Andrew Scheer stepping down as Conservative Party leader/Which has morphed into the Gun Control thread

[inane]

9 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You just finished saying burden of proof need not apply to politics. If statistics and facts are completely ignored in making a decision that affects a large group of people then what kind of system are you supporting. 

It's baffling how you equate what I said to 'statistics and facts are ignored'. 

 

Honestly, I don't get it. 

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the anger over not understanding your rights is interesting. Imagine the anger you'd feel as a parent of a kid that gets shot. 

 

It always seems to come down to a willful ignorance of your rights in Canada. No 2nd amendment is coming here. But they act like they have that right in how they design their arguments. Its never going to work, you'd think that would be obvious by now. 

 

Then to claim it's a democratic right, or post a petition claiming it's a "petition for democracy" while ignoring that what is going on is literally part of the democratic process is frightening.

 

over 70% of the Canadian population voted for parties that ran on a less weapons more restrictions mandate just a few months ago.  That's a democratic majority.  To claim otherwise, or state it's not democratic here do this against the will of the majority is ridiculous

[Lionized27]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the anger over not understanding your rights is interesting. Imagine the anger you'd feel as a parent of a kid that gets shot. 

 

It always seems to come down to a willful ignorance of your rights in Canada. No 2nd amendment is coming here. But they act like they have that right in how they design their arguments. Its never going to work, you'd think that would be obvious by now. 

 

There is no "willful ignorance" here, as you and @warhippy gleefully like to point out. My point is the constitutional due process is being skipped in passing this law. If either of you actually read the petition I posted fully, you would understand this:

 

"The use of an Order in Council is an egregious overreach of executive authorities, bypassing the democratic process of the House and the elected representatives of Canadians"

[Warhippy]

10 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

There is no "willful ignorance" here, as you and @warhippy gleefully like to point out. My point is the constitutional due process is being skipped in passing this law. If either of you actually read the petition I posted fully, you would understand this:

 

"The use of an Order in Council is an egregious overreach of executive authorities, bypassing the democratic process of the House and the elected representatives of Canadians"

just one question

 

Is an order in council part of our democratic process?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Warhippy

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

There is no "willful ignorance" here, as you and @warhippy gleefully like to point out. My point is the constitutional due process is being skipped in passing this law. If either of you actually read the petition I posted fully, you would understand this:

 

"The use of an Order in Council is an egregious overreach of executive authorities, bypassing the democratic process of the House and the elected representatives of Canadians"

except thats ridiculous spin. Parliament has the authority to regulate the way it see's fit as long as its constitutional. Harper e.g. didn't actually need to provide any evidence to get rid of the long gun registry, he simply had the power to repeal it. 

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

just one question

 

Is an order of the council part of our democratic process?

yup.

[RUPERTKBD]

36 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

You forgot the 

 

Cons can beat up libs, my dad can beat up your dad

 

Comments from yesterday

Yeah, I saw them and commented shortly after they were posted.

[RUPERTKBD]

25 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

There is no "willful ignorance" here, as you and @warhippy gleefully like to point out. My point is the constitutional due process is being skipped in passing this law. If either of you actually read the petition I posted fully, you would understand this:

 

"The use of an Order in Council is an egregious overreach of executive authorities, bypassing the democratic process of the House and the elected representatives of Canadians"

Not every decision made by a democratically elected government should be subject to a plebiscite. It's just something that people like to bring up every time a decision is made that they don't agree with.

[Warhippy]

5 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yeah, I saw them and commented shortly after they were posted.

From what I've read from that side of the fence.

 

I'm not sure a group of people who know nothing about our laws, constitutional rights or our democratic processes should be talking about their loss of rights or freedoms when they don't even know what they are let alone how they work.

 

The biggest and most complete complaints seem to come from people in canada who seem confused, as they cite American laws, American constitutional rights and rarely if ever correctly state the Canadian equivalent

Edited December 18, 2019 by Warhippy

[Ryan Strome]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

except thats ridiculous spin. Parliament has the authority to regulate the way it see's fit as long as its constitutional. Harper e.g. didn't actually need to provide any evidence to get rid of the long gun registry, he simply had the power to repeal it. 

New crime data contradicts government gun plans

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/towhey-new-crime-data-contradicts-government-gun-plans

 

 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

New crime data contradicts government gun plans

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/towhey-new-crime-data-contradicts-government-gun-plans

 

 

how does that contradict the plans? 249 people were killed by guns. You freak out over far far fewer terror-related deaths. 

[Ryan Strome]

7 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This "discussion" is hilarious....."critical thinking"..."intelligent discourse"....

 

......If you support a buyback of one particular type of firearm, you're "supporting a dictatorship!"

 

Listen to yourselves....

I know you're obsessed with the US and follow US news and politics more than most Americans but who has that particular gun hurt in Canada in the last 30 years?

6 hours ago, Warhippy said:

You forgot the 

 

Cons can beat up libs, my dad can beat up your dad

 

Comments from yesterday

You mean the argument you were part of?

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

how does that contradict the plans? 249 people were killed by guns. You freak out over far far fewer terror-related deaths. 

Excuse me? Seeing as you want to outlaw it based off what happens in other countries let's use other countries for the muslim attacks. It way outnumbers 249 ffs. 

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I know you're obsessed with the US and follow US news and politics more than most Americans but who has that particular gun hurt in Canada in the last 30 years?

You mean the argument you were part of?

What does the US have to do with anything I've said?

 

We're talking about an inherently dangerous weapon that no-one needs to possess. Nobody is talking about hunting rifles or any other type of guns. But just to prove that I'm not totally inflexible: I'd be okay with a law that states all such weapons must be stored at licensed shooting ranges and are not allowed off the grounds. I'd be all for allowing people to keep such weapons, were such a law in place.

[Ryan Strome]

@Jimmy McGill did you even read the article?

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

What does the US have to do with anything I've said?

 

We're talking about an inherently dangerous weapon that no-one needs to possess. Nobody is talking about hunting rifles or any other type of guns. But just to prove that I'm not totally inflexible: I'd be okay with a law that states all such weapons must be stored at licensed shooting ranges and are not allowed off the grounds. I'd be all for allowing people to keep such weapons, were such a law in place.

Nope I don't agree.

Why is a sks alright? It's essentially a ak47 and can be fully automatic in a minute. I think it's because you guys haven't seen it on American news stations.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

@Jimmy McGill did you even read the article?

I did. 249 people killed by guns, 85% by handguns. 

 

what are point are you wanting to make?

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Excuse me? Seeing as you want to outlaw it based off what happens in other countries let's use other countries for the muslim attacks. It way outnumbers 249 ffs. 

lets stick to Canada. I've seen calls for action from you and other CPC supporters for action over terrorism in Canada, which is a tiny fraction of incidents compared to gun deaths. Just making a point about scale and reason to take action or not. 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I did. 249 people killed by guns, 85% by handguns. 

 

what are point are you wanting to make?

Is gun crime down?

You know what an AR15 is?

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Nope I don't agree.

Why is a sks alright? It's essentially a ak47 and can be fully automatic in a minute. I think it's because you guys haven't seen it on American news stations.

I think quite a few weapons would be good buy-back candidates, or candidates for the rules I posted above.....but you have to start somewhere.....

 

Again with the "American" thing.... Maybe I can make myself clearer, I think the average Canadian citizen has no business owning anything but a hunting rifle, or a limited capacity handgun.