Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Spiderfish

  1. Spanish flu occurred over a hundred years ago, before twitter, facebook, youtube, etc. etc. I'm not too concerned with contracting the coronavirus, I'm very concerned, however about the public's reaction to it. Society has put all its trust in the fragile systems that keep things stable and keep us alive. People's perspectives change when shelves at the grocery stores are empty and their investments are in the tank. I fully expect in his clueless, tone-deaf way, for Trudeau to announce and bring in his gun ban anytime...that ought to calm things down. I've noticed that this government's typical reaction to crisis is to carefully analyze the best, most logical course of action, and then do the exact opposite.
  2. Leaders are just getting back from break, they have a very busy agenda ahead of them of kicking around a new trade deal, figuring out how to creatively stall or deep six a new AB oilsands mine without further pissing off a province full of already unhappy westerners, and banning legal possessions from lawful Canadians. Priorities. Also, Trudeau's new beard apparently hasn't made him more astute, same guy...might be wise not to get your expectations up.
  3. 600 million and a bowl of poutine should about cover it. Haven't you heard?? Trudeau's not running squat anymore. Chrystia Freeland is now the minister for almost everything Why work?? that's s what he has strong, obedient women on his "team" for. Really, it's win-win for him....he can step back from all that annoying work stuff and focus more on his surfing and international travel....and and he can polish up his feminist facade at the same time. It seems to have grown a bit tarnished lately.
  4. First off, what is the Liberal definition of an assault rifle? The term "assault rifle" is generally defined as a selective fire rifle chambered in a medium caliber which is magazine fed. If this is the agreed term, I have great news for the Liberals...these weapons are already prohibited. Of course Trudeau already knows this, so that leaves us with one of two possibilities regarding what his agenda might be. Either Trudeau Liberals are pandering to Canadians who are uneducated about gun classification and actually plan on doing nothing, or they are planning to modify the definition to accommodate their gun confiscation agenda. both possibilities are intentionally disingenuous and dishonest...but I have come to expect no less from Liberal party policies. If the Liberals intend on creating their own definition of "assault weapon", what will be the parameters? Will the determining characteristics for prohibited status be based on caliber? How about colour?? Wood or composite stock? Or will it just be a lazy and thoughtless blanket ban on all center fire carbine rifles? Liberals have an obligation to clear this up so people who actually have some knowledge on classification of guns can not only weigh the policy objectively, but also to ensure to the public that the Liberals aren't a bunch of clueless morons when it comes to firearms legislation or are just spewing out hollow talking points to pander to the uneducated who insist that "something must be done to stop gun violence". It's easy to champion a ban on something when it doesn't affect you...when you're not a gun owner, hunter, or sport shooter. It's easy to say "why not ban assault weapons?" but the fact is assault weapons are already banned, so anyone with a shred of intelligence should be digging a bit deeper and asking what the Liberals actual agenda is. And if they simply want to ban all semi-automatic center fire rifles, why not just be honest with Canadians and say so? Anyone with a modest ability to rationalize knows the answer is simple, Liberals know that taking legal firearms away from law abiding, responsible Canadians who are already heavily regulated and controlled will not do a damned thing to stop gun crimes. And basing a flawed policy on such an insidious and despicable mistrust of a large segment of the law-abiding Canadian population would be a pretty hard sell, even for Trudeau who has made virtue-signalling an art form and regional animosity an effective tool in his bag of tricks.
  5. I wonder what defines an "assualt" rifle... Caliber?  colour?  Maybe the plan is to just take all center-fire semi-autos since that will be easiest.  And lets face it and drop the bullshit...that's the Liberals end game anyhow.

    1. scribblet


      I think it is,  but correct me if I'm wrong here.   I don't believe there is an official Canadian definition for “assault rifle”,   but we  define assault rifles as having fully automatic capability. Sales and possession of such firearms have been banned in Canada since the 70s.

      So, essentially, they intend to ban hunting rifles and sport-shooting rifles, which they've termed as 'military-style assault rifles'. Actual assault rifles are already banned, so the rifles that they're referring to are ones currently classified as 'prohibited'. As the name implies, they're not easy to get, and the licences and background checks to get them are very strict. 

      They chose to make their announcement in Toronto's Greektown, the site of a horrific shooting last year. Their announcement targets law-abiding gun owners, but it's important to note: the shooting in Greektown was perpetrated with a gun illegally obtained after being smuggled into Canada.

    2. Army Guy
  6. I see this as maybe the biggest problem for Trudeau. He and his war room spent the last several weeks searching, micro-analyzing and weaponizing past comments, associations, and actions of his opponents and attacking them on social media and elsewhere with constant accusations of racist, white supremacist, homophobe, etc. based on actions of the past...knowing the whole time this was in his past and that it may possibly come out. He inferred continuously that people don't change their past views. This lays bare and exposes his monumentally shallow hypocrisy, and complete and total lack of self-awareness...for those who may not have been paying attention previously. As far as damage to his campaign, I think there are two angles where this has the potential to damage him. First, it demolishes his strategy of attacking his opponents with further accusations of racism etc...this strategy of his is now off the table barring any major headlines coming from the other parties. So he is going to have to pivot and change strategy, maybe even answer some questions with coherent answers. Second, and maybe most damaging, it will call into question his seriousness by voters who want to be represented by a mature adult. When people start thinking their leader is a joke or is seen by others to be a joke, that is a game-changer.
  7. Vote however you want, that's how democracy works. Nowhere did I say our country is being destroyed..but I do think his policies and positions, particularly on our resource sector, have done deep and sustained damage to our economy that will take decades to repair. It may not be obvious right now, but it will become painfully obvious in the future. We've hobbled ourselves with tanker bans,anti pipeline policies, and new laws and bills that will affect more than just the oil and gas sector, causing major self-inflicted damage to all areas of our resource development in a competitive international resource economy. His policies have fueled resentment in Canadians against each other, and created regional divisions in this country in a way I haven't seen in my lifetime..worse I think than his father (and I'm old enough to remember.) I've voted Liberal in the past, I've voted Conservative in the past, peg me as a partisan if you feel like, it doesn't matter to me but you have no idea who I am. You're right about one thing though, a leader is not bigger than his party, but Trudeau seems to think he is. There was a time when a leader would not have survived the scandals and corrupt behaviour that Trudeau has survived, the party simply wouldn't allow such brand damage. I'm not sure what that says about the current Liberal party, that it seems there are only 2 MP's who have enough moral integrity to do the right thing and stand up to this bully. I'm not sure what that says about Canadians who would be willing to support such a leader...or such a party. I personally could not bring myself cannot vote for a party with a leader as vacuous and hollow as Trudeau in 2015, and my resolve has only focused and intensified in 4 years. I believe anyone with any sense of moral integrity would come to the same conclusion. I certainly did not see eye to eye with Jody Wilson on many of her positions, however on this particular one, we agree.
  8. Projection and cynicism of future leadership is a pathetic excuse for accepting current corruption. People who engage in this earn exactly the leadership they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us who actually care are dragged along for the ride. As I have said previously, last election Trudeau was a relative unknown to some who weren't paying attention and their ignorance could maybe be understood. Not this time, however...this time we know precisely who Trudeau is. If Canada decides to elect this fool, it's on us....this time ignorance cannot be used as a credible excuse.
  9. I think either Michelle Rempel, or Lisa Raitt would be very solid in the leadership role for the party. I also think someone like Pierre Poilievre would be a good choice. It is incomprehensible to me that Trudeau has any support left in this country. I don't see this as so much a reflection of Trudeau's incompetence, or even of Scheer's, as much as it is a result of the apparent acceptance of corruption and incompetence by Canadian voters. It's very disappointing, and actually worrisome that Canadian voters can place such a low value on ethics and performance, and be swayed so easily by pandering, hollow virtue signalling and hypocritical lecturing from a leader who is quite obviously out of his depth. It will be interesting to see what the reaction of the West will be if this clown is re-elected.
  10. He used to be, until he went from representing the people in his riding in SK, to representing Trudeau's brand and pushing his idealistic garbage on an unappreciative constituency of people he represented.
  11. Finally, a coherant point that you and I can agree on.
  12. If that's the case, maybe the GG needs to sit down with Trudeau and explain this in words that he will understand before he goes and invites any more "subjects of the British Crown" turned terrorists into the country. I'm sure Goodale would appreciate it....as would the rest of us.
  13. In a statement released by Goodale's office... "There is no legal obligation to facilitate their return," the statement read. "We are not able to comment on specific cases or national security operational matters." Sounds like Trudeau is going to need to reign Ralph in and sit him down and explain the Liberal perspective to him. We can't have Goodale going around "devaluing citizenship for all Canadians". Trudeau says Bill C-24 makes citizenship conditional upon 'good behaviour' “The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship ... because I do,” Trudeau told a Winnipeg town hall in July. “And I'm willing to take on anyone who disagrees with that. He added: “As soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behaviour, you devalue citizenship for everyone.” I bet the old guard of the Liberal party wishes JT would just keep these thoughts to himself, rather than try to smugly display his superior virtue. He must make it hard for the adults in the party to get things done.
  14. “I disagree with the ethic’s commissioner's findings, but I accept the report.”

    “I take the ethics commissioner’s report very seriously, and we will be moving forward to make sure this never happens again…under any government in this country. “

    “But at the same time, I can’t apologize for standing up for Canadian jobs.”

    1. OftenWrong


      Can't stand watching him stammer out his defensive nonsense, as if he knows what he was talking about. Let's call it like we see it here... incompetent PM.

  15. Not unprecedented...as you aptly point out, this is not the first time Trudeau has violated provisions in the Conflict of Interest Act. I'm not sure what's more bewildering, Trudeau's willful contempt for moral integrity and dismal ethical standard, or the voters who are still defending his actions and supporting him despite such corruption. One thing's for sure, if Canadians vote to give him another mandate, its' not on Trudeau....it's on Canadian voters. Can't plead ignorance this time around.
  16. Yeah, well Michael Moore says alternative energy solutions like wind, solar, and electric vehicles is a complete sham that's been perpetrated on weak minds for profit, so I guess it's apparently back to the drawing board. Only took him 15 years to figure out what some of us have known pretty much all along. At least he figured it out...some unfortunate individuals are still convinced it's our salvation.
  17. In the wake of recent gun violence in Toronto, Ralph Goodale is promising tougher gun laws will be coming.  Don't we already have laws that make it illegal to carry a gun into a night club and shoot people?  If not, I think that should definitely be a priority.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. scribblet


      Not sure how much tougher gun laws we can get, what they need to do is get tougher on crime and the criminals. 

    3. Spiderfish


      Getting tougher on crime and criminals is too difficult, much easier just to ban and confiscate legally owned possessions from innocent, law abiding citizens and then proudly boast to the sheeple that you're doing something.

    4. scribblet


      Actually  it looks like the left is exploiting the shootings in Toronto to push their socialist agenda. Confiscate firearms from legal gun owners and offer free stuff in exchange for Liberal votes. No interest in actually catching the criminals .

      Toronto Mayor John Tory once said a handgun ban would be an “empty gesture” and a poor substitute for tighter border security.    How tunes change. 


  18. Fair enough, but the point I'm making is that conflating the problems in the US with a discussion on Canadian gun control not only skews the argument, but misrepresents the scope of the problem we supposedly have in Canada. As someone who doesn't want to see more gun laws foisted on law abiding, responsible Canadian citizens, it's important to frame the issue accurately so we don't end up with people like Zeitgeist et al., championing a more punitive and restrictive solution to a problem that we don't have.
  19. Agree with most of your post, however if we define our gun control as "not American" then why do we assume to have the same scope of problems as America? Seems contradictory.
  20. You completely missed the point. And if the strongest counter argument you can muster is "we can't discuss Canadian gun laws because Canadian gun laws are irrational", then you might as well just give up your guns now.
  21. I'm not sure if this thread is supposed to be about handguns and assault weapons in Canada or not...the original post indicated that this was about consultations on whether handguns should be banned in Canada after last year’s marked increase in gun homicides in Toronto. Making the assumption that there's a reason this thread is in the Canadian Federal Politics section, it's worth noting that all this talk about bump stocks, Republicans vs Dems, and of course Trump....is exactly the problem we have in rationally discussing Canadian gun laws. When the issue of gun control gets conflated with the problems down in the US, it creates a false narrative that Canadian gun laws are too weak, that Canada has some imaginary problem with mass shootings, and we need to tighten up our laws to solve a problem we don't even have. That's not to say there is no gun violence in Canada, but it's not even in the same realm of comparability with our neighbors down South, and it never will be. Using what happens in the US to push a fear driven social/political agenda in Canada is lazy, irresponsible, and overtly ignorant. As I mentioned previously, Canada has some of the strictest laws and regulations on the planet, and writing more gun laws or banning more guns is not going to make Canadian streets any safer from bad guys who don't give a rats ass about current gun laws, let alone stricter ones. All it's going to do is give politicians more talking points and Government more fear driven control of law abiding citizens, their rights/privileges, and their possessions.
  22. With a rifled barrel and slug..maybe. Certainly not with "shotgun bullets" with "all the pellets" as was referenced.
  23. Then maybe this is the problem the RCMP and government should be trying to solve, instead of banning legally owned guns and magazines from law-abiding people and creating criminals out of innocent people.
  24. Do yo hunt? How many deer hunters do you know that hunt deer using buckshot? Yeah...me neither.
  25. ...says someone who doesn't hunt, and thinks deer hunters should be using a 12 gauge and bird shot. You'll excuse me if I don't take your extensive knowledge as the final authority. Any high powered rifle can be used as a "battle rifle" (although, again... I can't seem to find an official definition for that term.) A single shot Remington VS 700 is an incredibly accurate and reliable hunting rifle, it's also basically a civilian version of the M24 sniper rifle. The amount of carnage that could potentially be inflicted with one of these in the right hands is devastating. You don't need a large magazine when you're half a kilometer away and no one knows where you are. But it's just a single-shot hunting rifle. Should it be banned as well?
  • Create New...