Wilber

Would someone please come up with one example of where the gun registry has actually saved a life or prevented a crime. Can someone please come up with a reason why baning all handguns would somehow prevent crimes committed by guns that are possessed illegally already. Most of which entered the country illegally in the first place. The real crooks must love those who are in love with registries and bans. Instead of that money going into real policing which would be a real problem for them, it gets blown on trying to control law abiding people with regulations real criminals have no intention of following anyway. You won't see any of them on these forums protesting more regulations. They could care less.

Of course you do not see anything wrong with it.........You hate guns and the people that use them. Registration can only be used as a lead in to CONFISCATION. So it plays right down your alley. Registration can achieve NO OTHER PURPOSE. This is not conjecture it is a simple fact. Registration has NEVER in the history of Canada been used to solve a single crime. NOT ONE. It has however time and time again lead to CONFISCATION of property from people who were stupid enough or trusting enough to follow the orders of the government. FINE!! You are welcome to think like that. It is trying to put these twisted thoughts in motion where I have a problem. How about BANNING people who commit CRIME! What do you really know about the dreaded AMERICAN (shudder) gun lobby? Nothing more that the tripe spouted by the likes of Michael Moore I would gatther. The NRA that you elude to is not active in Canada. Here we have our own groups that became active AFTER you and YOUR ilk decided to try and strip away our rights. Well bucko......... I am here to tell you that me and THOUSANDS of Canadians like me will not sit idle by and let you and your ill advised friends ruin our country. YES OUR COUNTRY. We have as much say as to what happens here as you do. However we do not run around telling other people how to run their lives!! As to the profit motive..............damn are you REALLY that much of a leftwing nut? I mean REALLY!! Reading your posts I knew you were somewhat spun in the head but that concept just makes me wonder if you could possibly be more than a little off your rocker. People who promote the legitimate use of firearms for FUN, SPORT and Defense do so for more than profit. ( albeit there is that nagging problem of having to provide for ones family)- But then again your type have always counted on the Government to do that for them. Quite a rant IPSC storm, now do you feel better. On the other hand I would be very frightened of someone like you with a gun in their hands. People who exhib anger like this are really dangerous. When billions are spent on something that is useless, it is a smoke screen to point it out. When people object to having some taken away that they enjoy, they are pawns of some nefarious American lobby group. Why are you afraid when people get upset with you for spouting off a bunch of garbage you can't substantiate, in order to take away their rights? No one has threatened you, they just don't respect your opinion on this issue and are telling you so in no uncertain terms.

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is not that MSM won't print them but that there was absolutely no Canadian source that you could go to to see them until the Standard printed them. If our so called betters in the media and government had their way and we had no access to foreign sources, we would have no idea why Muslims were rioting burning and killing around the world except for what they tell us. We would just have to take their word for it. That so many Canadians find this acceptable, I find disturbing. It's what totalitarian states do. "Do we continue to provoke them until something stupid happens and a conflict breaks out. When do we stop. where do we draw the line. It's not about us standing the line flexing our muscles "don't F--k with our freedom of speach". And it's not about "let everyone see them and judge for themselfs" it's about showing respect and using common sense. " Europe was saying the same thing in the early thirties. " Don't provoke them, they aren't really serious, it will pass." By 1945, with a continent in ruins and 50 million dead, it was obvious the Nazi's weren't going away and they weren't kidding. We have a group which believes every one of us that does not believe as they do, does not deserve to live. Sound familiar? If that doesn't deserve at least a cartoon, I don't know what does.

At least people will get to see one of these worthies in action somewhere else than in a court room and before they are appointed. They will get to judge the judge as well as the person appointing him. Could be interesting.

The NDP want a probe because with no strong Liberal candidate they figure Wadell will be a shoo in. Principals have nothing to do with it. If their boy wasn't now the favorite, they wouldn't be anywhere near as "principled". Emerson got elected because he was Emerson, not because he was a Liberal. It is questionable that he could have been elected as a Conservative however. While a minority did vote Conservative in Kingsway, a majority did not vote either Liberal or NDP. A Liberal just got more votes than any of the other candidates. Emerson and Belinda both crossed for the job. Harper asked Emerson because he wanted him in his Cabinet first and his vote second. Martin asked Belinda because he wanted her vote, period. http://www.northshoreoutlook.com/portals-c...id=591803&more=

Why would a prospective judge refuse to answer questions? Isn't providing some transparency to the process the rationale for public questioning? In many ways refusing to answer is an answer in itself. If he wants the job, refusing to answer probably wouldn't be in his best interests. The PM gets the final say anyway but it would be politically risky for him to appoint someone the Parliamentary Committee really objected to.

Looks like the CRTC has decided it is OK for the phone companies to overcharge you as long as they use the money to upgrade their own systems. What a bunch of useless twits.

Isn't that what we're doing? You have access to the pictures--there are two or three links on this thread. Look at them, democratically decide for yourself whether you personally find depictions of the prophet to be offensive (I'm guessing not), and avoid taking it to the extreme of printing it in the MSM. Perfect compromise! All links from outside Canada.

I'm not a hunter but of course hunters don't have a god given right to jeopardize the lives of others any more than you do with your car. There are tons of things people do which aren't safe. Do you think that just the ones you don't like should be banned? Do you ski? How many have been killed or maimed on ski slopes by other skiers acting irresponsibly? Should skiing be banned as well because some people can't be trusted on skis?

I see the links don't work for some reason but Google them and you will find lots.

We definatly need to move our justice system more along the lines of US justice, we need to punish hardened criminals. Right now Canadian justice is a joke along the lines of this: A pedofile is let out after serving his term and the cops say there is a high chance of him re offending, what the hell, if so than lock him away! You don't see that kind of thing happaning in the US. We really should change. Couldn't disagree more, US has highest incarceration rate, and its doing absolutley nothing to curb crime. It's like the death penalty, its used as symbol so that the general public is like "phew! look at all those baddies behind bars getting punished!" After all my Crim studies, we need to maintain our current approach of rehabilitation first. There are always unfixable cases, but until we put in adequate funding , we are just locking people away, and not doing any good for society, because they will get out. US crime rates are down substancially since the early nineties US Crime Statistics And so are ours. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tats050721.html I'm sure you will all scream bloody murder at the homicide rate. But people don't think about how long they are going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's just not a deterrent. That homicide rate is greatly coming from urban areas like Winnipeg and Toronto, where we have to deal with the problem of guns. Just because I'm not in favour of a "US style" utilitarian mandatory sentence system, doesnt mean I don't think there is a problem that needs to be addressed in a more serious manner. Do you want the Criminal Justice system to be fair or equal. You can't have both. It's hard to compare statistics from the different countries. For instance the US gives a number of 465.5 violent crimes per 100,000 population and Stats Can gives a number of 946 for Canada. Are we twice as bad? Probably not but pointing at the US system as a failure and ours as much superior is hard to back up. I am in favour of mandatory sentences for certain crimes and repeat offenders after they reach a certain point, not the three strikes you're out system that some States use. Why are people who have 40+ convictions for vehicle theft and who have been involved in several police chases still on the street? Do we always have to wait until they kill someone and sometimes not even then? Maybe people don't think about the length of sentence before they kill someone but longer sentences certainly prevent them from repeating. William Abramenko Was this fair or equal? Mr Abramenko's wife is suing the RCMP, Corrections Canada, the Parole Board and the John Howard Society. Lets hope she gets satisfaction from someone. Unfortunately she will have to get it through the same mechanism that has a vested interest in our revolving door "justice" system. Seems to me the only one treated fairly here was Eric Fish. More than fairly. Fair or equal? Neither. Carley's Law Whats the matter with this? Wettlaufer has had repeated convictions for driving drunk, had not shown up for counseling and was driving under suspension when he hit Carley. He took off, removed the plates from his car and had it towed away yet said he was not drunk or trying to cover up. Fair or equal? Neither. What's the matter with making it clear that running over another human being and leaving them to die in a ditch is not acceptable in our society and that the penalty for leaving will always be more than for staying, no matter what lame excuse you give? There is no conflict between fair and equal. Some things require a minimum amount of equality to be fair. Why should the law and criminal behavior be the only exceptions when it comes to a bottom line? An absolute minimum penalty that is acceptable when it comes to certain offenses.

We definatly need to move our justice system more along the lines of US justice, we need to punish hardened criminals. Right now Canadian justice is a joke along the lines of this: A pedofile is let out after serving his term and the cops say there is a high chance of him re offending, what the hell, if so than lock him away! You don't see that kind of thing happaning in the US. We really should change. Couldn't disagree more, US has highest incarceration rate, and its doing absolutley nothing to curb crime. It's like the death penalty, its used as symbol so that the general public is like "phew! look at all those baddies behind bars getting punished!" After all my Crim studies, we need to maintain our current approach of rehabilitation first. There are always unfixable cases, but until we put in adequate funding , we are just locking people away, and not doing any good for society, because they will get out. US crime rates are down substancially since the early nineties US Crime Statistics

So much for independent judges. Judges should stick to administering the laws that were passed by Parliament. If there is not enough prison space that should be the politicians problem, not the judges. Ever noticed that when you walk through a Customs hall in a Canadian airport all the Customs officers are wearing protective vests, even though every person in that hall has been through airport security somewhere and hasn't picked up their luggage yet. The same government that issues them those vests prohibits Corrections officers in maximum security institutions from wearing them because it may make the prisoners uncomfortable. That is how far from reality our country has moved. Time for a course correction.

The gun debate will go on forever. The question is, does the gun registry do anything to remotely justify its cost? Due to changes in law, Charter of Rights etc., the amount of paper work required from police officers in order to lay a charge has increased dramatically of the past few decades. Most of them have much more pressing things to do than harass long gun owners who have done nothing illegal other than perhaps not register their rifle or shotgun. They would much rather have that money spent on such things as more officers so they can deal with real criminals who are a real threat to society and who they are in contact with every day. One of the Ottawa registry boosters was quoted as saying a year or so ago that "if the gun registry saved only one life it would be well worth the money". I daresay that if the entire Federal Debt of say 500 B was put into the health care system and the net result was the saving of only 250 lives, Canadians would not consider it money well spent. This is a rich country but not so rich it can blow billions on stuff that doesn't work in the name of political correctness.

Same old tactics rbacon, attack the poster. Yes I certainly would attack my neighbours, NOT. I grew up with guns, I learned to hunt when I was quite young, I have nothing against hunting especially when you see the amount of deer in our area, I just believe that the police should know where all the so called legal guns are for there own safety. The cost over run is debatable and who created it is debatable. The police will never know where all the so called legal guns are because the registry does not have the support of all the owners or all the provinces. The police in my town do check the registry to see if there is a registered gun at a particular residence they are going to. It makes sense to use every resource available to them but they always assume there is a gun no matter what the registry says and as a result it has limited practical value. Certianly not enough to justify the cost. They could name a dozen areas where that money would be of more use to them.

You are so right, firstly a lot of the cost overrun was created by people who diliberately freeped the site to create chaos. How do we know that this was not done in large part by the American gun lobby. Huh ! How in ell can you 'freep' the gun registry site, whatever that means. I hear rumours that say the true cost of the gun registry is up to $4 Billion, if so, this is good news, should help kill it and keep the liberal heads down for a while . What's $4 billion amongst friends. "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." Senator Everett Dirkson.

He's not a draft dodger, he's a deserter. There is no draft in the US any more. There hasn't been for years.

That's a relief.

I have tried to find Canadian web pages that contain the cartoons on both Google and Yahoo. Lots of articles and comment but no cartoons themselves. If Canadians want to see what all the hubbub is about, it seems they will have to rely on foreign sources unless one buys a Standard. The Canadian passion not to be offensive at any price has even extended to the Internet. As a Canadian, it's not a characteristic I am particularly proud of. If a group of people calling themselves Jews, Christians, any other religion or group were committing terrorist acts against innocent people, cartoonists or editorialist's should be all over it If someone claiming to act in my name was committing terrorist acts against innocent people, cartoonists and editorialist's should be all over it. I might be offended by what some of them had to say but which is more important, the cartoons or the acts that gave birth to them in the first place? If there is a problem within Islam or anything else, shooting the messenger won't fix it. There never was a political cartoon that was any good if it didn't offend someone.

I accept that people are offended by these cartoons. I think they were in poor taste and am not surprised that people find them offensive. I accept that like a majority of non Muslim Canadians the same majority of Muslims don't resort to violence when they feel offended. Offensive or not, those cartoons were the result of violent acts being committed by people claiming to act in the name of God. They didn't cause those acts. The violent reaction to the cartoons just makes them more credible to many in the world.

Ever heard of Murphy's Law? Not hard to believe at all.

Are Canadian Muslims lunatics, because they don't like it? Why can't people respect the fact that it offends Muslims. You don't think there is anything wrong,but that's you. It offends Muslims. Not only Muslims around the world,but Muslims here in Canada. How can you pass judgement on what is offensive to someone else. Only they can make that judgement. And I will respect their judgement because it is their judgement, not mine. This wasn't supposedly offensive.....but fifty years later one group finally said enough is enough. Offensive Nobody asks me what I find offensive before they print something. I have every right to say I'm offended but I don't have any right, moral or legal to take violent action against those who offend me. By the same token those who chose to offend will have to take any consequences available under the law. You have it backward. It is the violent acts of a group of people who claim to be acting according to their religion that gives birth to cartoons like this, not the other way around. If their protests were conducted in a civilized manner their objections would be respected and I daresay would get a lot more sympathy than they do now.

A fundamental freedom in a democracy is the freedom to be offended. From many news reports I have read there are a few other cartoons being circulated that were actually cooked up by some Imams to fan the flames. Would it be OK to reprint those seeing as they were produced by Muslims? Regarding all the references to animals. This behavior is purely human. Animals are far more honest when it comes to violence, they do not try to manipulate each other in order to instigate hatred and violence toward other animals.

He joined and committed himself under the laws of his country, not Canada's. It is not for Canadians to interpret US law any more that it is for them to interpret ours. If our soldiers were deserting and claiming asylum in the US, we would expect them to be sent back. Like the draft dodger amnesty after the Viet Nam war, the issue of Iraq deserters must ultimately be decided in the US by Americans, not by Canadians in Canada. He should go home and fight his battle there, not expect Canadians to do it for him.

Give me a break Geoffery,you know and I know if you want to see these cartoons you don't need to see them in a newspaper.There is no reason to print them with the Internet to give you and anybody else all the cartoons you want. I think any time that a person or group of persons commit murder and mayhem to prevent someone from speaking is a good enough reason in itself to speak.