Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Liberals win minority government


Recommended Posts

A young man, Ryan,  I used to work in the nightclubs was killed by an AK 47. This was around 2010. I guess that gun was illegal. Probably some kind of gang thing.

I consider his uncle a good friend. Actually one of the toughest humans I've ever known. Doesn't matter when it comes to bullets...even if he was home at the time.

 

I saw an ad from Lever Arms in Van a few years later...old crappy Kalashnikov style guns, going for bundle rates, if you bought a case (12?) they worked out to couple hundred bucks a pop.

 

Anyway, seems like there are too many guns around. I know this convo goes in circles when it comes up here. But I am pretty surprised by the accessibility, I have mentioned before ...I know quite a few people that have their restricted, I'm not sure I would have certified some of them. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Meh. I don't see restricting a completely unnecessary firearm as "draconian" at all.

 

And people should not have unlimited "freedom" to possess something that is inherently dangerous. It's the same reason you can't drive an F-1 car on a public highway, or keep a Bengal Tiger as a pet. 

A great many things can be deemed unnecessary, should they all be banned too? Inherently dangerous? Many things can be deemed dangerous. Do we really want to go down the path of banning everything? Eventually, we will come to something that you like and then it will be a problem for you.

 

If the evidence supported banning AR15s in this country and that problem could be addressed by this ban, then yeah it might make sense. But that is not the case here, this is just a case of ignorant, short sighted people trying to impose their will on others for political gains. It is sad, and something that all Canadians should be against. Again, why do so many people enjoy the reductions of their freedoms?

Edited by lucky_nucker
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lucky_nucker said:

A great many things can be deemed unnecessary, should they all be banned too? Inherently dangerous? Many things can be deemed dangerous. Do we really want to go down the path of banning everything? Eventually, we will come to something that you like and then it will be a problem for you.

 

If the evidence supported banning AR15s in this country and that problem could be addressed by this ban, then yeah it might make sense. But that is not the case here, this is just a case of ignorant, short sighted people trying to impose their will on others for political gains. It is sad, and something that all Canadians should be against. Again, why do some many people enjoy the reductions of their freedoms?

No one enjoys restrictions on freedoms but we live in a society and living in a society comes with restrictions. If everyone acted perfectly we wouldn't need all manner of restrictions, bans, prohibitions etc. But they don't. So we have to ban and restrict things for the common collective good.

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lucky_nucker said:

A great many things can be deemed unnecessary, should they all be banned too? Inherently dangerous? Many things can be deemed dangerous. Do we really want to go down the path of banning everything? Eventually, we will come to something that you like and then it will be a problem for you.

 

If the evidence supported banning AR15s in this country and that problem could be addressed by this ban, then yeah it might make sense. But that is not the case here, this is just a case of ignorant, short sighted people trying to impose their will on others for political gains. It is sad, and something that all Canadians should be against. Again, why do some many people enjoy the reductions of their freedoms?

Nope. Just things that are both dangerous and unnecessary. Knives are dangerous, so are chainsaws, but they have uses other than shooting things at a faster rate and for a longer duration.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, inane said:

No one enjoys restrictions on freedoms but we live in a society and living in a society comes with restrictions. If everyone acted perfectly we wouldn't need all manner of restrictions, bans, prohibitions etc. But they don't. So we have to ban and restrict things for the common collective good.

 

 

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Nope. Just things that are both dangerous and unnecessary. Knives are dangerous, so are chainsaws, but they have uses other than shooting things at a faster rate and for a longer duration.

Hey, guys agree to disagree I guess. I just can't rationalize the $600M to punish law abiding citizens is all.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, inane said:

No one enjoys restrictions on freedoms but we live in a society and living in a society comes with restrictions. If everyone acted perfectly we wouldn't need all manner of restrictions, bans, prohibitions etc. But they don't. So we have to ban and restrict things for the common collective good.

 

Yea, I often think about the 'social contract'. If people can't govern themselves accordingly then the elected representatives will impose laws/restrictions for the good of us all. 

 

If the world goes to crap and we are living some form of the Walking Dead, then it becomes everyman for themselves.

 

I use The Walking Dead as an example because I enjoyed to progression ( regression?)  of the Rick character. A law officer that found himself having to greatly change to survive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lucky_nucker said:

 

Hey, guys agree to disagree I guess. I just can't rationalize the $600M to punish law abiding citizens is all.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that. These boards would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

 

Cheers. Have a great weekend!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shift-4 said:

I would be a responsible tank owner

 

 

 

 

 

Responsible for a lot of destruction on the daily commute that is.

Yeah.....a Timberwolf in a tank is a scary prospect.....

 

....actually it sounds like a song by one of those Scandanavian Death-Metal bands.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Toews said:

I agree. I think I would be a responsible tank owner. 

That's what everyone says......at first....

 

.....then, before you know it, they're cruising up and down the main drag with a license plate that says "The Skank Tank"....

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, langlands said:

Things couldn't have been worse for Trudeau and he still won.  He will never lose. Maybe he will leave on his own when he thinks the UN will have him.

The Liberals won in spite of Trudeau, not because of him.

 

Most Canadians (rightly) simply have zero appetite for the Cons regressive, trickle down economics and corporate welfare at the expense of our social safety nets and important government services/departments being slashed. Their archaic social policies are equally distasteful. Their environmental policy is laughable. They represent the best interests of very few actual Canadians (despite their declaration and ability to fool a good number to the contrary).

 

The parties further left are likewise less desirable in many facets (identity politics, too-left fiscal policies etc). 

 

The Liberals, with all their flaws (and there are plenty, including veering in to those aforementioned identity politics), are basically the only thing resembling a reasonable, centrist government, that speaks to commonly held 'Canadian values' and progressive social and environmental policies while supporting both corporate investment/jobs AND social programs/safety nets/services and departments.

 

THAT is why they still hold power.

 

 

Edited by aGENT
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lucky_nucker said:

Why do you want to see your fellow law abiding Canadians punished?

 

These laws do not have the evidence or stats to back up their implementation as reasonable. They simply just go after the law abiding gun owners that already have proved their "right" to own these firearms.

what you talking about? who's "punished"?

 

these laws are what most people voted for, that in itself gives the government the mandate to do it. As far as evidence goes, just look to the south of us. Do you really want to be in the same situation the US is with school shootings? workplace shootings? domestic shootings? rural shootings? none of which is gang related btw.

 

everyone is law abiding until they aren't. By your logic why have driving laws? banking laws? heck child raising laws. I'm a good parent, I don't need a law to tell me how to raise my kid, right?

 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

From what I am reading about this.

 

There is a buyback program.  not a confiscation program.

 

Current registered owners will have to have their weapons tagged, and the pins id'd which the government will pay for.  But those registered weapons will be grandfathered in and not taken away from anyone.

 

So....a lot of fear mongering over a voluntary program coming up no doubt.

yes but that won't stop the complaining. 

 

Guns are a privilege. Full stop. Every argument against more gun laws basically boils down to railing against this basic premise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the minority seems to be working already. Trudeau is accepting Alberta's carbon plan for 2020. It happens to be Notley's, minimally modified by Kenney, but lets not quibble, this looks like progress.

 

Ottawa accepts Alberta's new $30-per-tonne carbon plan for large emitters in 2020

The federal government will accept the Alberta government's latest plan to tax the greenhouse gas emissions of large industrial facilities at a rate of $30 per tonne in 2020.

Federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Friday his department agrees that Alberta's system will meet federal requirements for large emitters like oilsands operations, natural gas producers, chemical manufacturers and fertilizer plants.

All told, the province estimates these types of heavy-emitting facilities account for 55 to 60 per cent of Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions.

 

This system runs in parallel to the federal fuel charge — commonly known as the carbon tax — that applies to individual consumers and smaller-emitting companies.

Alberta already has a carbon-pricing system that charges large emitters at a rate of $30 per tonne. It was brought in by the previous NDP government. The new United Conservative Party government plans to modify that system, however, starting on Jan. 1.

While the carbon price will remain at $30 per tonne, that price only effectively applies to emissions above a target level.

Change in emissions targets

The new plan, known as the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) regulation, will make it easier for some of the most carbon-intensive facilities to hit their emissions targets, thereby avoiding the tax and potentially earning credits for coming in below target.

That's because the current targets are set at an industry-wide level — meaning all oilsands facilities, for example, are held to the same emissions standard — while TIER will create individual targets for each facility based on its emissions levels from the recent past.

The province estimates that switching to the new system will save industry more than $330 million in avoided compliance costs in 2020.

 

The change in targets will apply to all industrial categories except electricity generation.

Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon said Friday he was pleased by Ottawa's decision to accept the "made-in-Alberta" carbon-pricing system.

"When we engaged with industry on TIER in summer 2019, we heard loud and clear that they want to be regulated by the province, not by Ottawa," Nixon said in a release.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) issued a statement that also praised the "made-in-Alberta" plan.

"This program has the components to ensure both Alberta's large and small oil and natural gas operations remain competitive, while clearly satisfying the requirements set by the federal government," said Terry Abel, CAPP's executive vice-president of operations and climate.

Alberta will 'oppose' $40 price in 2021

Current federal rules will require the price on carbon to rise to $40 per tonne in 2021 and $50 per tonne in 2022.

Premier Jason Kenney said Friday his government would "oppose that measure" but won't necessarily flout it.

"We'll have to make a prudent judgment when we get closer to that date," Kenney told reporters. "Because one thing we don't want is the federal government bigfooting into Alberta and enforcing their own, separate regulatory regime."

The federal government plans to impose its carbon tax on the consumer-level sale of fossil fuels starting in 2020.

Carbon tax — and rebates — coming Jan. 1

Under its previous NDP goverment, Alberta had a consumer-level carbon tax that met federal requirements, but Kenney's UCP government killed that carbon tax as one of its first acts after being elected in April.

The federal "backstop" on carbon pricing, however, means Ottawa's carbon tax will apply to the purchase of fuels like gasoline, natural gas and propane in Alberta as of Jan 1.

Albertans will also start receiving carbon-tax rebates in the new year, which the federal government says will offset the increased cost for most households in the province.

Those rebates will be calculated as follows:

  • $444 for a single adult or the first adult in a couple.
  • $222 for the second adult in a couple. Single parents will receive this amount for their first child.
  • $111 for each child in the family (starting with the second child for single parents).

The rebate amounts are fixed. You get the same amount regardless of how much carbon tax you pay.

Economists say this helps alleviate the burden of the tax while also maintaining the incentive to consume less fossil fuel, since the less you burn, the less you pay.

That will also be applied at a rate of $30 per tonne in 2020, which works out to 6.63 cents per litre of gasoline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

 

$444 might mean I, personally, have a net financial benefit from this carbon plan. 

Yay me but I still think the rebate system sets up a program that isn't aggressive enough to tackle the problem. Just looks primarily to be a redistribution of wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Anyone could beat trudeau.  Except Scheer and Singh.

I don't think so. Trudeau is the perfect representative for our country. His morals and values are in sync with the people, and when they aren't, the people will change.  We are, as he says, the worlds first post nation state.  I think he has done a good job in doing just enough to keep the country together while at the same time keeping himself in the conversation for world leadership.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...