Spiderfish

600 million and a bowl of poutine should about cover it. Haven't you heard?? Trudeau's not running squat anymore. Chrystia Freeland is now the minister for almost everything Why work?? that's s what he has strong, obedient women on his "team" for. Really, it's win-win for him....he can step back from all that annoying work stuff and focus more on his surfing and international travel....and and he can polish up his feminist facade at the same time. It seems to have grown a bit tarnished lately.

First off, what is the Liberal definition of an assault rifle? The term "assault rifle" is generally defined as a selective fire rifle chambered in a medium caliber which is magazine fed. If this is the agreed term, I have great news for the Liberals...these weapons are already prohibited. Of course Trudeau already knows this, so that leaves us with one of two possibilities regarding what his agenda might be. Either Trudeau Liberals are pandering to Canadians who are uneducated about gun classification and actually plan on doing nothing, or they are planning to modify the definition to accommodate their gun confiscation agenda. both possibilities are intentionally disingenuous and dishonest...but I have come to expect no less from Liberal party policies. If the Liberals intend on creating their own definition of "assault weapon", what will be the parameters? Will the determining characteristics for prohibited status be based on caliber? How about colour?? Wood or composite stock? Or will it just be a lazy and thoughtless blanket ban on all center fire carbine rifles? Liberals have an obligation to clear this up so people who actually have some knowledge on classification of guns can not only weigh the policy objectively, but also to ensure to the public that the Liberals aren't a bunch of clueless morons when it comes to firearms legislation or are just spewing out hollow talking points to pander to the uneducated who insist that "something must be done to stop gun violence". It's easy to champion a ban on something when it doesn't affect you...when you're not a gun owner, hunter, or sport shooter. It's easy to say "why not ban assault weapons?" but the fact is assault weapons are already banned, so anyone with a shred of intelligence should be digging a bit deeper and asking what the Liberals actual agenda is. And if they simply want to ban all semi-automatic center fire rifles, why not just be honest with Canadians and say so? Anyone with a modest ability to rationalize knows the answer is simple, Liberals know that taking legal firearms away from law abiding, responsible Canadians who are already heavily regulated and controlled will not do a damned thing to stop gun crimes. And basing a flawed policy on such an insidious and despicable mistrust of a large segment of the law-abiding Canadian population would be a pretty hard sell, even for Trudeau who has made virtue-signalling an art form and regional animosity an effective tool in his bag of tricks.

I see this as maybe the biggest problem for Trudeau. He and his war room spent the last several weeks searching, micro-analyzing and weaponizing past comments, associations, and actions of his opponents and attacking them on social media and elsewhere with constant accusations of racist, white supremacist, homophobe, etc. based on actions of the past...knowing the whole time this was in his past and that it may possibly come out. He inferred continuously that people don't change their past views. This lays bare and exposes his monumentally shallow hypocrisy, and complete and total lack of self-awareness...for those who may not have been paying attention previously. As far as damage to his campaign, I think there are two angles where this has the potential to damage him. First, it demolishes his strategy of attacking his opponents with further accusations of racism etc...this strategy of his is now off the table barring any major headlines coming from the other parties. So he is going to have to pivot and change strategy, maybe even answer some questions with coherent answers. Second, and maybe most damaging, it will call into question his seriousness by voters who want to be represented by a mature adult. When people start thinking their leader is a joke or is seen by others to be a joke, that is a game-changer.

Vote however you want, that's how democracy works. Nowhere did I say our country is being destroyed..but I do think his policies and positions, particularly on our resource sector, have done deep and sustained damage to our economy that will take decades to repair. It may not be obvious right now, but it will become painfully obvious in the future. We've hobbled ourselves with tanker bans,anti pipeline policies, and new laws and bills that will affect more than just the oil and gas sector, causing major self-inflicted damage to all areas of our resource development in a competitive international resource economy. His policies have fueled resentment in Canadians against each other, and created regional divisions in this country in a way I haven't seen in my lifetime..worse I think than his father (and I'm old enough to remember.) I've voted Liberal in the past, I've voted Conservative in the past, peg me as a partisan if you feel like, it doesn't matter to me but you have no idea who I am. You're right about one thing though, a leader is not bigger than his party, but Trudeau seems to think he is. There was a time when a leader would not have survived the scandals and corrupt behaviour that Trudeau has survived, the party simply wouldn't allow such brand damage. I'm not sure what that says about the current Liberal party, that it seems there are only 2 MP's who have enough moral integrity to do the right thing and stand up to this bully. I'm not sure what that says about Canadians who would be willing to support such a leader...or such a party. I personally could not bring myself cannot vote for a party with a leader as vacuous and hollow as Trudeau in 2015, and my resolve has only focused and intensified in 4 years. I believe anyone with any sense of moral integrity would come to the same conclusion. I certainly did not see eye to eye with Jody Wilson on many of her positions, however on this particular one, we agree.

Projection and cynicism of future leadership is a pathetic excuse for accepting current corruption. People who engage in this earn exactly the leadership they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us who actually care are dragged along for the ride. As I have said previously, last election Trudeau was a relative unknown to some who weren't paying attention and their ignorance could maybe be understood. Not this time, however...this time we know precisely who Trudeau is. If Canada decides to elect this fool, it's on us....this time ignorance cannot be used as a credible excuse.

I think either Michelle Rempel, or Lisa Raitt would be very solid in the leadership role for the party. I also think someone like Pierre Poilievre would be a good choice. It is incomprehensible to me that Trudeau has any support left in this country. I don't see this as so much a reflection of Trudeau's incompetence, or even of Scheer's, as much as it is a result of the apparent acceptance of corruption and incompetence by Canadian voters. It's very disappointing, and actually worrisome that Canadian voters can place such a low value on ethics and performance, and be swayed so easily by pandering, hollow virtue signalling and hypocritical lecturing from a leader who is quite obviously out of his depth. It will be interesting to see what the reaction of the West will be if this clown is re-elected.

He used to be, until he went from representing the people in his riding in SK, to representing Trudeau's brand and pushing his idealistic garbage on an unappreciative constituency of people he represented.

Finally, a coherant point that you and I can agree on.

If that's the case, maybe the GG needs to sit down with Trudeau and explain this in words that he will understand before he goes and invites any more "subjects of the British Crown" turned terrorists into the country. I'm sure Goodale would appreciate it....as would the rest of us.

In a statement released by Goodale's office... "There is no legal obligation to facilitate their return," the statement read. "We are not able to comment on specific cases or national security operational matters." Sounds like Trudeau is going to need to reign Ralph in and sit him down and explain the Liberal perspective to him. We can't have Goodale going around "devaluing citizenship for all Canadians". Trudeau says Bill C-24 makes citizenship conditional upon 'good behaviour' “The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship ... because I do,” Trudeau told a Winnipeg town hall in July. “And I'm willing to take on anyone who disagrees with that. He added: “As soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behaviour, you devalue citizenship for everyone.” I bet the old guard of the Liberal party wishes JT would just keep these thoughts to himself, rather than try to smugly display his superior virtue. He must make it hard for the adults in the party to get things done.

Not unprecedented...as you aptly point out, this is not the first time Trudeau has violated provisions in the Conflict of Interest Act. I'm not sure what's more bewildering, Trudeau's willful contempt for moral integrity and dismal ethical standard, or the voters who are still defending his actions and supporting him despite such corruption. One thing's for sure, if Canadians vote to give him another mandate, its' not on Trudeau....it's on Canadian voters. Can't plead ignorance this time around.

Yeah, well Michael Moore says alternative energy solutions like wind, solar, and electric vehicles is a complete sham that's been perpetrated on weak minds for profit, so I guess it's apparently back to the drawing board. Only took him 15 years to figure out what some of us have known pretty much all along. At least he figured it out...some unfortunate individuals are still convinced it's our salvation.

Fair enough, but the point I'm making is that conflating the problems in the US with a discussion on Canadian gun control not only skews the argument, but misrepresents the scope of the problem we supposedly have in Canada. As someone who doesn't want to see more gun laws foisted on law abiding, responsible Canadian citizens, it's important to frame the issue accurately so we don't end up with people like Zeitgeist et al., championing a more punitive and restrictive solution to a problem that we don't have.

Agree with most of your post, however if we define our gun control as "not American" then why do we assume to have the same scope of problems as America? Seems contradictory.

You completely missed the point. And if the strongest counter argument you can muster is "we can't discuss Canadian gun laws because Canadian gun laws are irrational", then you might as well just give up your guns now.

I'm not sure if this thread is supposed to be about handguns and assault weapons in Canada or not...the original post indicated that this was about consultations on whether handguns should be banned in Canada after last year’s marked increase in gun homicides in Toronto. Making the assumption that there's a reason this thread is in the Canadian Federal Politics section, it's worth noting that all this talk about bump stocks, Republicans vs Dems, and of course Trump....is exactly the problem we have in rationally discussing Canadian gun laws. When the issue of gun control gets conflated with the problems down in the US, it creates a false narrative that Canadian gun laws are too weak, that Canada has some imaginary problem with mass shootings, and we need to tighten up our laws to solve a problem we don't even have. That's not to say there is no gun violence in Canada, but it's not even in the same realm of comparability with our neighbors down South, and it never will be. Using what happens in the US to push a fear driven social/political agenda in Canada is lazy, irresponsible, and overtly ignorant. As I mentioned previously, Canada has some of the strictest laws and regulations on the planet, and writing more gun laws or banning more guns is not going to make Canadian streets any safer from bad guys who don't give a rats ass about current gun laws, let alone stricter ones. All it's going to do is give politicians more talking points and Government more fear driven control of law abiding citizens, their rights/privileges, and their possessions.

With a rifled barrel and slug..maybe. Certainly not with "shotgun bullets" with "all the pellets" as was referenced.

Then maybe this is the problem the RCMP and government should be trying to solve, instead of banning legally owned guns and magazines from law-abiding people and creating criminals out of innocent people.

Do yo hunt? How many deer hunters do you know that hunt deer using buckshot? Yeah...me neither.

...says someone who doesn't hunt, and thinks deer hunters should be using a 12 gauge and bird shot. You'll excuse me if I don't take your extensive knowledge as the final authority. Any high powered rifle can be used as a "battle rifle" (although, again... I can't seem to find an official definition for that term.) A single shot Remington VS 700 is an incredibly accurate and reliable hunting rifle, it's also basically a civilian version of the M24 sniper rifle. The amount of carnage that could potentially be inflicted with one of these in the right hands is devastating. You don't need a large magazine when you're half a kilometer away and no one knows where you are. But it's just a single-shot hunting rifle. Should it be banned as well?

So why not prohibit the handgun that the magazine fits into. The Ruger Charger is new....the 10/22 and magazines have been around for decades. Prohibiting the Ruger Charger would affect maybe 5 people in Canada, banning the magazine affects 10s of thousands. Also, since when is it a good idea for the RCMP to re-interpret law and affect the ban of a legal possession? I thought they were supposed to enforce law, not interpret or amend it.

Since you mentioned you are not a gun enthusiast and are obviously ignorant about the subject...a semi-automatic is not a machine gun. "Machine guns" or automatic weapons are prohibited and illegal in Canada and always have been. Also, most people don't hunt deer with a shotgun, and it's inhumane and illegal to shoot a deer with bird shot (shotgun bullets??) You obviously do not have enough knowledge about hunting or proper use of guns to even form a cogent opinion, you certainly have no right demanding an arbitrary ban on something you know nothing about. Educate yourself then maybe you'll be taken seriously.