uninformed voters and getting re-elected (it may work well for that).
singlemalt
Well-Known Member
OK, I have read this whole thread. I do appreciate everyone's point of view and their courage to state them publicly which ever side you are on. I am a life long hunter and of course want to protect my right to keep my guns. I don't own any "black guns" , military style guns or hand guns and have no desire to do so. Frankly I don't get the attraction to them so many people seem to have. I do get the "slippery slope" argument that I should stand up and protect other peoples right to own them or my guns will be next. It's a compelling argument.
However, I have also read Malcom Gladwell's thought provoking book "the Tipping Point" about how societal change really occurs. I would urge anyone interested in this type of stuff to read it. Demographics, urbanization and changes in culture are working against us. I beleive the "never give an inch" attitude displayed by the current NRA could well lead to a Tipping Point and we will simply be overwhelmed by the vast majority of people who don't like guns. All private ownership could be banned quite quickly if we hit a Tipping Point. I believe our opportunity to keep our guns and keep hunting will be much better if we are willing to discuss and compromise with intelligent respect for other peoples views.
However, I have also read Malcom Gladwell's thought provoking book "the Tipping Point" about how societal change really occurs. I would urge anyone interested in this type of stuff to read it. Demographics, urbanization and changes in culture are working against us. I beleive the "never give an inch" attitude displayed by the current NRA could well lead to a Tipping Point and we will simply be overwhelmed by the vast majority of people who don't like guns. All private ownership could be banned quite quickly if we hit a Tipping Point. I believe our opportunity to keep our guns and keep hunting will be much better if we are willing to discuss and compromise with intelligent respect for other peoples views.
including mental illness..you can add alcohol & drug abuse & wide spread poverty on the government to do list..put our hard earned tax paying dollars to work & help Canadians..
the list goes on with over crowded drug rehab centres, womens & homeless shelters & jails..end some of the suffering..its a mess..
the list goes on with over crowded drug rehab centres, womens & homeless shelters & jails..end some of the suffering..its a mess..
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
Like I said, I get it. I think you maybe missed the point I was trying to make though with the "distracted driving reference." It wasn't meant to be about punishing the act as much as it was nobody is bitching about it like they do changing gun laws, (and yes, as of late last year, more people are dying because of distracted driving, than impaired driving now but that doesn't change the fact that nobody is really bitching about it, but make any indication that there will or may be changes to existing gun regulations or laws, whether that is imposing new regulation or scaling back existing regulation and everyone comes out of the woodwork to bitch about it) When the gun registry was first implemented, I still owned my guns, and I was right up there with everyone else bitching about it, in fact that being implemented along with the fact that I hadn't hunted for years by then, is why I sold them and have no interest in owning another. It's a very controversial topic, right up there with the current pipeline debates, or the pro-life vs pro-choice debates, (which the courts including the Supreme Court has already ruled on and upheld their own rulings in that particular debate multiple times, but yet that hasn't stopped the debate from raging on has it?)
Ultimately, I think that eventually that may be where this debate is going to end up, in the Supreme Court again, and that's where it'll be decided, but keep in mind if it does end up there, in 1993 the Supreme Court ruled that in this country, it is NOT a Constitutional "right" to bear arms AND per what I found through a google search on the topic, the Supreme Court has also already ruled unanimously that the Firearms Act, which gives the government the authority to do what is being debated here, (and ultimately is what this debate is all about) is Constitutionally within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to do, the SCOC stating that "the pith and substance of the Act was in relation to "public safety" which was a matter within the criminal law power of the federal government."
It goes on to say,
"The Court cited the "Margarine Reference" for the requirements of criminal law and noted the danger of firearms, even if in some cases they could be used beneficially. Indeed, the regulations were judged to promote responsible firearm ownership, and the Court went on to argue that there would be a moral danger if firearms are used irresponsibly (morality is an element in criminal law, as established in the Margarine Reference), although the Court said that it was not just a matter of morality that gave Parliament the authority to pass this legislation. The Court also noted that firearms have been subject to federal regulation for years and that the provincial government, (in this case that of Alberta who made the challenge) could not reasonably challenge many of the earlier laws. Finally, the Court rejected all arguments that the law was too expensive or disadvantageous to rural regions, as these were matters for Parliament to consider rather than legal issues liable to judicial review."
So with that ruling, it could be reasonably concluded that IF this does end up in the SCOC again, which it might, they will cite their prior rulings on the matter and dismiss it, IF they choose to hear it at all, but that isn't going to make this topic any less controversial. Just like the pipeline debates or the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, there will always be people on both sides of the debate who think their views on the matter should be imposed and implemented and you're right, until they actually step up and really do something about it in a tangible and meaningful way, the debate is going to rage on, those on either side making the same arguments we're all making now, no matter what side of the debate you sit on.
There are some who have responded to what I've said that I've had these kind of discussions with before. They know that I don't generally come into this kind of discussion without doing some homework ahead of doing so. I don't come into these conversations with just an opinion, I try to have accurate facts to back up what I'm saying or what I've said, and I freely admit that sometimes, without intent on my part, they have shown me that the information I have shared has been inaccurate or outdated, but they also understand that what I said is what I have been able to find, and they've corrected me with provable facts, not just their personal opinions. BUT, in those situations, I am also the first one to admit that I made a mistake in what I offered, and I correct it. There are others who no matter what I say, even when I haven't made a mistake, when what I have said it provably accurate, no matter what, I am wrong because of their opinions. So be it. Just because you don't like what another says doesn't necessarily make what that person said wrong. It just means you have a different point of view, and it is no less wrong than the opinion you disagree with.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
I agree. The single biggest social issue this country faces (in my opinion) is the rampant poverty in this country and governments on all levels, be it municipal, provincial or federal have in one way or another contributed to that poverty by not addressing it and eliminating it. If you eliminate the poverty, there's a possibility that the substance and alcohol abuse that can and has led to crime and worsening mental illness, will decrease, (although when it comes to mental illnesses, there are so many other contributing factors, it isn't just caused by substance or alcohol abuse, those may in fact be symptoms of the already existing mental illness and as one who has survived mental illness, and continues to struggle at times to maintain the balance I was able to regain after getting treatment for it, I do have a rather informed and first hand knowledge about mental illness, which along with what I learned while getting treatment has allowed me for the most part to maintain that balance and for that I am eternally grateful to those who helped me through the most difficult time of my life. They're the reason I'm still here today. I think you get the picture)
Old Cut LongPointer
Well-Known Member
Aaaaaaah yes ! Opinions.... much like arseholes everyone has one and they usually stink.
Old Cut LongPointer
Well-Known Member
Oh c'mon now ! Laugh ! Ya know it's the truth ! And NO ! It wasn't directed to just you TrevorM but to all of us.
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
Yeah I know. My arse don't stink tho. It's breath on the other hand, yeah, once in a while it's been known to have bad breath. LMAO
Old Cut LongPointer
Well-Known Member
I can't imagine trying to gargle with Scope for your problem butt … let's get back to the original post which was signing a E-petition banning a certain type of firearm. You said Nay but most of us said yay. Why ? Probably we have a gut feeling that is the first step in taking away all guns from strangely enough... law abiding citizens that have been vetted via the RCMP to own such. Again why ? So those limp wristed spineless twits in Parliament can pander to the ill informed masses that protest outside their doors and garner much media time thereby making them look bad, no, no, no useless, no that's not it either... mmmm ineffective ? Naw ! Incompetent ! I think I'm getting close now. Anybody got something better ?
D
Deleted member 5866
Guest
Yeah I got something, politicians above all else are wealthy, and tend to have an overabundant sense of entitlement and privilege. They have to be to win an election and when they do, it's the childish "we won, you lost, we'll do what we want" type of attitude, especially if it's a majority gov't, but they're all forgetting we put them there to do as we tell them and more often than not if or when you watch the question period and the questions and answers asked or given, IF they answer those questions, they behave more like spoiled rotten kids, than most kids do. We should expect more from our politicians than bullying, lying and childish behaviors that even our kids wouldn't get away with when they don't like what their counterparts across the aisle have asked, said, or done, in fact we should demand it, and again, that isn't a partisan thing!! Doesn't matter what party they represent, they all do it.
Like I said in my initial post in response to this thread that some perhaps have forgotten I said. It's at the bottom of that post and what I said is, "Now, I don't like ANY politician. I think they're all crooked, and they all lie to us, and that is not a partisan thing. Doesn't matter what party they represent, they all lie, and they'll get elected based on how many of us, choose to believe their BS. When we stop believing or simply don't buy into the BS that comes out of their mouths, they don't get elected or re-elected. They're supposed to do what we who put them there tell them to do, but that is NEVER the reality. They get elected and then they tell us what is best for us." and I mean every word of that because that is all I've ever seen from any politician since I have been old enough to cast my vote.