Leaderboard

Disarming law abiding citizens doesn't protect people from criminals who will get the guns no matter how bans you put on them, that protects them a lot worse. Banning guns leads to civil disorder, as criminals are a lot less likely to face consequences for their actions with less law abiding people armed. The assumption that people will be more safe from criminals if law abiding citizens are disarmed is laughable. All your gun grabbing proposals take more guns away from law abiding citizens and barely effect criminals at all, you are making Canadians less safe.

If you have to self isolate someone else can bring in the food. If you in fact know no one to do this you can call the city where you live, in particular your city councilor, provincial member of Parliament or federal member of Parliament and they can liaise with a social agency to deliver food. You could even call the police on the NON emergency line for this.

I'm going to keep living dangerously as I always have. Pursuant to that I'll stock up on liquor and cigarettes

Except you are making people less protected and taking away their freedoms, not protecting people and their freedoms. So by trying to solve those problems with ineffective solutions like gun grabbing, you are actually making the problem worse and then you can use that bigger problem to justify even more gun grabbing. People's right to self defense is vastly more important than their right to hunt, the fact that you draw the line there, and say the more important right should be taken away and the much lesser right protected, that is just further proof you don't know anything about guns and yet want to ban them anyway because you are scared of them out of ignorance. Slap the term "hunting" on the gun and you are cool with it, slap the term "assault" on the gun and you shit your pants, even if the gun used for hunting is more lethal than the assault weapon. You are scared by buzzwords, because you don't know anything about the subject, which leads you to silly notions, like gun grabbing is about protecting people and their freedoms.

If you support blockades, your view is fringe and extreme. Almost a super majority of Canadians are against these types of actions. So any member on this forum in support of this, should know that they’re essentially anti-Canadian. Their view is extreme, fringe, and not held by most of Canadians.

I've heard if you're a woman and you go topless your risk of exposure is lessened by 300%. Ladies, it's your move.

Don't lick children.

I've said time and again that Indigenous jurisdictional decisions, including what to do with the funding that comes to them from Canadian taxpayers, should be made by Indigenous. Indigenous only have jurisdiction over so much, however, including regarding land over which they have title. I give my opinion only where I can see glaring problems with clear solutions. Whether or not anyone chooses to take up those solutions is up to them. Do remember, however, that funding levels of Indigenous Affairs are not in Indigenous hands, on the most part, because the funding comes largely from non-Indigenous. That's why having a strong economy is so important, for Indigenous and non-Indigenous, as it directly determines whether or not there are more or less funds available. I will say that when the electorate feels unfairly treated, they tend to react to that with policy and spending priorities, which is why the blockades have not been good for Indigenous, as they just frustrate people trying to conduct business, travel, and live their lives.

1 Thanks Rue. 2 The rail interruptions, especially Tyendinaga, are the ONLY thing that has brought the Federal government to the Wet'suet'en table to talk about "rights and title" issues arising from Delgamuukw 1997. ... And the only thing that has brought the BC government to the Wet'suet'en table to carry out the duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate their Aboriginal rights and title. Both are long overdue. Ya gotta hit'em in the moneybags: Freight.

And that raises questions about whether their land claims would hold up in court. Maybe they wouldn't hold up because they're weak claims, in which case it pays to stay out of court and make hay out of whatever you can. Clearly, if they're the ones who walked away from a court settlement, these people can't then claim that it isn't fair for everyone else to proceed with important affairs such as business and infrastructure development without a court settlement. It's foolish to entertain this nonsense, yet government, business, Indigenous, and non-Indigenous are held hostage by it. Time to ignore the ridiculousness, enforce the laws, and proceed with completing the approved work.

And again, you are looking for a fight where there is none. It is possible to invoke either data set, simultaneously without confusing the two. But thank you for indirectly pointing out that the U.S. had zero SARS deaths with 10X the population.

I mean, frankly, the only part of the government that has ever cared about me, that ever did anything for me, was the army. They spent millions training me and my instructors dedicated themselves to my development, not just as a soldier, but as a man,. These are the people would take a bullet for you, so as far as Canada goes, these are the best of them, you don't feel like a loser, when the men to the left and right of you, would lay down their lives so you might live to fight another day. Legio Patria Nostra

Fear is a virus, and you've been infected. Doesn't hurt to be prepared but let's keep things in perspective.

Protest is speech. Interfering with infrastructure you don't own isn't speech and is already illegal i assumed, but maybe there's a lack of specifics in the law they want to address. Nobody is telling protestors to be quiet, they're telling them to get off the tracks. You have no constitutional right to protest when it's interfering with the rights of others.

Okay so you believe in Inherited authority. How wonderful. Yet the majority of hereditary chiefs support the pipeline. So, if someone opposes something that the vast majority support, and approvals have been granted because regulations are being followed, that dissenter has a right to sabotage private and/or government businesses? Are you an anarchist?