Butters Stoch Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Calm down people, I highly doubt we'll actually be seeing cops resort to doing this. Sounds like this was to cover that messed up loop hole where you could immediately leave the scene after an accident and go home to claim that you just started drinking at home to avoid DUI charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 What happened to the RCMP that resulted in Canadians having so little trust in them.? Why do young canadians have zero interest in joining the RCMP ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 9 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: I guess if not the RCMP, then who gets to decide what types of guns are OK? we don't have US-style gun rights up here. First offence of refusal is a $2,000 fine not a criminal charge. Just research the Blaze-47 controversy. A little .22lr rifle, used for like shooting squirrels and a good beginner gun for kids, etc..... pink/purple exterior.... A-okay. The brown/black exterior version... "Go to Jail! Do not pass go, do not collect $200". Rationale by the RCMP.... it's scary looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 51 minutes ago, aGENT said: Vocal and active minority. Eh, I really have to go with drunk drivers being higher on my list of worries than some loud college kids or professors who unironically wear Che Guevara shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucksfollower1983 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 9 hours ago, King Heffy said: Mine as well, although the only alternatives that don't completely violate my beliefs are the NDP or Greens. that's only because they haven't had the chance to do so yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Nucksfollower1983 said: that's only because they haven't had the chance to do so yet. Yeah but I'll take a party I hope is telling the truth over one whose platform is repugnant to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 9 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: What happened to the RCMP that resulted in Canadians having so little trust in them.? Why do young canadians have zero interest in joining the RCMP ? The irony is I personally know only two people convicted of dui and one was/is a cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 8 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said: Eh, I really have to go with drunk drivers being higher on my list of worries than some loud college kids or professors who unironically wear Che Guevara shirts. 12 hours ago, aGENT said: And as we've discussed elsewhere, Commies aren't staying on campuses. Canaries. Coal mines. No hard feelings at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 23 hours ago, Warhippy said: I don't care, I really don't drink. I think the likelihood of this actually being enforced in the manner that so many people are whinging about is laughably nil as well. But, scared people gonna be scared You're missing the point, this is why people are uncomfortable with the law: It has nothing to do with people wanting to drive drunk, it's about giving up rights and enabling someone who wants to abuse power to have too much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HI5 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 What happens if I can’t hear the doorbell due to the high volume from me watching the Canucks game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 58 minutes ago, aGENT said: If the MLPC makes huge gains this election, maybe you were on to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 55 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: If the MLPC makes huge gains this election, maybe you were on to something. I never suggested they would. They seem to be taking a far more methodical approach of indoctrinating our kids and sending them out in to work forces, governments etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, aGENT said: I never suggested they would. They seem to be taking a far more methodical approach of indoctrinating our kids and sending them out in to work forces, governments etc. It's cool, we'll just make sure the paper towels are properly stocked in work place bathrooms. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 12 hours ago, Lancaster said: Just research the Blaze-47 controversy. A little .22lr rifle, used for like shooting squirrels and a good beginner gun for kids, etc..... pink/purple exterior.... A-okay. The brown/black exterior version... "Go to Jail! Do not pass go, do not collect $200". Rationale by the RCMP.... it's scary looking. checked out a few articles on it.... dunno, maybe the RCMP thought it would be popular with gangs? who knows. I don't buy into the argument tho that "elected" officials should be the only ones classifying guns, there's no guarantee of expertise just because you're an elected MP. A committee of MPs, RCMP and gun experts makes the most sense to me for making classification rulings or even better to come up with a standard classification scheme so that its totally transparent, but things don't always make sense in gov't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, aGENT said: I never suggested they would. They seem to be taking a far more methodical approach of indoctrinating our kids and sending them out in to work forces, governments etc. Can you please elaborate on this 'methodical approach'? Without political power you have little influence in this country. I just think it's a massive stretch to take a bunch of PC babies crying about their sensitivities and connecting it to some insidious plot to instill Marxism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Where'd Luongo? said: You're missing the point, this is why people are uncomfortable with the law: It has nothing to do with people wanting to drive drunk, it's about giving up rights and enabling someone who wants to abuse power to have too much power. I suppose if we were living in a fascist dictatorship you'd have a solid point. It might help to look at the actual exceptions in the law: Exception — alcohol (5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if (a) they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance; (b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and (c) their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that was less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood. Exception — drugs (6) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(c) or subsection (4) if (a) they consumed the drug after ceasing to operate the conveyance; and (b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance. Exception — combination of alcohol and drug (7) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(d) if (a) they consumed the drug or the alcohol or both after ceasing to operate the conveyance; (b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance; and (c) their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration less than the blood alcohol concentration established under paragraph 320.38(c). http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Toews said: Can you please elaborate on this 'methodical approach'? Without political power you have little influence in this country. I just think it's a massive stretch to take a bunch of PC babies crying about their sensitivities and connecting it to Marxism. They have political power (as well as vocal minority mob power on the internet). They're simply not coming out and announcing themselves blatantly as Marxists to the rest of us. Wolves in sheep's clothing if you will. Hell, I'm sure a great many of them even think they're just being 'liberal' after being indoctrinated as such by their Marxist teachers. 17 hours ago, aGENT said: No, Marxism just seems to be the trend we're seeing coming out of universities and slowly infiltrating corporations, government, laws etc. The tribal groups (proletariat vs bourgeoisie!) the attacks on free speech, the attacks on capitalism etc, etc... Eroding away rights to the state/police is part of it but it's not a synonym for Marxism or whatever it is you thought I was claiming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: I suppose if we were living in a fascist dictatorship you'd have a solid point. How do you think one comes to live in such a place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 12 hours ago, Lancaster said: Just research the Blaze-47 controversy. A little .22lr rifle, used for like shooting squirrels and a good beginner gun for kids, etc..... pink/purple exterior.... A-okay. The brown/black exterior version... "Go to Jail! Do not pass go, do not collect $200". Rationale by the RCMP.... it's scary looking. yep there is a huge problem with Canada’s idea on what makes a gun non-restricted, restricted, vs prohibited. There really is no rational to many of those decisions outside of which one looks scarier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Just now, aGENT said: How do you think one comes to live in such a place? through wars, poverty, and populism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.