Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here. You’re saying that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners currently abide by the laws but if the laws change they’ll up and decide to start not obeying the laws?

Yes, that is generally what happens when the government does something like this.

I guess you are incapable of looking at the many historical examples we have that proves this to be true.

But hey, tough to admit your dear leader is wrong, amirite?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, that is generally what happens when the government does something like this.

I guess you are incapable of looking at the many historical examples we have that proves this to be true.

But hey, tough to admit your dear leader is wrong, amirite?

He’s my dear leader? News to me.

[Muta]

Cons, Libs... no matter who is in federal power, my day-to-day life has virtually remained the same in almost every way. For me, it's the least impactful on my life of the three levels of government. Don't care much for Trudeau however, but also definitely not a fan of Milhouse. I'll continue voting Rhino party for the forseeable future.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, that is generally what happens when the government does something like this.

I guess you are incapable of looking at the many historical examples we have that proves this to be true.

But hey, tough to admit your dear leader is wrong, amirite?

Examples? I am genuinely curious.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Examples? I am genuinely curious.

It was a little before my time but I guess I should just safely assume that there was a big underground market for cars without seatbelts after manufacturers were forced to start installing them in all new vehicles.

Don’t get me started on building supplies that contain asbestos.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Muta

Cons, Libs... no matter who is in federal power, my day-to-day life has virtually remained the same in almost every way. For me, it's the least impactful on my life of the three levels of government. Don't care much for Trudeau however, but also definitely not a fan of Milhouse. I'll continue voting Rhino party for the forseeable future.

Only because I am healthy thus far I can honestly say that no level of Government impacts my life in Calgary in any way at all. The bulk of my customers are in Ontario or the USA. I will admit that I do find Alberta politics amusing...my attitude is that "they" (governments) are going to serve up whatever it is they are going to serve up and we just have to deal with it/roll with the punches. I don't lose a whole bunch of sleep over any of it.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Muta

Cons, Libs... no matter who is in federal power, my day-to-day life has virtually remained the same in almost every way. For me, it's the least impactful on my life of the three levels of government. Don't care much for Trudeau however, but also definitely not a fan of Milhouse. I'll continue voting Rhino party for the forseeable future.

The federal gov has far less impact on your day to day life (your being the average citizen) but of course has an enormous impact on your long term life, particularly your quality of life as you age. It's just super hard for a person to look at their own life holistically and not on a linear scale.

Might want to reconsider your stance for coming elections.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The federal gov has far less impact on your day to day life (your being the average citizen) but of course has an enormous impact on your long term life, particularly your quality of life as you age.

Please, provide some depth around this statement if you can. Do you mean CRA-related reasons? How would the feds impact quality of life that the province/municipality wouldn't do?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The federal gov has far less impact on your day to day life (your being the average citizen) but of course has an enormous impact on your long term life, particularly your quality of life as you age. It's just super hard for a person to look at their own life holistically and not on a linear scale.

Might want to reconsider your stance for coming elections.

Nah. My quality of life is determined by the time spent with my loved ones and the items I can cross off my bucket list (which don't all require money if that's what you're suggesting), and not by whether the Cons or Libs are in power or how they manage the CPP (which people shouldn't be primarily relying on anyways for retirement).

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Examples? I am genuinely curious.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It was a little before my time but I guess I should just safely assume that there was a big underground market for cars without seatbelts after manufacturers were forced to start installing them in all new vehicles.

Don’t get me started on building supplies that contain asbestos.

No so much black market, but demand for “old” or “original” (pre government meddling) products is quite common. And you’re not too far off with the seatbelt comparison but pre DEF diesel trucks and tractors still have a ton of demand. And DEF deleting vehicle has become quite the business in the right market.

I know there are certain herbicides that have been banned which people will pay a premium for should they be able to source them, or bring them home from the US. Neither has turned citizens into criminals but there are ways around regulations that some get off on trying to find.

Oh and Satellite TV use to be a big one, getting US (unregulated) satellite as kid was hours upon hours of 80’s/ 90’s joy. Having “a guy” guaranteed Wrestling, hockey, porn and movies 24/7. So the current equivalent would be a US VPN. The internet would be a good example of how (over?) regulations have created a black market for the unregulated.

Prohibition, tobacco/ drugs bans created huge black markets turning to citizens into criminals.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

Gotta love the state of Canadian politics these days. Even when your beloved party and their beloved leader makes a clear over reach with legislation, gotta support the brand and smear those who stand against it.

Originally Posted by Azure

But always amusing watching the Liberal gang following mindlessly allow with their dear leaders whim's and wishes without a single shred of critical thought.

Originally Posted by Azure

But hey, tough to admit your dear leader is wrong, amirite?

Are you trying to post this kind of person into existence? Or are you so totally unequipped to handle differing opinions that you have to dream up a fantasy where everyone is a biased Liberal stan kissing the boots of dear leader?

Honestly, you are prone to some good thoughts, but posting stuff like this over and over makes you look a lot dumber than I know you are. Try a little less hard, you’ll be better off.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Prohibition, tobacco/ drugs bans created huge black markets turning to citizens into criminals.

This was the example I was expecting to have come up and it is true, but that also doesn’t make a decision to restrict the distribution of some items a wrong one.

We all know people under the required ages can manage to get ahold of cigarettes and beer but could you imagine someone trying to argue that we shouldn’t restrict tobacco and alcohol sales to children because it will make them break the law?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It was a little before my time but I guess I should just safely assume that there was a big underground market for cars without seatbelts after manufacturers were forced to start installing them in all new vehicles.

Don’t get me started on building supplies that contain asbestos.

You are making invalid comparisons to laws that are rationally connected to the safety reason they were enacted.

When governments arbitrarily prohibit things (claiming it to be for some purpose that is not accepted by the citizens it affects, not supported by any data, and in fact runs counter-purpose to the data that does exist - and common sense) there is often widespread disobedience of the prohibition.

One historical example? It actually took over the word - 'prohibition'.

[Beat by Derek Sutton - and Iggy your response to him proves the error of your argument rather effectively. Responsible gun owners not only accept but are solidly in favour of the very serious, strict and highly effective regulatory regime we currently have. You are now implying that it is either ban guns or let kids own them without restrictions...which nobody is asking for].

Another example? Does anyone know anybody who ever grew or sold or consumed marijuana before it was allowed? Probably not because after all it was a criminal offence - and the government repeatedly said society would be destroyed if not for the law banning it. I imagine no otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals because they thought marijuana was not worthy of being criminalized and just ignored the law

So back to the topic. You might ask yourself why is that well known crazed right wing gun nut NDP MP Charlie Angus writing about "...how the Liberal government promise to ban hand guns morphed into a massive overreach including hunting rifles and shotguns" while referencing the "hugely problematic" "11th hour amendment thrown into Bill C-21..."?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1599741479705903109

Could it be because that is a viewpoint reasonable people can hold based on what the government is actually doing?

An example of that?

As another poster mentioned recently - check out the Ruger No. 1.

The Minister has repeatedly declared no hunting rifles are being banned (sometimes he sneaks in the term 'conventional hunting').

I would ask anyone to explain how a Ruger No. 1 could in any way be characterized as anything other than a basic hunting rifle.

It is a falling block lever action single shot rifle (when all we seem to hear about is the government saying it is only banning semi-auto rifles with large magazine capabilities - you know 'weapons of war'). If you wanted to do anything other than shoot a deer or a paper target - and most especially if you wanted to try and conduct any form of a mass shooting - the Ruger No. 1 would arguably be the worst possible modern firearm you could select.

To be the most fair possible to the government, maybe they really did not mean for the ban list to apply as wide as it appears to on its face (on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used). But then that is what happens when you sneak in last minute amendments to what was already a Frankenstein's Monster of terrible legislative drafting.

Either way, in my view, athletes or anyone else who sees their government doing something while flat out denying that is what they are doing should feel perfectly free to speak truth to power as much or as little as they see fit.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This was the example I was expecting to have come up and it is true, but that also doesn’t make a decision to restrict the distribution of some items a wrong one.

We all know people under the required ages can manage to get ahold of cigarettes and beer but could you imagine someone trying to argue that we shouldn’t restrict tobacco and alcohol sales to children because it will make them break the law?

Well no, just like I wouldn’t let an infant ride a roller coaster, but you’re blending age restrictions (age limit for buying alcohol) with outright public bans (crux of issues with Bill C-21) and the two are entirely separate.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MBates

You are making invalid comparisons to laws that are rationally connected to the safety reason they were enacted.

Actually I was making what I assumed would be viewed as an obviously sarcastic post. Fair enough if you didn’t pick up on that though.

When governments arbitrarily prohibit things (claiming it to be for some purpose that is not accepted by the citizens it affects, not supported by any data, and in fact runs counter-purpose to the data that does exist - and common sense) there is often widespread disobedience of the prohibition.

You’re making the assumption that rationality isn’t subjective and citizens are incapable of opposing a law that the majority considers to be rational.

One historical example? It actually took over the word - 'prohibition'.

[Beat by Derek Sutton - and Iggy your response to him proves the error of your argument rather effectively. Responsible gun owners not only accept but are solidly in favour of the very serious, strict and highly effective regulatory regime we currently have. You are now implying that it is either ban guns or let kids own them without restrictions...which nobody is asking for].

Actually my response to Derek(and Azure) was that it’s silly to argue that we shouldn’t implement a law just because some people might break it, if that was the case we wouldn’t have any laws and criminal lawyers would be out of job. I’m just looking out for the worker as usual MBates

I actually didn’t make any comments specifically referencing the gun ban, unfortunately some people get too emotionally invested in these threads and often miss those kinds of minor details. I’ll be honest though I’m a little surprised that you appear to have fallen victim to this.

Another example? Does anyone know anybody who ever grew or sold or consumed marijuana before it was allowed? Probably not because after all it was a criminal offence - and the government repeatedly said society would be destroyed if not for the law banning it. I imagine no otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals because they thought marijuana was not worthy of being criminalized and just ignored the law

Again, I’m not saying that governments aren’t capable of coming up with silly laws or that everyone will follow every silly law.

So back to the topic. You might ask yourself why is that well known crazed right wing gun nut NDP MP Charlie Angus writing about "...how the Liberal government promise to ban hand guns morphed into a massive overreach including hunting rifles and shotguns" while referencing the "hugely problematic" "11th hour amendment thrown into Bill C-21..."?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1599741479705903109

Could it be because that is a viewpoint reasonable people can hold based on what the government is actually doing?

Can you point out where I suggested otherwise? Or where I stated people shouldn’t question the validity of what the government says? I’ll wait.

An example of that?

As another poster mentioned recently - check out the Ruger No. 1.

The Minister has repeatedly declared no hunting rifles are being banned (sometimes he sneaks in the term 'conventional hunting').

I would ask anyone to explain how a Ruger No. 1 could in any way be characterized as anything other than a basic hunting rifle.

It is a falling block lever action single shot rifle (when all we seem to hear about is the government saying it is only banning semi-auto rifles with large magazine capabilities - you know 'weapons of war'). If you wanted to do anything other than shoot a deer or a paper target - and most especially if you wanted to try and conduct any form of a mass shooting - the Ruger No. 1 would arguably be the worst possible modern firearm you could select.

To be the most fair possible to the government, maybe they really did not mean for the ban list to apply as wide as it appears to on its face (on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used). But then that is what happens when you sneak in last minute amendments to what was already a Frankenstein's Monster of terrible legislative drafting.

Can you clarify what any of this has to do with what I posted or where I argued against what you’re saying here? Again, I’ll wait.

Either way, in my view, athletes or anyone else who sees their government doing something while flat out denying that is what they are doing should feel perfectly free to speak truth to power as much or as little as they see fit.

I don’t disagree with you and personally I typically enjoy reading your takes but in this case you seem to be trying really hard to put words in my mouth.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Well no, just like I wouldn’t let an infant ride a roller coaster, but you’re blending age restrictions (age limit for buying alcohol) with outright public bans (crux of issues with Bill C-21) and the two are entirely separate.

Now you’re just being ridiculous, there’s no law against babies riding roller coasters. Those restrictions are put in place by the ride operators, duh.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1600196146512924672

Current polling.

[Doctorfever]

Thank you for the reminder of the definition of pedantic…

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Thank you for the reminder of the definition of pedantic…

Aww muffin, trust me if I was being pedantic I would have certainly addressed their comment that “Responsible gun owners not only accept but are solidly in favour of the very serious, strict and highly effective regulatory regime we currently have.” for what it was.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to call someone out when they are trying to put words in your mouth to make their argument.

If you wanna cry about it that’s ok, I respect the courage you’re displaying by being so open with your emotions and will defend you if anyone tries to accuse you of being a snowflake.

[Doctorfever]

Touched a nerve. Sorry