Derek 2.0

I recall reading in the media blitz, court documents obtained (by CBC IIRC) showed that he was given a mental assessment prior to one of his latter (Robbery/uttering threats?) trials, and determined mentally fit.

Indeed, I think positive engagement with the Muslim community by the Government is whats needed, with the understanding that it is a two-way street.......It is in the Muslim communities best interest to work with Government in routing out any radical, violent groups from within.

Exactly, Kevin Vicker or the QPP didn't end their recent incidents by providing humanitarian aid to the victims of the attackers, likewise they didn't wait for someone else to deal with these attacks, nor did they ignore said attacks well engaging in self-flagellation over alleged past wrong doing to said attackers..........

Indeed, no real difference between now and several decades ago when those vocally supportive of Communism were investigated to varying degrees, with the vast majority of cases resulting in nothing.......The difference today, quite clearly is the internet and the allowances in exchanges of information/ideas etc...... I doubt any restrictions will be enacted that would prevent an individual from communicating "support" of radical Islam or the violent actions carried out by it followers, but I fully expect said people will be looked at further to determine if they are a threat.

Indeed, and from a criminality perspective, said folks continue with minor shoplifting, petty theft and pooping in alleys etc.....

Who knows........but those with more odious online perspectives on such maters might best rethink their unguarded pontificating with such matters.

That I did not know.........InSite didn't even cross my mind on this topic to tell you the truth.

Again with cutting context.........

Henceforth, said forum report feature will be linked to a bunker at CFS Leitrim.........

I trust from this mornings posts you'll use the same vigor against those discussing increased security and surveillance laws, fore we've clearly have had threads previous on such topics.

Firearms produced pre-1968 had no legal requirement to have a serial number and outside military firearms, most produced in North America do not......Said gun used has a root design from the 1890s, with the majority of Winchester's production predating 1964.........Of course, we also don't know if the firearm was ever registered if it did have a serial number.........So, the long gun registry would have helped how?

So you're suggesting the Ottawa shooter's gun was not a "real problem" in the shooting? To add, since you feel this to be so, what do you hope to gain by insulting two members discussing the topic? You attempted to delve into the subject, granted with namely incorrect information, in this post: So, you're able to discuss firearms related laws (granted incorrectly) in this thread, but when others do so, you result to unprovoked personal attacks of said members.......how is this congruent to adult discourse? In public, do you interrupt conversations that you're not included in? Do you feel people don't pay you enough attention, if so, can you fathom why people might ignore you when you interject with insults and incorrect statements? Clearly such behavior is found in public places at times, but often by children or the mentally ill person living in a dumpster......

Is that the case with medical marijuana?

Do/did you have a point? Funny that you'd resort to name calling when two members are discussing, in a civil and polite fashion, the firearm used in the Ottawa attack, and how the shooter could have obtained said firearm in a country with stringent firearms laws.

The first reports suggested it was a SxS shotgun, which I thought odd (unless the barrel given a trim), but after seeing the photo from Twitter (the exposed hammer), I knew then that he wasn't a legal owner (nor had a straw purchaser), fore if he had of been, a $200 SKS would have been a more viable "option"..........Clearly either stolen, smuggled in or even found in the bush, like most crime guns........After an SMLE or a Cooey repeater, a 1892/94 lever is one of the most common rifles in Canada (and in the States) based on the numbers produced alone in the last ~120 years......... What would be ironic in some ways, is if its determined the gun was a once surplus RCMP/North-West mounted police rifle.....

No, the RCMP has confirmed (in Paulson's press statement) that he never had a licence.......to add, the database Quebec still has is long dated, coupled with the age of design and prevalence of the firearm type (either Winchester 1892 or 1894 lever gun), the odds are this firearm predated the 1960s, in which case, its doubtful it even has a modern serial number, hence even if the actual gun was registered currently (or in the past), unless the shooter had on him the registration papers, its likely the RCMP will never know the guns history (barring a still legible manufacturers stamp or a previous owner carving his SIN/DL number somewhere on the gun)

I assume you meant pro............None the less, both sides have been "active" to a degree. Gun control advocate Ron Charach sent the follwing letter to the Calgary Herald (which has since been removed): As stated, said inane letter was briefly posted then retracted due to the outcry of reasonable people......... And on the inverse, the NFA has been suggesting the young Highlander was denied his right to self defense, like other members of the Canadian Forces, whom in the last few days have (as they suggest) been applying for ATC permits......likewise, they're using stories of Members of Parliament grabbing flag poles in their meeting rooms to defend themselves from the attack as reason to further grant ATC permits, coupled with numerous forthwith calls for concealed carry to fend off such attacks.......... The extreme elements from both side never let a crisis go to waste.........(For the record, I do favor concealed carry, but for many more reasons than fending off terrorists, but I disagree with the NFA (likewise gun control types) lunging into such memes not only right after a crisis, but during it)

Personally I went between CBC and FNC and thought the coverage by both was responsible, very quick to qualify reports as "unconfirmed" etc, likewise both networks were cautious in labeling the events as a terrorist attack until further details became known, on the FNC broadcast, both Jon Scott and Neil Cavuto correcting and qualifying guests remarks .....With CBC, I feel not only Mansbridge but also Evan Solomon did stellar jobs in reporting the days events.

Two interesting opinion pieces, one from several days ago and the other just prior to today's events. The first, from Rex Murphy in the National Post: Of course, this opinion piece was penned days before these two terror attacks, but in this present light, and the very Statesmen like response from Mr Mulcair, it adds credence to Murphy's question....... And from earlier this morning, from CBC/308.com 's Eric Grenier: I think in the context of today's events, the author's closing line sums up the political narrative in the weeks and months ahead: And that will be answered by the collective response of Canadians.......Will Canadians seek vengeance or retrenchment against radical Islam, in all its forms, going forwards?

I don't bother reading comment sections........9 out 10 doctors agree that if you do, it leads directly to diminished mental capacity.

Not at all.......I think Mr Muclair's suggestion that his party will support the Government in the days ahead are important, much like the bipartisan spirit after 9/11.

I thought, like the Prime Minister, Mr Mulcair's remarks were well thought out, with both statements aimed at not only reassuring Canadians, but also our allies and the markets.

In your view, what then does merit an address to the nation?

I think that will be dependent on if its been totally cleared, but I agree, they should return ASAP.

What political points do you think he stands to gain, as leader of the Government of Canada, by addressing Canadians?