Signals.Cpl

So your argument is that someone born in 1970 in Canada and has lived only 2 years in Canada while the other 40+ years overseas and does not even speak english is more Canadian then someone who was born outside of Canada and moved to here with his/her family at age 2? So the only requirement to being Canadian is birth in Canada no consideration is given to actions since birth or wether or not you actually lived in Canada for any length of time? So being Canadian is defined by where you were born and not by who you are and what you have done with your life? Good to know that I am less Canadian then someone who moved out of the country when they were 8 while I moved to Canada at age 8 but will never be their equal as a citizen simply because I was not born here?

So 5 years of service to Canada and I am a second rate citizen? And 30 more years will do nothing to change that? I am a second class citizen behind even rapists and murderers simply because I was born in another country? Is that true? What have you done to be different then me? I was born outside of Canada but have lived in Canada for far longer then outside of Canada, I have given more of myself to Canada then to my country of birth yet I can never be truly a Canadian. What about those born in Canada but raised with the values of their home country? Are they less Canadian then you? What defines a Canadian? Your words? Your beliefs? Your actions? Or is it simply the lottery of where you were born? What makes someone who was born here yet never worked a day in their life and is this very day sitting on welfare better then me, someone who has worked for the last 10 years since I was 15 and 5 of those years are in the CANADIAN Forces... Who is to say in 10 years this idiotic idea will not be expanded to include other crimes no matter how minor? That or the not quite Canadians of us will vote for them. Tough decisions? Like alienating a large segment of the population? Including people who have given more to Canada then many born here?

How is Canada my country if I am to be a second rate citizen simply because I was not born here? Why should I serve this country if the government decides not to recognize me as an equal to some one born here? And there are so many other ways to do something that don't involve making immigrants second class citizens. There is a right way and a wrong way... this way is the wrong way which will alienate millions of Canadians and make second class citizens out of us.

If a crime is being committed against you, and you feel your life is in danger, what would you prefer the attacker have? 1 - a knife 2 - a bat 3 - a board with a nail in it. 4 - a firearm. I have no problem with people having pistols at home my issue is when they start carrying it around and out everyone else in danger. The lower the standard for gun ownership the lower the quality of gun owners the more likely it is for firearms to fall in the hands of undesirable gun owners.

I am 100% with you here. If a women genuinely believes that was raped by a man but it turns out it was someone else that is one thing and the courts should do everything in their power to clear the problem, if a women says she was raped but in reality it was a lie she should suffer the consequences for 1) destroying a man's life and 2) for screwing over every real rape victim. I agree. Again I agree with this as well, if a women says she was raped and it turns out she lied then throw he in jail for the same length of time as a rapist gets. If a women mistakes the identity of the rapist she should not be held accountable but there should be an investigation as to the conduct of the prosecution and the police as to wether they conducted themselves properly or not.

"Your side" wants to get rid of the "bad people" with guns by arming even more people with guns?

It can, but the difference is that you can make a standard and enforce it, increase training or any number of other things which when it comes to mass of people owning guns is less than practical. It is one thing to have a police department of 500-50,000 and demanding and maintaining a standard while it is a whole other thing to expect and/or demand a high standard of 50-100 million gun owners. You determine if the incident happened because the police officer is an idiot or lacked the proper level of training. One officer screws up and you can use that as a way to educate and train others to avoid the same problem, this happens with civilians the likelihood of getting something positive out of it is unlikely. I am good with firearms as well, but I am the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Canadians in general. The difference between civilians having right to carry a pistol and a police officer carrying a pistol is that you can increase the training and standard as well as frequency of testing while with civilians not so much. Ever thought that shooting at a stationary target is so much different then shooting at a human being who can move and duck and all that fun stuff? The thought that I can carry a pistol and pull it out in a gunfight without knowing who is who and wether they are the good guys, the bad guys or bystanders like myself might lead me to shoot on a first come first serve basis. I would assume that an undercover police officer would have a way to avoid getting shot by other officers(badge, radio etc) something that a random gun owner might not have.

What about those born in Canada? So is there going to be two classes of Canadians, those born in Canada and those who moved here? And if this is approved what happens then? Why give a citizenship to people only to take it away? There are other ways to make a Canadian Citizenship less attractive for citizens of convenience such as having to pay taxes even if you live outside of Canada or make it so those who live outside of Canada have to renew their passport more frequently and at a higher cost. Right now you renew your passport every 5 years or so and pay the $100+ and are set, that is why its a citizenship of convenience people come to Canada and get citizenship then move back to their home country and renew it every 5 years only to use it in an emergency if you have to pay taxes in Canada wether you live here or not might remove those who use the Canadian passport for a safe haven only.

You are dying either way, one way you wait for death in space the other you go for a quicker death with a slim chance of survival... due to pure luck... or may e good construction.

Everytime I read one of your posts it reminds me of this:

How many courts accept lie detectors? I think making the punishment for being caught lying about such incidents pretty harsh would cut down on them.

They promise the world but when they get there and realize how nice it is to have those benefits without fear of losing an election they quickly change their mind...

I don't think that intentionally and falsely accusing a man of rape is the same as mistaking the wrong man for a rape when the women genuinely believes he committed the act, both are terrible but one is terrible because the women knowingly tries to destroy a mans life for her selfish reasons and the other is terrible due to circumstances or incompetent law enforcement as the crime occurred but the guilty party was mistaken.

We can't determine what is worse unless we have a specific case as in someone being falsely accused of rape and sitting in jail for 10-20 years v. someone being falsely accused of rape and the women admits to her acts before there is jail time, in both cases a lie was told but in one the consequences far outweigh the consequences of the other. A Rapist does damage to his victim, a women who falsely accuses a man of rape does damage to every rape victim and that is why in my opinion falsely accusing someone of rape is far worse not in the individual case but in the grand scheme of things.

What is your opinion in the grand scheme of things rather than the individual case?

Honestly it would be falsely accusing someone of rape because that makes it all that much harder of a crime to prosecute especially if a women falsely accuses a man of rape and the case is rock solid which gives ammunition rapists and their defence and doubt to legitimate rape victims...

Why wouldn't they reject reforms? They receive a very sizeable salary with great job security, if they went for reforms they might actually have to do something.

Im sorry but where is the $8 billion deficit? The highest I saw was 3 billion.

Just because it does not happen often does not mean that the possibility is not there at every such situation and who is to say that the people handling their weapons are competent? What if the gunman enters a building and opens fire only to be met by gun owners who return fire wildly and cause more casualties and damage then would have happened otherwise? What happens when police officers show up to a gun battle and cannot determine who is who and as a result have to fight all the armed people?

The issue is events such as the Columbine shooting where the officers show up while the shooting is in progress and this will even up the odds. As far as arming people in order to deal with such threats I personally would not trust many people with a gun, someone opens fire and others join in means that there is all that much chance for a free for all to happen.

Yes it does not make a difference in some of the shootings but in situation where the shooter is still active they go in and have a better chance of stopping the shooter. Used to be that the police officers would secure the scene and wait for Tactical Teams to show up and neutralize the threat but now police officers go in to take down the shooter rather than waiting for Tactical Teams and with assault rifles they can at least be on somewhat more equal terms with the shooter. This doesn't solve the problem but it means that at least when the police get there they can engage the attacker with equal or greater firepower.

The max salary a CPL can make is a little over 58,000 dollars a year, counting specialist or MCpl as the standard to compare is inaccurate.

So you are against reform of the welfare system to encourage the recipients to find work?

What does a middle-class earner have to do with welfare?

You can always find someone to translate for you but you cannot always find someone who understands the local culture and mindset.