Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: 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 How can your take on the bill be anything but an opinion? Not questioning your right to an opinion but I am questioning that sentence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 4 minutes ago, Satchmo said: 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.” I'll be honest here Satch (and @Spring Salmon) I'm not even denying the claim is true. It might be and the truth is, I don't care enough to research it. My only point in all of this is that the post with the screenshot did not provide evidence of the RCMP backing up the claim. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 1 hour 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. A friendly side note(and directed to all Members, and certainly not aimed at any Member in particular) : This is a Private Site. ‘Freedom Of Expression’ laws for our Canadian Members or ‘Freedom of Speech’ laws, for our US friends, don’t apply the same way as they would on ‘Public Property’. Posts are moderated according to Site Rules and at the discretion of the Site Owner(s) or their representatives. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 8 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: I'll be honest here Satch (and @Spring Salmon) I'm not even denying the claim is true. It might be and the truth is, I don't care enough to research it. My only point in all of this is that the post with the screenshot did not provide evidence of the RCMP backing up the claim. My only point too. I believe the evidence points to the RCMP NOT saying it. I believe it to be an editorial comment made by some NFR member and I'm hesitant to believe it on those grounds alone. Edited June 3 by Satchmo typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 54 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: No. I am saying there are already laws against those things. The bill is not needed at all Really? You don't agree with stronger laws against child porn ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Well if nothing else, I'm really impressed that people here can be this interested in the first reading of a bill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 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 think they should ban all Moose really... Moose kill more Canadians than licenced gun owners. According to the most recent statistics, that’s still true. Civilian gun owners are exceptionally nonviolent. Update: Moose remain more deadly than PAL holders. After an exchange of emails with RangeBob, who is exceptionally perceptive, I expanded the calculations to show that, per capita, PAL holders are indeed less deadly than moose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Maybe, just maybe strict gun laws are the reason why moose are more deadly. Because loose and virtually non-existent gun laws with more guns than people doesn't make you safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 50 minutes ago, Satchmo said: How can your take on the bill be anything but an opinion? Not questioning your right to an opinion but I am questioning that sentence. It’s not a take. There are parts that go against our rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: Maybe, just maybe strict gun laws are the reason why moose are more deadly. Because loose and virtually non-existent gun laws with more guns than people doesn't make you safer. So in light of that statement. Would it not make more sense to tighten up the borders and crack down where these illegal hand guns are making it in to Canada to begin with? What good is punishing law abiding gun owners when it doesn't even address the route problem of illegal hand guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 5 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: It’s not a take. There are parts that go against our rights. In your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 8 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: It’s not a take. There are parts that go against our rights. thats what the supreme court is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 3 hours 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 Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts - Parliament of Canada Hate Crime End of inserted block Offence motivated by hatred Start of inserted block 320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. This part of the bill should be interesting if the Conservatives get into power. I wonder how some would feel if people are sent to jail for life for criticizing the government? I mean, imagine if someone were to call Pierre Poilievre a Nazi on a public online forum and it was reported to the government? Be careful what you wish for... Edited June 3 by Elias Pettersson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, Satchmo said: In your opinion. No, on paper. But like I said earlier, I’m not going to get into as it clearly isn’t going to pass. No point of wasting time talking about it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts - Parliament of Canada Hate Crime End of inserted block Offence motivated by hatred Start of inserted block 320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. This part of the bill should be interesting if the Conservatives get into power. I wonder how some would feel if people are sent to jail for life for criticizing the government. I mean imagine if someone were to call Pierre Poilievre a Nazi on a public online forum and it was reported to the government? Be careful what you wish for... Exactly. Half of the Trudy fan club here would be in jail for life already. Seems like a pretty solid bill…… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: Exactly. Half of the Trudy fan club here would be in jail for life already. Seems like a pretty solid bill…… The Conservatives should just agree to pass the bill as is. It does have some good things in it in terms of protecting children that I agree with. Then, when they get into power they can decide if they want to amend it or not. Once a few of their political critics end up in jail for life for calling PP some bad names, then they can make a decision at that time whether they want to make changes or not. It's a win/win for everyone. Trudeau gets what he wants today, and PP gets what he wants tomorrow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 If passed, how would Bill C-63 affect the people in Canada partaking in the Israel vs Palestine charade? Would people have to watch their mouths more than they do now? Would we actually see implementations of this bill? Would we see prosecutions? What are the punishments? This whole thing seems vague to me besides the child-protecting and not sharing intimate photos of partners. Didn't we have laws against that sort of stuff anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts - Parliament of Canada Hate Crime End of inserted block Offence motivated by hatred Start of inserted block 320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. This part of the bill should be interesting if the Conservatives get into power. I wonder how some would feel if people are sent to jail for life for criticizing the government? I mean, imagine if someone were to call Pierre Poilievre a Nazi on a public online forum and it was reported to the government? Be careful what you wish for... It seems to me that it is the courts who do the sentencing. Seems to me hatred of a politician is not included in this list: hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. Life imprisonment in Canada Current sentencing practices ensure that, except in the case of murder, a life sentence is rarely imposed. One common exception is cases which involve terrorism-related conspiracies.[16][17] [18] As of 2013, 4,800 offenders were serving life sentences in Canada, though only 2,880 (around 60%) were incarcerated (the remainder being on parole). The vast majority of these offenders (about 96%) were serving their sentences for murder. "Lifers" constituted 23% of the federal offender population.[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Canada Can we all just wait a bit to see where this bill goes? This thread is going the way some trade speculation threads go. Edited June 3 by Satchmo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 As reluctant as I am to take the focus away from a first reading bill and the anti-Moose lobby, a Liberal MP from Calgary is trying to drum up support for allowing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu to remain in Canada: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/calgary-liberal-mp-wants-to-stop-humboldt-broncos-crash-driver-deportation/ar-BB1nyJ5Y?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=21c762199beb49d6bf0ca3b948e9e859&ei=23 Quote Calgary Liberal MP George Chahal is trying to rally support among his colleagues to block the deportation of Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, the truck driver responsible for the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, which killed 16 people and left 13 injured. As first reported by The Hill Times, Chahal emailed his Liberal caucus colleagues last week saying he would be publicly advocating for Sidhu to stay in Canada. “It was a tragic accident that he was involved in, pleaded guilty and served his time,” Chahal said. “Mr. Sidhu is my constituent and I’ve had the opportunity over the past several days to meet with him, his wife and his child and he has asked for forgiveness.” A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s office tells Global News they do not comment on specific cases due to privacy legislation. Chahal says he has not spoken to Miller about this, outside the email he sent to the Liberal caucus. Sidhu received his deportation order on May 24 during an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing in Calgary. Despite arguments from his lawyer that based on compassionate and humanitarian factors Sidhu should not be deported, the board said it could not consider those factors and had to rule based on "whether the minister has established the facts that support their allegation that you’re inadmissible for serious criminality." This is because despite Sidhu taking full responsibility for his actions, the law states that he is inadmissible to Canada due to the fact he is not a Canadian citizen and committed a serious crime. At the time, Sidhu’s lawyer Michael Greene said he was not surprised by the board’s decision due to how the law is written, calling it a “forgone conclusion.” Greene said that since moving here, Sidhu has become a father, and his child has significant health issues and would not be safe in India as a result. "My concern, with him being deported is also Mr. Sidhu being separated from his family, and his wife is a Canadian citizen and his son, who has significant health issues and with a heart condition, requires care. And so, I'm hoping that Canadians will also forgive him and let him be united with his family,” Chahal said. The Calgary MP plans on traveling the country in an attempt to drum up support for Sidhu as his legal team prepares applications to reinstate Sidhu’s permanent residency. I'm aware that I'm in the minority here (and probably the country as well) but I wish them luck. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 17 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: Exactly. Half of the Trudy fan club here would be in jail for life already. Seems like a pretty solid bill…… There’a Trudy fan club here??? Why wasn’t I told? Does it cost to join? Do we get badges? We don’t have to attend meetings do we? So many questions… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, 4petesake said: There’a Trudy fan club here??? Why wasn’t I told? Does it cost to join? Do we get badges? We don’t have to attend meetings do we? So many questions… Let’s not act like it’s not here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, 4petesake said: There’a Trudy fan club here??? Why wasn’t I told? Does it cost to join? Do we get badges? We don’t have to attend meetings do we? So many questions… No, but you do get a complimentary container of black face paint. Not sure what you would use it for though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Just now, D.B Cooper said: Let’s not act like it’s not here. Let's not over exaggerate its' membership numbers either. From what I've seen, there are more people choosing the liberals over the conservatives because in their view it is the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 43 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: So in light of that statement. Would it not make more sense to tighten up the borders and crack down where these illegal hand guns are making it in to Canada to begin with? What good is punishing law abiding gun owners when it doesn't even address the route problem of illegal hand guns? Criminals gonna criminal is not an argument against gun control. Criminals gonna criminal is starting a discussion on the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Or on our border agency or on immigration services. Again, this isn't an argument against gun control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 23 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: If passed, how would Bill C-63 affect the people in Canada partaking in the Israel vs Palestine charade? Would people have to watch their mouths more than they do now? Would we actually see implementations of this bill? Would we see prosecutions? What are the punishments? This whole thing seems vague to me besides the child-protecting and not sharing intimate photos of partners. Didn't we have laws against that sort of stuff anyway? its just fear mongering from the PP brigade that you'd be thrown in jail for normal speech or protesting. It's their "thought police" trope re-hashed. They are trying to figure out how to handle the really extreme stuff online. As this gets debated over the various readings and committees they will sharpen up what it means by the time it hits the senate for yet another review, and then potential challenges in the Supreme Court. We are so far away from the scenario's being made up in here it's just silly. 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.