So where are we now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
lintocs said:
I've seen this claim (no property rights in Canada) before. It is a misinterpretation if not an outright misunderstanding of the law, usually promoted by people who were subject to land expropriation. Even that was subject to due process.

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.
Click to expand...

I've posted this many times because everything that's being talked about in threads like this, and I mean everything, was in play 20 years ago and more. Property rights are mentioned: https://www.producer.com/1998/09/antigun-control-movement-plans-parliament-hill-rally/

It's so obvious that we need more tools than just the old standbys if we're not going to fulfil the Liberal dream of complete disarmament.
 
rangebob said:
Bill C-10A
The effect of this amendment is to extend grandfathering status to include prohibited handguns that were registered to an individual for the first time in Canada between February 14, 1995 and December 1, 1998 (for example, new imports and handguns bought from a dealer), and to handguns that business still had in their inventory on December 1, 1998, the effective date that the handguns became prohibited.
If you already have 12(6) privileges on your firearms licence, the amendment enables you to keep prohibited handguns acquired during that time period provided you re-register them under the Firearms Act. It also enables you to sell or give these handguns to a properly licensed individual or business.
...
The amendment received Royal Assent too late (May 2003) to enable grandfathering privileges to be extended to you if your only prohibited firearms were acquired between February 14, 1995 and December 1, 1998.
-- http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/c10a-eng.htm
Click to expand...

Yes, reclassification is a bit of a quandary. But that actual purchase was legal at the time it occurred and they couldn't change the law to make that transaction illegal. That's why they need to provide compensation, or more accurately, they need you to enter in to a new transaction to give up your property.

The kiwis fought the compensation amount after the fact. I think that was dumb, because what we really need to do is keep them at the negotiating table as long as possible and try to limit the terms and scope of the action and maximize compensation.

Bringing attention to the idea that the same laws could be used to ban cars, for instance, to meet carbon emissions might sway public opinion, at least in principle. They won't support gun ownership, but they should support property rights. We tell them we aren't criminals but that we're being cheated and they could be next.
 
how about we dont haggle with them? we keep giving up our rights and freedoms, eventually we will be ruled by tyrants.

when the communists invaded europe the first thing they did was disarm the populace. have we not learned from history??
 
Here are my thoughts.
The new Liberal Cabinet will be named Nov.20th. A new Public Safety Minister will be required as Ralph Goodale was not re-elected. The Minister will name a new advisory council, but this will not influence policy. The Speech from the Throne will include the intention to further control firearms ownership in Canada. In the new year, likely Spring, the government will introduce legislation to define and restrict "assault weapons" and to allow municipalities to ban handguns. The New Zealand model will be used as a starting basis. The NDP and the Bloc will support the Bill in exchange for (?) considerations. Implementation will be pushed far forward while they figure out how to manage it (similar to kicking the can down the road on firearms marking). In general, the public will support this and leave the details to the RCMP.
There will be no concerted action against legal gun owners before the next federal election in about 3 years. Attitudes towards scary guns will not change and will only become worse. Canadian gun crime will remain a concern and mass shooting incidents in the US during the coming election year will only polarize opinions more. Thus endth the sermon.

DD
 
ddalrymple said:
Here are my thoughts.
The new Liberal Cabinet will be named Nov.20th. A new Public Safety Minister will be required as Ralph Goodale was not re-elected. The Minister will name a new advisory council, but this will not influence policy. The Speech from the Throne will include the intention to further control firearms ownership in Canada. In the new year, likely Spring, the government will introduce legislation to define and restrict "assault weapons" and to allow municipalities to ban handguns. The New Zealand model will be used as a starting basis. The NDP and the Bloc will support the Bill in exchange for (?) considerations. Implementation will be pushed far forward while they figure out how to manage it (similar to kicking the can down the road on firearms marking). In general, the public will support this and leave the details to the RCMP.
There will be no concerted action against legal gun owners before the next federal election in about 3 years. Attitudes towards scary guns will not change and will only become worse. Canadian gun crime will remain a concern and mass shooting incidents in the US during the coming election year will only polarize opinions more. Thus endth the sermon.

DD
Click to expand...

do we know what the libs use as data to backup their claims for a new restriction? as far as I know most crimes are commited with illegally owned handguns related to gangs. why not just ban gangs?
 
If Trudeau and the Libs try to ban handguns in the cities. I think the law can be challenged, by arguing that it creates two classes of citizens. Are city folks less reliable or trustworthy than Sub Urban or Rural folks?
 
lordofguns said:
If Trudeau and the Libs try to ban handguns in the cities. I think the law can be challenged, by arguing that it creates two classes of citizens. Are city folks less reliable or trustworthy than Sub Urban or Rural folks?
Click to expand...

Good point.

Interesting that anthropologists are speculating that city folk are actually evolving into a different species of human?
 
Dexter Morgan said:
Is anyone thinking that perhaps they will just move some of the scary looking non-restricted rifles into the restricted category?

It would be an easy and cheap way to appease the anti-gun fanatics, at least for a while.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what my contacts in policy analysis have been telling to prepare for. They're the people who actually write the laws that get voted.
 
MoistNuggets said:
do we know what the libs use as data to backup their claims for a new restriction? as far as I know most crimes are commited with illegally owned handguns related to gangs. why not just ban gangs?
Click to expand...
Here is the answer, this explains everything why all this is happening:
https://youtu.be/n2hD-4uB5oU[/B]

Probably many people do not know this but here we go - the reason behind all this.
Gangs are needed to create the „background” for all this so they are not banned. We are. In the name of „public safety”.
Our „king from Ottawa” will get promoted after he is successful with doing all this to ALL of us.
 
Last edited:
When any nation mistrusts it's citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts it's citizens because such a government has evil plans. -George Washington

this sums it up for me, the rest is just a distraction
 
45ACPKING said:
When any nation mistrusts it's citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts it's citizens because such a government has evil plans. -George Washington

this sums it up for me, the rest is just a distraction
Click to expand...

Amen to this.
 
lordofguns said:
If Trudeau and the Libs try to ban handguns in the cities. I think the law can be challenged, by arguing that it creates two classes of citizens. Are city folks less reliable or trustworthy than Sub Urban or Rural folks?
Click to expand...

The Charter guarantees that we have equal rights under the law. Not rights depending on where you happen to live.

Section 15 – Equality rights
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin, color, religion, ###, age, or mental or physical disability.

"Section 15 applies to government action in the form of legislation, regulations, directions, policies, programs, activities and the actions of government agents carried out under lawful authority."

You are not equal under the law if you have fewer rights because you live in a city. Any suggestion that involves gun bans for some should immediately be ruled in violation of the Charter.
 
Last edited:
BlackVoid said:
Global warming is not a made up story. What made up about it is that it is mostly due to a human activity. Not the sun activity, not the volcanoes, not the methane from the ice and the bottom of the ocean.

But lets play along. 75% of manmade CO2 is generated by 100 global companies. Want to reduce their CO2? Make them build carbon capture plants. No? No taxes to collect and redistribute? how sad.

If they truly wanted to reduce Canadian CO2 emission they just need to stop the immigration and by 2050 Canada will cut emission in half via population reduction.

What left want us to do is to continue to emit carbon, feel guilty about it and pay for it. Similar to how Catholic church made you feel guilty about living your life and pay for your sins to get to heaven.
Click to expand...

First of all, the scientific consensus is that human activity, mostly the burning of carbon-based fuel, is what creates global warming. But that's not the point here. The point is that with a discourse like what you just posted, it's gonna be harder for the conservatives to pick up voter than it is for a nerd to pick up chicks at a party while speaking klingon.

So, prepare to change your tune or prepare for a 15-20 years long liberal government. Your call.
 
VinnyQC said:
First of all, the scientific consensus is that human activity, mostly the burning of carbon-based fuel, is what creates global warming. But that's not the point here. The point is that with a discourse like what you just posted, it's gonna be harder for the conservatives to pick up voter than it is for a nerd to pick up chicks at a party while speaking klingon.

So, prepare to change your tune or prepare for a 15-20 years long liberal government. Your call.
Click to expand...

Lol.

So, agree with the lie or accept continual defeat?
 
Back in 70s scientists were unilaterally preaching about "Global Cooling" and a possibility of ice age due to human activities and industrial pollution.
That never happened so they had to come up with something new!

Around mid 80s they changed it to "Global Warming" which was further gouged by Al Gore in 90s. This didn't work neither and proved to be wrong prediction, so they had to come up with a new term all over again!

"Climate Change" was newly invented term which is currently being used in their propaganda machinery.

To those who firmly believe that we humans created all this climate BS, you need to do more research.
Why there is noticeable increase in global temperatures on Mars? Even Pluto shows signs of warming up! We darn humans have polluted whole Solar System then!!
 
Last edited:
the earth naturally warms and cools and has done so thru millions of years. Cycling in and out of ice ages and all the while, continental drift turned seas into lands and lands into seas. Thru it all , species have emerged and become extinct while others adapted and survived.
While I will concede that there is no doubt human beings are adding a negative variable to the planets warming and cooling process..... The "climate change crisis" is a hoax made up by some real twisted people who felt a need to invent a whole new way to suck more money from your pocket without calling it taxation.

The real crisis on this planet is our lands and oceans and the poisons we are changing the planet with. From pharamceuticals and micro plastics in the oceans to toxic products on land.
While the governments of the developed nations are trying to brainwash all the working folk with good prosperous fun lives into giving them yet more money for this Climate Change initiative, No One is talking about curbing the products and behaviors that are polluting our world.
How about we cease all use of plastics and how about we develop sewer treatment that removes 100% of the pharmaceuticals we are flushing into the waterways everytime we take a piss. LOL

Climate change isn't a hoax, it's a normal process of the earth..... we humans are more than fools if we think we can stop it LOL
 
VinnyQC said:
So, prepare to change your tune or prepare for a 15-20 years long liberal government. Your call.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of scientists who say the current "climate change" is not a man made phenomena, the impact is just statistically too small. Something else is going on. But they are being ostracised, demonised and silenced. The same way media treats us on firearms.

Imagine if the amount of lies, statistics massaging and omissions the progressives are using on firearms file is being used to massage and distort climate science file? But it doesn't change the facts the public opinion is solidly on the "ten years left before earth dies" side of the argument.

And all of you are saying is that CPC lost because they did not got to the left hard enough. That's fine. But the moment CPC goes left, I am out.

P.S. Did some calculations for thermodynamics of heat capacity of ideal gas mix. Doubling the CO2 concentration in atmosphere compared to now will rise the temperature by 0.001C. that's because the ratio of CO2 to other gases is 1:2500 at 400 molecules per million and before we started burning fossils it was 280 per million.
 
Last edited:
Speaking in absolute terms is why we can't have a decent government. Whether here, or in US.
Depending on your stance on weed, abortion, guns, taxes, charity, immigration, etc., you have to pick Left or Right. No true Center party that just operates in grey zone, that's more applicable to the century we all live in.

Regardless, climate change is happening and we, humans have a direct effect on it (mostly through population levels and levels of industrialization). It's not about mother Earth, though, Earth will be fine, it'll survive and recover in another few billion years, even if we nuke each other off of the face of it. Pollution is also real, as anyone who still remembers what the air was like in the major cities in the 70s and 80s (as in, it is much cleaner now) and anyone who ever visited major cities in China and India can attest to. If you still wanna get a feel for it - just go to any classic car show and stand behind a line of those 70's/80's cars and smell the exhaust.
Without legislating lower emissions levels, manufacturers have zero incentive to do so on their own. They would work on more fuel-efficient, as the cost of fuel has a direct correlation, but lower emissions - no way. Again, just compare the China domestic market cars - up until very recently they had newly-built VW Sciroccos, for Chrissake and everyone was happy.

However, an educated argument is this: our contribution to worldwide CO2 emissions is 540 MTs per year (2016 numbers). That's almost 18 times less than China's and almost 10 times less than that of US. That's from all of it - farming, power gen, oil sands, coal, all the cars and other forms of transport, and building heating that we emit into the atmosphere.
The trick that most are playing is they divide that number to come up with a "per capita" amount, which puts us into the 4th place in the world, just because we are so scarcely populated. Now we are "the baddies" all of a sudden. The conversation that the PCs would need to have is this - statistically we are doing much less harm to than any of the developed and developing nations.
Can we do better? Probably - there's still room to improve in transportation (we drive way too much and use too little public transit because it's so poorly developed here), and in domestic home design (net zero homes, instead of current matchstick ####boxes that lose all the heat through the 19-century design windows, 1" attic insulation and poorly built walls). Even if we shut down all our farming, coal mining, and oil sands operations we will still suck in CO2 emissions per capita because of how we live. And the nice bonus is all these changes create work, instead of killing existing industries and multiplying problems without any effect. So, oil sands production has been curtailed since the last election due lack of storage space - what effect did it have on our CO2 emissions? My money is on "negligible"

Now this is the conversation that might get people thinking. Tossing feces at each other and telling the other folks to "educate themselves" just results in reciprocity and a lost election.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom