Signals.Cpl

That is your opinion but either way Canadians are more aware of events around the world than Americans...maybe because we actually learned some geography. Canadians know more about American history than most Americans do... kind of sad right? Wow that just proves the US has 10 times the population of Canada... You know the US also has more women than the entire Canadian population... What is the next shocking piece of information? That there are more males in the US than the entire Canadian population? That the earth is not flat? Please oh please Captain Obvious please teach me some more...

That they have the means to do so? If you can afford it why wait in line? If you cannot afford it you wait in line... rather than if you can afford it you get healthcare if you cannot afford it you die. If I had the money and needed care I would go somewhere where I can throw a few bucks around and get care now rather than wait.

Chalk that up to better education... Canadians know more about the world than Americans...

Not in this case unless you can guarantee that they will not act on their threats. Would you say that the authorities should take anyone making a threat about shooting up their school seriously? Even if they seem unlikely to commit the crime they are threatening? If the FN leaders make a threat they should be taken seriously. The Homeland Security warning system is meant to make people feel secure it doesn't mean that when the threat level is green that they are not taking any threat seriously it just means that they have no expectation of imminent attack.

You really have an inferiority complex don't you?

Does it matter? If I told you that I will do harm to you and/or your family, would you sit and analyze how much of a threat it is or would you go and do something about it?

So if the FN decide to get destructive and the provinces do nothing the Federal government will stand by and watch the economy go down the drain? There are financial means for the federal government to force the provinces to act and there are also financial means to stop the FN from throwing a tantrum or at least take the wind out of their sails. What about the Emergencies act? If only half of the threats that are thrown at Canada by the "protestors" are carried out I think that it would warrant an intervention by the federal government through any means available to them such as putting financial pressure on the provinces to get them to act.

So let me guet this thing, you don't care that this is a problem until people get slaughtered? You wouldn't do anything to stop/prevent this because it makes sense to keep people safe you would only do something if police officers start losing their lives? I realize you want to ban guns for the sake of banning guns whether they fix the problem or increase the problem, there is no good reason to put up the names of the people who own guns legally. If we follow your chain of thought we will never get in front of a problem and prevent deaths we will always be chasing problems because even though some of us have the common sense to grasp such a basic problem we cannot do anything until what dozens or hundreds or even thousands of officers and their families are threatened and murdered simply to convince you? If your life or the lives of your family were on the line I can foresee you demanding immediate action before the violence befalls you but just because it is just gun owners and police officers who cares...let them die right?

And there are other ways for the federal government to make their point with or without the provincial government consent. RMCP as well as the railway police can be utilized to deal with protestors and let the economy of the provinces suffer for lack of action. The Emergencies Act would probably suffice if it were to look like an insurrection by the FN. The Federal government has a lot of options that may by heavy handed but can direct the provinces to do as they want.

Well you have guys who either don't know or couldn't be bothered to try but suddenly there you go you have a list that cannot be traced back to you since you got it from the newspaper. The fact is they could have done it before, but now it simply is handed to them with a nice simple map as well, plus with the bonus of knowing which of their neighbours are armed as well... don't even have to do work just get handed to you knowing if the guy is armed and if his neighbours are armed too.

You know not everyone is in the phone book right? There are people who are trying to lie low and keep their footprint as small as possible and now some newspaper which was trying to cash in on a tragedy decided to put people out there with or without their consent.

Just because they could have done it before does not mean that the newspaper should have given them all the information they need... In this case the newspaper is in fact penalizing people for following the law...see if you had just bought an illegal gun you wouldn't have this problem.

Not all the people on the list have pistols but all the legal pistols owned are probably on the list. What about the families of the police officers? do their wives and kids apply for CCW permit?

So you think that never has it happened that a police officer or a prison guard has ever been attacked at home due to their employment? No, its knowing a person and their address as well as the fact they have a gun permit likely with a gun in the house. On the flip side it means that a gang member sits outside your home and waits until you and your wife leave for work, walks in grabs the gun and ammo and there you go now there is one more gun in the street. Where do you think that illegal guns come from? I would say a large % of them come from thefts such as this so its hard to understand how you are against guns but not against giving the criminals a nice list of targets to hit. You can buy a gun and hope for the best meaning no one has used it for criminal means or what not, or you can steal a gun which you know is likely well maintained and has never been involved in a crime. Why do you think people break in to steal things? I mean they could just go to the store and buy a new TV why risk jail time? Why risk jail time for an iPod or a watch? You give them a nice list of targets they will go and relieve the people of their guns at their convenience.

Guns themselves are not a deterrent, the person having a gun is, so considering that most people probably won't carry their firearm to work with them this means that the gun is sitting at home for the taking. If someone invests a little bit of time in research and does a recce they can get a gun no problem what so ever.

So they shouldn't enjoy the rights given to them by the law of the land simply because someone could and does post their address and the fact that they are enjoying their rights? This kind of sounds like the "if you don't want to be raped don't dress so provocative" argument, but in this case its "if you don't want every criminal to know you have gun don't buy one"...

He can pass down directions, if the Provincial and/or municipal government(s) chose to ignore those directions the federal government has a number of agencies and organizations that they could use to enforce the law without requiring the provincial or municipal police departments. My point is that if the PM were to make a decision and support police enforcing the laws more politicians down the chain will be willing to do so as well, now few politicians want to suggest let alone support stricter enforcement of the law against FN because they don't want to be held responsible for the result which will not be pretty.

And that is just as wrong as the initial paper's actions. This puts people in danger and many people are fine with this simply because they don't like gun owners but if it were something else that put them on a similar list they would be pretty unhappy...

And what happens when the police officers enforce the law in one area and as soon as one thing goes wrong they are left on their own by the politicians and judicial system? This would embolden the protestors throughout Canada and further cement the action or lack thereof when it comes to the police departments throughout Canada. What we need is a politician to stand behind the police, in this case the PM should decide how to deal with the protests one way or another and pass it down to provincial and municipal governments which would direct their police departments to deal with the situation according to the direction of the federal government. At this point the guys on the pointy end of the stick will know that their action is supported by the government and will commit to it, and thats what is necessary here the knowledge that what you are doing is right and that you will not be abandoned the second something goes wrong.

Or the paper could use common sense and not print information that is so damaging and dangerous.

I doubt that the US as a nation stocked up on them, there will always be a vocal minority that want weapons that they shouldn't have but when push comes to shove they don't matter because the majority of people want change and change will come in one form or another soon. There are three sides to this when the moderates start abandoning the extremes and try to find a solution in the middle progress will be made.

No, but we should make sure that our politicians have the spine to do what is needed. We need the politicians to decide that the laws will be enforced and stand behind the police when those laws are enforced no matter the media pressure or the backlash from the actions those actions. If police act the first thing that happens is numerous complaints of police brutality and heavy handed action without bothering to determine if there was in fact such actions the politicians who supported this position will promptly start back peddling to distance themselves. No politicians with back bone to do what is needed means no action by the police be it municipal, provincial or federal.

Yeah well then you are unique, if any police force moves on the protestors and it gets violent many of the so called supporters will back away and the politicians will distance themselves from the consequences of their decisions. One violent confrontation and the media will run with it as the big bad police stomping on the little innocent FN protestor fitting for his rights.

If they decide to do something then the government has the responsibility to the rest of the country to keep the peace and wether it is using the police or as a last resort the military they will use any means. It's one thing when Canadians get hammered with "news" about the government screwing the FN but when the Canadian people get the other side as well where the FN in many instances are squandering the resources given to them support will drop, you can protest all you want but when everyone knows that your protest are really just about getting more money and less government oversight in to your spending the money the FN will not hold the moral high ground.

And when something goes wrong or suddenly unpopular who will be left holding the short stick? If the police were to start acting we would be flooded with police brutality complaints wether they have any merit or not and then what happens? The people who were supporting/demanding police action as well as the people in charge will quickly melt away only to leave the police officers to face the music for doing their jobs.