Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 12 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: What people should realize is how far this government will go to trample on our rights. That is not a bill that should have ever have come out at all. Good thing the conservatives will scrap it there's nothing to scrap yet. It's an important discussion on how far we should go with new online protections. But if you've bought into the whole "1984" PP spin on it, I guess there's no need to discuss it. Head in sand works, rite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: Read the bill he is referring too I've done so. I just wanted to be sure. It might have been guns or vaccine passports or... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 4 minutes ago, Bob Long said: there's nothing to scrap yet. It's an important discussion on how far we should go with new online protections. But if you've bought into the whole "1984" PP spin on it, I guess there's no need to discuss it. Head in sand works, rite? Andrew Coyne is a big time liberal and even he says it "staggeringly reckless". But sure 1984 and PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Just now, Spring Salmon said: Andrew Coyne is a big time liberal and even he says it "staggeringly reckless". But sure 1984 and PP *first reading* - you know what this means, right? I've seen the PP fundraising spin on it, and yes they are milking that trope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 here's where C63 is at as of today: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63 If it has gone too far in some areas, it will be debated and amended. But I don't know why anyone would have an issue with some of the sections on tougher criminal time for crimes against kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 36 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: Read the bill he is referring too He can't read the other guy's mind dude. Salmons going to have to state which ones pertain to his opinion. Then there's also the fact that if someone has an argument, it's the onus on them to prove their argument. The opposing side's not going to do their homework for them. (Edit: Fixed the context. I need moar coffee.) Edited June 3 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said: What we should agree on is this new online harms bill has gone too far. Imprisoning people for life for words and being able to give people house arrest, not for a crime they did, but what they might or could possibly do in the future is nuts. Nope, I think it's a good bill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said: What people should realize is how far this government will go to trample on our rights. That is not a bill that should have ever have come out at all. Good thing the conservatives will scrap it What rights are being trampled exactly? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 32 minutes ago, The Lock said: He can't read the other guy's mind dude. Salmons going to have to state which ones pertain to his opinion. Then there's also the fact that if someone has an argument, it's the onus on them to prove their argument. The opposing side's not going to do their homework for them. (Edit: Fixed the context. I need moar coffee.) I thought I was quite clear earlier and DB got it right away. Giving people life in prison for words or giving them house arrest for things they might do in the future is insane. How do people not see that? Think about if PP came in and decided any criticism against him is hate speech. Say something he doesn't like and bam you're locked up. Maybe for life. That's ridiculous and the screeching from here would be loud and deserved. I know it's in its first reading and all but that stuff should have never been in there from the first place. I think everyone would agree kids should be protected but we don't need the government to over moderate the internet. Parents have to take responsibility over their children and keep an eye on them. Laws already exist against hate speech, child porn etc. and this new bill we don't need. How it comes out at time that the Liberals are getting shit on online constantly is suspicious and makes you wonder about their true intentions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: I thought I was quite clear earlier and DB got it right away. Giving people life in prison for words or giving them house arrest for things they might do in the future is insane. How do people not see that? Think about if PP came in and decided any criticism against him is hate speech. Say something he doesn't like and bam you're locked up. Maybe for life. That's ridiculous and the screeching from here would be loud and deserved. I know it's in its first reading and all but that stuff should have never been in there from the first place. I think everyone would agree kids should be protected but we don't need the government to over moderate the internet. Parents have to take responsibility over their children and keep an eye on them. Laws already exist against hate speech, child porn etc. and this new bill we don't need. How it comes out at time that the Liberals are getting shit on online constantly is suspicious and makes you wonder about their true intentions We are going to have to see how this all turns out after final reading. A bill like this in an autocratic country - and don't try to tell me Canada is one - might be truly scary but this is Canada. PP (or JT) will not be able to up and decide criticism against him is hate speech. Forgive me if it sounds like a dig but 'How it comes out at time that the Liberals are getting shit on online constantly is suspicious and makes you wonder about their true intentions' is not a very logical conclusion - It's just a dig. And yes, my first post this morning should probably have waited until I finished my first coffee and had woken up a bit more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 18 hours ago, Satchmo said: Oh good one Petey. I'm crushed now. As you will know you can always just believe anything anybody says on the internet without bothering to fact check. So, like you, I was a bit skeptical about this.... I went and looked at the image on the bottom and it appears that the claim is being made by the person(s) submitting the complaint to the RCMP, rather than the RCMP itself. The text at the top is a quote and you can see that someone has crossed out the source of the quote (the blue marker) If you look at the second image and zoom in on the last paragraph of the first page, the heading says: Complaint filed with Info. Commissioner. This is where the claim that licensed owners are statistically less likely to commit crimes, is made. Not only is Cheliak not the person making the statement, he seems to be the focus of the complaint. The Google screen shot at the top gives the impression that the RCMP are the ones making that statistical claim, but they are not. My guess is that the entity actually making the claim would be shown, if not for the part that is crossed out by the blue marker. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said: I thought I was quite clear earlier and DB got it right away. Giving people life in prison for words or giving them house arrest for things they might do in the future is insane. How do people not see that? Think about if PP came in and decided any criticism against him is hate speech. Say something he doesn't like and bam you're locked up. Maybe for life. That's ridiculous and the screeching from here would be loud and deserved. I know it's in its first reading and all but that stuff should have never been in there from the first place. I think everyone would agree kids should be protected but we don't need the government to over moderate the internet. Parents have to take responsibility over their children and keep an eye on them. Laws already exist against hate speech, child porn etc. and this new bill we don't need. How it comes out at time that the Liberals are getting shit on online constantly is suspicious and makes you wonder about their true intentions Do you honestly believe that Trudeau is trying to jail his critics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, Spring Salmon said: Andrew Coyne is a big time liberal and even he says it "staggeringly reckless". But sure 1984 and PP ANDREW COYNE: Well, people are always tending to pigeonhole people, and that’s natural, I suppose. We try to simplify things. What I don’t understand is why people want to pigeonhole themselves. So, when people ask me, I’d say sort of half-jokingly, I’m a conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist. But I kind of mean it, because I’ve always felt that each of the traditions has something to teach us. There are nuggets of wisdom in conservatism and liberalism and libertarianism and socialism, and I don’t see why you have to sort of buy the package. Now, that being said, I’ve become more comfortable with calling myself a conservative in recent times, mostly because liberalism, capital “L” Liberalism, in particular, has moved so far left, so that you are now in the position as a conservative of battling for a sort of late 20th-century liberalism. And I guess I’m more comfortable with that. And I guess also, as I get older, I’m more temperamentally conservative in the sense of appreciating the value of caution of moving incrementally. I think I’m less impatient than I might have been in the past. Edited June 3 by The Arrogant Worms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 12 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Do you honestly believe that Trudeau is trying to jail his critics? He probably does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Bank of Canada interest rate decision coming on Wednesday amid rate cut speculation https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/bank-of-canada-interest-rate-decision-coming-on-wednesday-amid-rate-cut-speculation-1.6910958 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 50 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: So, like you, I was a bit skeptical about this.... I went and looked at the image on the bottom and it appears that the claim is being made by the person(s) submitting the complaint to the RCMP, rather than the RCMP itself. The text at the top is a quote and you can see that someone has crossed out the source of the quote (the blue marker) If you look at the second image and zoom in on the last paragraph of the first page, the heading says: Complaint filed with Info. Commissioner. This is where the claim that licensed owners are statistically less likely to commit crimes, is made. Not only is Cheliak not the person making the statement, he seems to be the focus of the complaint. The Google screen shot at the top gives the impression that the RCMP are the ones making that statistical claim, but they are not. My guess is that the entity actually making the claim would be shown, if not for the part that is crossed out by the blue marker. If you really have trouble believing that, Gary Mauser breaks down the stats pretty good. He's a SFU professor so I'm not sure if he's trustworthy to you guys? Anyway the NFA article seems to be pretty close to the stats Gary has. I don't think it's far fetched to believe legal owners lead a less reckless life or anything do to not wanting to lose their possessions. I don't know what your trying to say about the blue marker. I circled a screenshot. There was no hidden information under it as Satchmo seemed to find the article just fine. Lol https://justiceforgunowners.ca/moose-kill-more-canadians-than-licenced-gun-owners/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 16 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Do you honestly believe that Trudeau is trying to jail his critics? No. I am saying there are already laws against those things. The bill is not needed at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: ANDREW COYNE: Well, people are always tending to pigeonhole people, and that’s natural, I suppose. We try to simplify things. What I don’t understand is why people want to pigeonhole themselves. So, when people ask me, I’d say sort of half-jokingly, I’m a conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist. But I kind of mean it, because I’ve always felt that each of the traditions has something to teach us. There are nuggets of wisdom in conservatism and liberalism and libertarianism and socialism, and I don’t see why you have to sort of buy the package. Now, that being said, I’ve become more comfortable with calling myself a conservative in recent times, mostly because liberalism, capital “L” Liberalism, in particular, has moved so far left, so that you are now in the position as a conservative of battling for a sort of late 20th-century liberalism. And I guess I’m more comfortable with that. And I guess also, as I get older, I’m more temperamentally conservative in the sense of appreciating the value of caution of moving incrementally. I think I’m less impatient than I might have been in the past. Ya ok. I've seen him on CBC and other places plenty of times. He just as much as a conservative as Alf thinks he is 6 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: He probably does. Don't speak for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Nearly half of the federal government’s office space could be converted to housing, expert firm says https://archive.ph/8DNI1#selection-2491.0-2491.100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, Spring Salmon said: Ya ok. I've seen him on CBC and other places plenty of times. He just as much as a conservative as Alf thinks he is Don't speak for me I am not. Lord knows I do not want to get in your head. I was giving my opinion. You know freedom of expression and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 4 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: I am not. Lord knows I do not want to get in your head. I was giving my opinion. You know freedom of expression and all. I might not agree with what you said but I agree with your right to say it. That's the saying or something right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 11 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Ya ok. I've seen him on CBC and other places plenty of times. He just as much as a conservative as Alf thinks he is Don't speak for me But it's fine for you to speak for me assuming I'd agree with your position on the Bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: If you really have trouble believing that, Gary Mauser breaks down the stats pretty good. He's a SFU professor so I'm not sure if he's trustworthy to you guys? Anyway the NFA article seems to be pretty close to the stats Gary has. I don't think it's far fetched to believe legal owners lead a less reckless life or anything do to not wanting to lose their possessions. I don't know what your trying to say about the blue marker. I circled a screenshot. There was no hidden information under it as Satchmo seemed to find the article just fine. Lol https://justiceforgunowners.ca/moose-kill-more-canadians-than-licenced-gun-owners/ Sooo....just so we're clear: You admit that the images you posted and claimed were evidence of the RCMP backing your statement, did not actually do so? As far as your article from "justiceforgunowners.ca goes, I'm sure it make lots of good points. Moose can be quite dangerous, no doubt. But it's beside the point in regards to my post. I responded to Satchmo, because he too was skeptical about the screenshot you posted.....and with good reason. Edited June 3 by RupertKBD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 hours ago, The Lock said: He can't read the other guy's mind dude. Salmons going to have to state which ones pertain to his opinion. Then there's also the fact that if someone has an argument, it's the onus on them to prove their argument. The opposing side's not going to do their homework for them. (Edit: Fixed the context. I need moar coffee.) If you read the bill, you will see parts that do straight up infringe on our rights. Not even opinion. But Im going to trend very lightly in defending his point, because I disagree with so much he says, and this thread is jam packed full of vultures waiting for someone who slightly disagrees with them. But yeah, that bill is full of whack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said: If you really have trouble believing that, Gary Mauser breaks down the stats pretty good. He's a SFU professor so I'm not sure if he's trustworthy to you guys? Anyway the NFA article seems to be pretty close to the stats Gary has. I don't think it's far fetched to believe legal owners lead a less reckless life or anything do to not wanting to lose their possessions. I don't know what your trying to say about the blue marker. I circled a screenshot. There was no hidden information under it as Satchmo seemed to find the article just fine. Lol https://justiceforgunowners.ca/moose-kill-more-canadians-than-licenced-gun-owners/ I'm looking at Mauser's article and will also look at the linked material. I'm losing track of the argument however. Are we still discussing the validity of this quote? Statistically, licensed gun owners are between three and five times less likely to commit murder than the average citizen who does not have a firearms license. (Or are we talking about dangerous moose ? ) BTW - No university professor is completely trustworthy to me despite their credentials. Look at the credentials of the winners of Ig Nobel prizes. As Richard Feynman said, “Never confuse education with intelligence, you can have a PhD and still be an idiot.” Edit: Is this article academic or idiotic? There are likely to be varying views but I'd say idiotic. The article "Feminism and Misandry" by Gary Mauser appeared in the Canadian Firearms Journal on page 40 of the Nov-Dec issue 2013. In this article Mr. Mauser claimed that feminism was the cause of misandry (hatred of men) and the demonization of gun owners. Edited June 3 by Satchmo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.