No fishing for me lately @Ticker the river’s are “flying high” to fish for walleye’s at this moment. ? ???So who's been out fishing ?
Any fishing real or fantasy reports?
I dont care witch one just want to hear some
?
No fishing for me lately @Ticker the river’s are “flying high” to fish for walleye’s at this moment. ? ???So who's been out fishing ?
Any fishing real or fantasy reports?
I dont care witch one just want to hear some
?
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.
Then don't sign and move on.....signed
Fishing reports??? Don't you know it's winternet season? ? ?So who's been out fishing ?
Any fishing real or fantasy reports?
I dont care witch one just want to hear some
?
When you start your post off with: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.
Bring on the hard water perchin'
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.
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).
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 & jails..end some of the suffering..its a mess..
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. LMAOOh 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.
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 ?
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Advertising is what keeps Channel 6-8 on the air. To this end, please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker. If you would prefer an ad-free experience, but would still like to help support site operations, please consider making a donation.