OftenWrong

Because it's dangerous, and some fear it. Because it doesn't work terribly well. And if they are truly concerned about "saving lives"... that age-old fall back for the ultimate virtue signalling dunderheads, we could have a long talk.

I don't know what you're going on about. But maybe no one does... They used it for something or else they wouldn'ta bothered invoking it, for all it cost them. It allows the Fed to step in with all their resources. The fact that they didn't need to use it to press charges, since those charges are covered by existing laws only proves they should not have invoked the act in the first place. OTHER THAN it allowing them to send in the RCMP, because the local forces and local tow trucks refused to do it. They were with the people, not government chivatos. Who are you with, fella?

The stampede, where the native woman was trampled by a horse was the one that got to me. Now THAT is leadership.

Thanks captain history. I like hearing anecdotes of what the elite think about themselves.

Thanks captain oblivios War measures act is being used against those who were prosecuted, as it now means they have committed a federal offence. That’s why they can be ordered to languish in perpetuity in a Canadian gulag.

Probably a reference to Trudeau Sr., who invoked the war measures act during the incident with the FLQ. There was no war then, either. Should be no surprise the son does similar. But if replacing the words “War Measures Act” with emergency act makes one feel better, they should do that. Fill one’s boots.

It would be great if the world could get rid of all its gun problems, and nuclear weapons, and other bad stuff. But these days it's more like the opposite is happening. While the PM poses for another magazine cover shot and portrays himself as a gutsy problem-solver, all he's done is forced the hand of people who are already law-abiding and can do nothing but cooperate. Big clap on the back there, Justin. Meanwhile today we see headlines like "Motorcycle gang memberships surging to historic levels across Canada". Does Mr. Trudeau think these people could care less about his frivolous new gun bill? They don't give a hootin. They will continue to provide guns on the black market if they damn well want to.

There can be many reasons. Why is it worse in the so-called land of the free? Maybe that’s why. With freedom comes the freedom to fail. Many mass-shooters want to send a message. They love the notoriety. They seek to create as much shock and anguish as possible, to get full media attention. Live-streaming your murderous act and suicide is highly in demand. Note there’s already a high level of tolerance to mass-shootings, as they occur now almost daily. Yet only the most heinous and grievous acts are now reported. In order to get attention you have to jack it up a notch. That’s entertainment.

Government should not be involved in solving our social ills. I agree with less governance, not more. A healthy society runs with only minimal government intervention. In that regard Canada is ill. Looking to the future it becomes increasingly clear things will continue to worsen, not improve. We have no future...

Never said I condone prohibition either. I call em as I see em, based on my personal experience. Substance abuse is a problem no matter which way you deal with it. As is growing violence. A society seeing these trends needs to ask itself some harder questions. Not party on...

Plus, there is no question that legalization encourages many to try the substance, which would not have done so otherwise. The same may happen if they legalize narcotics. I doubt these methods will prove beneficial in the long run. More like, rampant addiction Not sure why this is discussed in a gun thread though. —— A gun is a tool, and much like other tools can be used to kill. The real question is, why is there an increasing compulsion in society to want to kill in most spectacular and shocking fashion. —— Toy guns is one thing but look-alike replicas, well, use at your own peril it seems. On the other hand we heard about a man shot in Toronto the day after the Texas shooting, and reports were that he was brandishing a pellet gun. Witnesses reported seeing a body covered in a tarp, and a pellet gun on the ground nearby that was too small looking to be real. Media has gone silent on this police shooting. I would expect officers to at least be trained to know the difference.

Pot is ridiculously expense after legalization, and you can’t buy it by the pound. I guess youre talking black market prices now. Little fly in the legalization ointment. Oh well

Plus, think of all the money they could make. Cash windfall

Cant do that now, supreme court ruling. It’s inhumane. Expect a steady train of lawsuits, prisoners will sue the government of Canada.

Oh right, I see. Because Trunp.

Some of which you didn't address. Oh well.

Don't forget it wasn't always this way. There was a time when it was not anywhere near this bad. It has devolved into this over time. There are a number of factors why a person would want to carry out a mass shooting, I would imagine. Seems like these people are psychotic and have reached an existential crisis of some kind, to the point they don't care if they die. I doubt enforcing gun registration laws would be a major barrier for them to carry out their plans.

Only in your own mind. The thread asks what people think. Therefore my opinion still stands, resolute.

Sadly the only way is by bloody revolution. If there is “intervention” by the west I fear the worst. Examples are Iraq, Afghanistan, who are arguably worse off now. Citizens of Iran could try to stage a revolution themselves, but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to tolerate, moderately criminal regimes rather than using force to achieve, some kinda utopian vision that may be impossible. Question is, where do you draw the line on that? It’s up to Iranians I say. US et al don’t give a hootin about Iran’s internal problems, but for things like oil and nuclear threats they will get a rise. Otherwise, you people can wait a long, long time.

I didn’t say there is an issue with being gay, or professional teaching children sex ed. Look, your points are exploited such that there is nothing more to add. Just let it go. You are wrong.

I would also expect gay parents not to flaunt their sexuality in the presence of young children. Your attempt to compare gay rights flag to parenting little kids is a failure. This is now boring.

Yep. I've proposed one solution already - arm the kids.

I dabble in rational thinking if that's what you mean, but only in my spare time. Do you have a point to make at all? Or maybe it's better not to.

It's not the governments place to moralize, or attempt to actively shape Canadian morals. They should provide the legislative framework, nothing more. Otherwise, you run into a situation in democracy where each time a government flips, the new government imposes it's own vision of morality by reversing the other's trends, as we've seen in this country already. Look at Ontario. The government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. Create the framework and set the standards for promoting true equality, and let the chips fall where they may. Really, all the inequality we have seen in Canada's past is directly the fault of the government of Canada, not the citizens. So get lost. (not you...)

1. Your opinion only. 2. Mom and Dad were not sexual objects, when I was a kid. 4. So what is wrong with saying everybody then. Better yet, say nothing at all.