LeePeterson
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- ON Banada
Liberals plan to ''End Gun Violence''
- Thread starter Wolverine .303
- Start date
vickers vanguard
CGN Regular
- Location
- Laval, Quebec
Excellent post.....I’m one of those you quote in your post. Used to vote Liberal, as I don’t always agree with the conservative agenda. However, I see gun rights as one of the most powerful symbol of freedom, and as such, i now vote conservative.also, like you said, the liberals have shifted into a progressive party, and that’s definitely not my cup of tea...and totally opposed to it. This country used to be Center right, and that was an excellent balance in my opinion.
Anthony1977
Member
Unless the Conservatives get a majority, the NDP and BQ will definitely support the Libs on gun control and it WILL pass.
You want to lose your gun privileges, time & $ invested into the sport? Because this is EXACTLY what will happen if the conservative vote gets split.
A vote for PPC is a vote for Trudeau. Remember that.
Obama's "Change" and justin's "Real Change"
The word "Change" as a campaign slogan, is a recognizable code word for a philosophy.
"Change" doesn't mean change. It's meaning is different.
We all (voters, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP) know the meaning, if we take the time to think. We think "Change" means change. But we know what they mean by "Change" by what else they say.
"Intellectuals and Society" By Thomas Sowell
Vision of the anointed : This vision of society, in which there are many “problems” to be “solved” by applying the ideas of morally anointed intellectual elites is by no means the only vision, however much that vision may be prevalent among today’s intellectuals. A conflicting vision has co-existed for centuries—a vision in which the inherent flaws of human beings are the fundamental problem, and social contrivances are simply imperfect means of trying to cope with those flaws—the imperfections of these contrivances being themselves products of the inherent shortcomings of human beings.
Tragic vision : painted by Thucydides of “a human race that escaped chaos and barbarism by preserving with difficulty a thin layer of civilization,” based on “moderation and prudence” growing out of experience. “Solutions,” are not expected by those who see many of the frustrations, ills, and anomalies of life —the tragedy of the human condition—as being due to constraints inherent in human beings, singly and collectively, and in the constraints of the physical world in which they live. In contrast to the vision of today’s anointed, where existing society is discussed largely in terms of its inadequacies and the improvements which the anointed have to offer, the tragic vision regards civilization itself as something that requires great and constant efforts merely to be preserved—with these efforts to be based on actual experience, not on “exciting” new theories. In the tragic vision, barbarism is always waiting in the wings and civilization is simply “a thin crust over a volcano.” This vision has few solutions to offer and many painful trade-offs to ponder. Commenting on Felix Frankfurter’s references to the success of various reforms, Oliver Wendell Holmes wanted to know what the costs—the trade-offs—were. Otherwise, while lifting up society in one respect, “how the devil can I tell whether I am not pulling it down more in some other place,” he asked.7 This constrained vision is thus a tragic vision—not in the sense of believing that life must always be sad and gloomy, for much happiness and fulfillment are possible within a constrained world, but tragic in inherent limitations that cannot be overcome merely by changing institutions or by compassion, commitment, or other virtues which those with the vision of the anointed advocate or attribute to themselves.
Tragic vision : painted by Thucydides of “a human race that escaped chaos and barbarism by preserving with difficulty a thin layer of civilization,” based on “moderation and prudence” growing out of experience. “Solutions,” are not expected by those who see many of the frustrations, ills, and anomalies of life —the tragedy of the human condition—as being due to constraints inherent in human beings, singly and collectively, and in the constraints of the physical world in which they live. In contrast to the vision of today’s anointed, where existing society is discussed largely in terms of its inadequacies and the improvements which the anointed have to offer, the tragic vision regards civilization itself as something that requires great and constant efforts merely to be preserved—with these efforts to be based on actual experience, not on “exciting” new theories. In the tragic vision, barbarism is always waiting in the wings and civilization is simply “a thin crust over a volcano.” This vision has few solutions to offer and many painful trade-offs to ponder. Commenting on Felix Frankfurter’s references to the success of various reforms, Oliver Wendell Holmes wanted to know what the costs—the trade-offs—were. Otherwise, while lifting up society in one respect, “how the devil can I tell whether I am not pulling it down more in some other place,” he asked.7 This constrained vision is thus a tragic vision—not in the sense of believing that life must always be sad and gloomy, for much happiness and fulfillment are possible within a constrained world, but tragic in inherent limitations that cannot be overcome merely by changing institutions or by compassion, commitment, or other virtues which those with the vision of the anointed advocate or attribute to themselves.
Chapter 9
Patterns of the Anointed
The behavior of those who follow the vision of the anointed has long included certain patterns. They tend to see themselves as advocates of change and their opponents as defenders of the status quo. Their behavior often reflects attitudes rather than principles. They often see issues in terms of crusades and their vision as something to protect, virtually at all costs, even if that means keeping it sealed inside a bubble where discordant facts cannot get in to threaten it.
“CHANGE” VERSUS THE STATUS QUO
The intelligentsia often divide people into those who are for “change” and those who are for the status quo. John Dewey’s Liberalism and Social Action, for example, begins with these words:
Liberalism has long been accustomed to onslaughts proceeding from those who oppose social change. It has long been treated as an enemy by those who wish to maintain the status quo.
As already noted in Chapter 6, even such landmark “conservative” figures as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek advocated policies radically different from those in existing institutions or societies. No book was more completely based on the constrained or tragic vision of human nature than The Federalist—and yet its authors had not only rebelled against British colonial rule, but had created a new form of government, radically at variance with the autocracies that prevailed around the world at the time. To call such people defenders of the status quo is to completely divorce words from realities.
Similarly among their contemporaries in eighteenth century England, where Edmund Burke and Adam Smith were towering figures among those with the tragic vision. Both Burke and Smith advocated such drastic changes as freeing the American colonies instead of fighting to retain them, as the British government did, and both also opposed slavery at a time when few others did in the Western world, and virtually no one did outside of Western civilization. Burke even worked out a plan for preparing slaves for freedom and providing them with property to begin their lives as free people.2 Adam Smith not only opposed slavery but also dismissed with contempt the theory that black slaves in America were racially inferior to the whites who enslaved them.3
Calling those with the tragic vision defenders of the status quo is a triumph of verbal virtuosity over plain and demonstrable facts. That such a lazy way of evading critics’ arguments should have prevailed unchallenged from the eighteenth century to the present, among those who consider themselves “thinking people,” is a sobering sign of the power of a vision and rhetoric to shut down thought.
More generally, it is doubtful whether there are many—if any—individuals in a free society who are completely satisfied with all the policies and institutions of their society. In short, virtually everybody is in favor of some changes. Any accurate and rational discussion of differences among them would address which particular changes are favored by which people, based on what reasons, followed by analysis and evidence for or against those particular reasons for those particular changes. But all of this is bypassed by those who simply proclaim themselves to be in favor of “change” and label those who disagree with them as defenders of the status quo. It is yet another of the many arguments without arguments.
People who call themselves “progressives” assert not merely that they are for changes but that these are beneficial changes—that is, progress. But other people who advocate other very different changes likewise proclaim those to be changes for the better. In other words, everybody is a “progressive” by their own lights. That some people should imagine that they are peculiarly in favor of progress is not only another example of self-flattery but also an example of an evasion of the work of trying to show, with evidence and analysis, where and why their particular proposed changes
would produce better end results than other people’s proposed changes. Instead, proponents of other changes have been dismissed by many, including John Dewey, as “apologists for the status quo.”4
Despite such dismissals in lieu of arguments, anyone with a knowledge of the history of eighteenthcentury Britain must know that Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was hardly a defense of the status quo, and in fact went completely counter to the vested interests of the political, economic, and social elites of his time. It would be hard even to imagine why Adam Smith, or anyone else, would spend a whole decade writing a 900-page book to say how contented he was with the way things were. The same could be said of the voluminous writings of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, William F. Buckley, and many other writers labeled “conservative.”
The very concept of change used by the intelligentsia of the left—which is to say, most of the intelligentsia—is arbitrarily restrictive and tendentious. It means in practice the particular kinds of changes, through the particular kinds of social mechanisms that they envision. Other changes—no matter how large or how consequential for the lives of millions of people—tend to be ignored if they occur through other mechanisms and in ways not contemplated by the intelligentsia. At the very least, such unprescribed developments outside the scope of the vision of the anointed are denied the honorific title of “change.”
The 1920s, for example, were a decade of huge changes in the lives of the people of the United States: the change from a predominantly rural to a predominantly urban society, the spread of electricity, automobiles, and radios to vastly more millions of Americans, the beginning of commercial air travel, the revolutionizing of retail selling, with resulting lower prices, by the rapid spread of nationwide chain stores that made more products more affordable to more people. Yet when intellectuals refer to eras of “change,” they almost never mention the 1920s—because these sweeping changes in the way millions of Americans lived their lives were not the particular kinds of changes envisioned by the intelligentsia, through the particular kinds of social mechanisms envisioned by the intelligentsia. In the eyes of much of the intelligentsia, the 1920s (when that decade is thought of at all) are seen as a period of a stagnant status quo, presided over by conservative administrations opposed to “change.”
Milanczar
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Your PPC vote goes straight into the garbage pail that the Liberals will feed on.
Congratulations. Another weak link tries to sink the only ship that can save them.
Well done!
Justin and Bill Blair would thank you from the bottom of their hearts (if they had evolved any such organs anyway.......)
Milanczar
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
WRONG!
If that is what you think......... instead you are definitely in with Trudeau
Shorerider
CGN Regular
- Location
- British Columbia
I think everyone is missing the bigger picture. If O’toole doesn’t reverse the OIC or C71 we’re no worse off than we are today as far as guns go. I know it sucks big time and I have plenty of paper weights. But if the turd gets in we will lose the rest of our guns in short order. And if he gets a majority we will lose this country before we get another election if we ever get another election. There’s something bigger in play than just guns we need to realize that. I’d much rather live in a freeish country without my AR than under a socialist dictator who is going to take everything else away from us. They’re already starting the divide with vaccine passports (and I know O’toole supports them) and guns become an even deeper wedge that divides the usual cpc voters even more. We need to back the party that stands the best chance of unseating a wanna be dictator.
Standingtall
Regular
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Only one party ,be it good or be it bad, has a chance of unseating Trudeau and the libs... The Conservative Party.
If you put a vote behind anyone other than a Conservative we are splitting votes and leaving the door wide open for the liberals. If they get a minority, the BQ and NDP WILL help them pass more and more anti-gun legislation. Sure O'Toole had to say what he said for political reasons, but, if we want to stop the onslaught against the firearms community we will have to first get a some what friendly party in. A vote for Bernier or any party besides the Conservatives at this time, might change by next election, is a vote for the liberals in effect.
We will all have to make a small sacrifice in voting this election so we don't have huge sacrifices later.
#Trudont
#Anyonebuttrudeau
If you put a vote behind anyone other than a Conservative we are splitting votes and leaving the door wide open for the liberals. If they get a minority, the BQ and NDP WILL help them pass more and more anti-gun legislation. Sure O'Toole had to say what he said for political reasons, but, if we want to stop the onslaught against the firearms community we will have to first get a some what friendly party in. A vote for Bernier or any party besides the Conservatives at this time, might change by next election, is a vote for the liberals in effect.
We will all have to make a small sacrifice in voting this election so we don't have huge sacrifices later.
#Trudont
#Anyonebuttrudeau
G.Mitchell
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Grande Prairie Alberta
Great comments folks. Lots of interesting perspectives. The more O’Toole says the less I trust him. Still right now we need to stop the insanity which requires taking the Libs down and the PPC can’t do that. Yet.
TopShelf97
CGN Regular
Not sure if you guys have seen it or not, but the conservatives have updated their platform and on page 46 it says “All firearms that are currently banned will remain banned”
Pretty sure we tried this last election with Scheer and it didn’t work. Who really liked him? O’Toole is even worse and even more liberal. He’s pandering to liberals to get them to vote for him and stabbing conservative views in the back. The platform looks more liberal than conservative. If we are “conservatives” why are we not voting for conservative policy? If all you “wasted vote” sheep didn’t think that way the PPC would establish themselves in Canadian politics for good. Max Would be allowed to speak at debates. You think the CPC don’t have a hand in him not being able to debate in this election? And with more seats we could maybe have a decent PPC/CPC teamwork like LIB/NDP.
I don’t want lockdowns. I don’t want passports to live my life. I want to be able to afford a home. I want to be able to afford daily life. I don’t want mask mandates. I don’t want the government to dictate my speech and allow mentally deranged people tell me what gender or pronoun they are that given minute and find myself in legal trouble. I don’t want a government who will cave to extremists groups like Antifa and BLM and praise them for destroying our streets and history. I also don’t want to be treated like a criminal cause I am a firearm owner.
Justify your vote anyway you’d like. Think a vote for PPC is a waste is a poor mentality for policy you agree with. Depending where you live that’s continuously NDP or Liberal then your conservative vote doesn’t matter anyway, popular vote doesn’t work. So what’s the point in voting if that’s how it is? That’s your view isn’t it?
Vote for policy you agree with. Don’t vote for Scheer -2.0
I don’t want lockdowns. I don’t want passports to live my life. I want to be able to afford a home. I want to be able to afford daily life. I don’t want mask mandates. I don’t want the government to dictate my speech and allow mentally deranged people tell me what gender or pronoun they are that given minute and find myself in legal trouble. I don’t want a government who will cave to extremists groups like Antifa and BLM and praise them for destroying our streets and history. I also don’t want to be treated like a criminal cause I am a firearm owner.
Justify your vote anyway you’d like. Think a vote for PPC is a waste is a poor mentality for policy you agree with. Depending where you live that’s continuously NDP or Liberal then your conservative vote doesn’t matter anyway, popular vote doesn’t work. So what’s the point in voting if that’s how it is? That’s your view isn’t it?
Vote for policy you agree with. Don’t vote for Scheer -2.0
Otto Matyd
New member
- Location
- Southern AB
With regards to firearms, the Liberals are campaigning on promises that any firearms not banned yet, will be soon banned municipally, or restricted in such a manner (new magazine prohibitions) as to render them unusable. Now I have no idea what types of firearms you currently own or plan to own, but I know I currently have one safe queen due to the OIC, and a few that aren’t. However, if these new Liberal restrictions come into force, then my one safe queen will end up having more company…. Well, I guess not seeing as the Liberals will not allow me to keep that one at all (at least not in a usable state).
Ribstaylor
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ontario
What views exactly? I'd love to have someone point out to me what they view as the liberal policies. And I'm being serious. If anyone who thinks this opinion wants to chime in and explain that'd be fantastic.
Because I read his plan, and while I think some of it may not work or I don't like the idea of how they are going to tackle certain subjects. By and large as a conservative his platform is exactly on point with the reasons I voted him in. Peter Mckay was worthless barely running a campaign didn't have a plan at all laid out even on his website and snubbed every single conservative outlet there was. Leslyn Lewis as a social conservative can never form government in our current climate. And then there's Derick Sloan, More social conservative then Leslyn and had such bad press that A, he would never form government. And B once he lost he proceeded to make all sorts of problems for the party as a whole to the point he got kicked out of the party for being a trouble maker hurting the CPC's image.
As a conservative that sits far more in the center of the isle then anywhere else. O'toole is literally pushing all the things I wanted him to push.
steamy teabag
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Inside Carneys Reich
See if he caves to the remaining Poly and Wendy demands list as they are running the gun file for the Turd.
Ribstaylor
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ontario
If the liberals win this election I will lose 98% of my gun collection. That's not a ####ing joke. I will have 1 shotgun, and 1 hunting rifle left over if what they plan comes to pass.
TopShelf97
CGN Regular
And it’s only a matter of time before you lose that too. Canada is a commonwealth country, we will follow the UK, Australia, New Zealend, etc. Take a look at Australia if you want a sneak peak of the future of Canadian gun laws.
Ribstaylor
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ontario
Maybe it will go that way or maybe it won't. But all those deciding to vote on fringe parties have all ready given up, and decided that losing their guns is less of an important issue, then making themselves feel good inside by voting on their principles. It's fine they can vote how they want, and support who they please. But if we don't vote the conservatives into power it's Guaranteed I lose that 98%, and I can say definitively I don't ####ing like this one bit, and everyone quieting and bowing out of this race to go pat themselves on the back while they proclaim but my freedoms! Will lose them all as the anti freedom pro censorship liberals gain power once again. So when we are all censored and this site is gone, and any idea the liberals don't like online is pushed to the shadows. They will look back and go where did my freedoms go? Well Squandering a vote on principle has consequences and they voted to have them taken away.
Buttermeup
New member
No worries dudes, pick the most important election for our community to vote on feel good principles when the consequences of losing votes are the worst they've ever been.
