I was not aware of the NRA association but it would make sense because a working system up here is a potential threat to possible implementation down there. The cost was ridiculous but the big PC emphasis was placed on the initial cost not running costs. It was like blowing up a finished bridge because it cost to much to build. It also guaranteed that the funds spent were effectively burned with no benefit to the tax payer. Quebec and many police associations requested to that the existing data at least be provided to them but they lost their appeal to the supreme court and Harper had the records destroyed (reminds me of the Avro Arrow when conservatives not only stopped the program but had all the files, records, models and planes torched).
Shooting at a Florida high school
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
The bridge analogy is a good one. It has parallels with Harper's hate-on for the long-form census. I think data in general disturbed Harper because comprehensive data made his job harder. It's always much easier to lead based upon beliefs than hard data.
It is very common for leaders interested in not having their decisions questioned to keep their people uninformed/uneducated.
According to what percentage of Canadians? Seems like some Canadian gun owners were caught up in the paranoia the NRA pushes.
And I get the desire to own weapons; guns are fun to fire. But my point still stands. Whether you want to refer to them as "controlled" instead of banned, there is no way Americans can be legally be well enough armed to stop the US military, and the thought they might need to is paranoia.
And yes, the entire argument is irrational and entirely circular. People want guns to protect themselves in case the "tyrannical" government wants to take their guns.
Not entirely sure what you’re asking with your first question but the answer is enough of a percentage that it was an election promise by Harper.
And it’s irrational for you to think that it’s irrational for a percentage of the US believing in the purpose of the Second Amendment. Reasons: From a 2nd Amendment perspective, there is a difference between being outgunned and surrender. What you are suggesting is a laying down of arms because of an imbalance of power. That simply won’t happen. And what you call “paranoia” is written into the US Constitution. In addition: the notion that the entire armed forces would side with the Govt in the case of a total civil breakdown is an assumption. In a Civil war, people would pick sides. Again, you need to look at this without a typically “Canadian” viewpoint. Our histories are very different.
Considering that the Canadian groups have little popular constituencies, their media influence is disproportionate. Canadian broadcast and print media being mainly left-wing/progressive, they give them a lot of coverage.
The NRA does have over 5 million members. That allows them to put their point across through paid ads, and have access to politicians. Canadian gun organisations are divided and are rarely sought by the left-wing media. They are financially weak. The NRA does not, and never has financed Canadian firearms associations.
As for this 'here', I am generally for the status-quo in Canada. Of course, I am conflated as pro-gun because I'm not anti-gun, reflecting the polarization of the debate. Both extremes are nonsense. As for the US, I don't defend their system, except to debunk some of the hysteria and stereotypes uninformed persons manage to come up with.
For all you Rambos.
2 SWAT Officers get suspended.
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/two-swat-officers-suspended-responding-220353055.html
2 SWAT Officers get suspended.
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/two-swat-officers-suspended-responding-220353055.html
But if teachers were armed, these SWAT guys would have been confident in knowing that the situation will be handled swiftly and correctly and they wouldn't have violated policy.
And I'll stand by my belief that Harper's campaign was mainly targeting financial waste.
It was written into the constitution because 240 years ago, tyrannical governments were a real possibility. It is also worth noting that 200 years ago, the arms of a typical farmer were the same as the typical soldier. After more than 200 years of stable government, the fear of a tyrannical government is completely irrational.
p.s. Even if a civil war was a real possibility, the splitting of the armed forces eliminates the need for individual citizens to keep an arsenal.
Harper had a fairly large constituency supporting his firearms act reforms, and these people voted for him because the law/gun registry affected them personally. It wasn't some vague cost-cutting measure that he sought to sell to the electorate in general. The Liberals lost to the Conservatives, simply because they can't count: 2 million firearms owners were affected, and if you consider those family members who were sympathetic and voted likewise, that was a huge voting block. Liberal MP Wayne Easter warned his party at a previous policy convention not to go ahead with further firearms restrictions, because "That kind of policy cost us 60 seats in the last election".
That's why the Liberals are adamant that there will be no future long-gun registry: because that would turn a couple of millions of potential voters against them. Goodale's upcoming gun legislation has some rural Liberal MP's in marginal ridings, shitting their pants right now.
During the Tiananmen uprising in 1989, some units of the PLA revolted and were heading to the Square to uphold the protesters. That's why DengXiaoPing acted swifty and resolutely with the show of force, because things were quickly getting out of hand and the revolt had a chance of spreading into a full blown civil war. Soldiers aren't StarWars stormtroopers: they are thinking people with values and friends and relatives.
The US is headed towards a revolt in the next 20 years if the concentration of wealth by the establishment/deep state continues, and the rest of the population continues to get poorer. The scary thing is that at least one third of the population is armed.
An insurgency is not a numbers game. Most US casualties in Iraq happened after the defeat of Saddam's army. After that, the US faced many of the 300,000 angry and cashiered Iraqi soldiers who had nothing better to do than taking pot shots at the US occupiers. It was the nucleus of ISIS. Crackdowns on insurgents causes a lot of collateral damage on the civilian population, further angering the them, and into the hands of the insurgents. Armed civilians is exactly what the US founders had in mind, if their government ceased being for the people. It was not for joining a government organized militia.
another day more american psychopathy
Three woman and a gunman are dead after a decorated former serviceman who was receiving PTSD treatment stormed a California veterans home on Friday.
Albert Wong, 36, has been identified as the deceased suspect, according to the Napa County Sheriff-Coroner’s Office.
Executive Director Christine Loeber, 48, therapist Dr Jen Golick, 42, and Dr Jennifer Gonzales, a 29-year-old psychologist with the San Francisco Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, have been identified as the victims.
Officials said all three women were employees of The Pathway Home, a privately run program at the Veterans Home of California, Yontville in Napa.
Wong, of Sacramento, was a former member of the Pathway Home Program but had been asked to leave earlier this week, according to California State Sen Bill Dodd.
It is a tragic ending to a day-long standoff with police that saw more than 30 shots fired at officials and a nearly 10-hour lockdown at the facility.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kes-hostages-veterans-home.html#ixzz59LiWNz76
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Three woman and a gunman are dead after a decorated former serviceman who was receiving PTSD treatment stormed a California veterans home on Friday.
Albert Wong, 36, has been identified as the deceased suspect, according to the Napa County Sheriff-Coroner’s Office.
Executive Director Christine Loeber, 48, therapist Dr Jen Golick, 42, and Dr Jennifer Gonzales, a 29-year-old psychologist with the San Francisco Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, have been identified as the victims.
Officials said all three women were employees of The Pathway Home, a privately run program at the Veterans Home of California, Yontville in Napa.
Wong, of Sacramento, was a former member of the Pathway Home Program but had been asked to leave earlier this week, according to California State Sen Bill Dodd.
It is a tragic ending to a day-long standoff with police that saw more than 30 shots fired at officials and a nearly 10-hour lockdown at the facility.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kes-hostages-veterans-home.html#ixzz59LiWNz76
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
History has shown that revolutions rarely improve the lives of poor people and often it makes life worse for them. Revolutions gave the world Napoleon and his wars, Stalin and later Putin, Mao, the Iranian Mullahs, etc. It simply replaces one tyrant with another tyrant. (The American Revolution and some would argue maybe the Cuban Revolution are exception.)
Perhaps gun vendors should be held to the same standards as bars that serve alcohol? Bars have a legal liability for sending drunks out on the street. Gun vendors should also have a legal liability for sending armed mass murderers out on the street.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...ation/bar-liability-for-alcohol-injuries.html
Angry people get angry, whatever the outcome. So you won't have the opportunity to teach a rebellion what is likely in store for them. You seem to be implying that I'm a proponent of violent change, just because that's what I predict is a possibility.
The French Revolution didn't bring instant gratification, but without it, the 5th Republic today wouldn't exist.
Napoleon, despite his defeats, is considered by most Frenchmen to be the greatest Frenchman who ever lived. He is the founder of modern French society. 19th century propaganda still lingers wrt Napoleon; The rest of Europe went after him because he was the first serious ruler who didn't have royal blood, and they feared being ousted through exported revolutions. The British fought him because they always fought the French, as both vied for geopolitical supremacy.
Comparing Putin with Stalin is nonsense: there is no comparison. Too much CNN hysteria perhaps? Just remember: AFAIK, you're not American, and you have the right to think for yourself.
A bar owner is supposed to be aware of the number of drinks they sell to an individual; because after so many drinks, it's apparent and impossible to deny that a person is too drunk to drive. So unless you think that guns make people insane, there is nothing to suggest to the gun seller that a person is unfit if they pass the background check and applies the waiting periods prescribed by each US state. They are accountable if they sell to someone who is not eligible: that accountability is being prosecuted, because it's against the law.
AR-15 Inventor's Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon
In the wake of the Orlando shooting that left 49 victims dead, the family of the inventor of the AR-15 rifle says that the gun was not intended for civilian use but for military purposes.
“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”
The AR-15 has become the centerpiece of a national debate over assault weapons and gun control, after attackers have used them and similar guns in mass shootings. Proponents of stricter gun control say that assault weapons like the AR-15 should be banned, arguing they are not intended for civilian use. Gun rights activists say that banning the gun would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association has taken to calling the AR-15 “America’s rifle.”
http://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/
civilians has no business owning guns designed for military use if you want a gun get pistols and shot guns
In the wake of the Orlando shooting that left 49 victims dead, the family of the inventor of the AR-15 rifle says that the gun was not intended for civilian use but for military purposes.
“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”
The AR-15 has become the centerpiece of a national debate over assault weapons and gun control, after attackers have used them and similar guns in mass shootings. Proponents of stricter gun control say that assault weapons like the AR-15 should be banned, arguing they are not intended for civilian use. Gun rights activists say that banning the gun would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association has taken to calling the AR-15 “America’s rifle.”
http://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/
civilians has no business owning guns designed for military use if you want a gun get pistols and shot guns
To be fair, not all arguments by the pro-gun lobby is spurious. There have been times of human madness when innocent civilians could have used one or two guns to defend themselves. Examples include:
1) The Jews in Nazi Germany would not have gone down without a fight if they were armed.
2) White famers in South Africa need guns to protect their families and properties.
3) Christians in Egypt and many other Muslim countries need guns to protect their families from extremist and state sponsored attacks.
1) The Jews in Nazi Germany would not have gone down without a fight if they were armed.
2) White famers in South Africa need guns to protect their families and properties.
3) Christians in Egypt and many other Muslim countries need guns to protect their families from extremist and state sponsored attacks.
