Rue

Without a doubt the most stupid of attempts to inflamme yet. Why would the US not want every country in the world except its own to be unarmed? In spit of the idiotic attempts to troll and ignoring those attempts on the topic of the proposed gun control I would say this: 1- the current Firearms Act does NOT make a distinction between what is called a"miitary-style" weapon and other long guns or what are commonly called rifles; when politicians like Trudeau trow out he word "assault rifle" they do not specify what they mean by that because they have no idea what actual caliber rifle they mean- any rifle, any long arm, in a general sense is an assault rifle in that it kills; 3-when the media presents stories on mass killings with gunmen, it uses the word "assault rifle". I would then argue because of 1-3, before I render any comment about proposed changes to the law, I want to see the wording as to what will be defined as an assault rifle. Trudeau caims there will be a ban of 1,500 categories of rifles he claims are only used to kill people. How he determined this is unknown. Interestingly as of 2018, the Small Arms Survey said there were an estimated 34.7 firearms per 100 people of "licensed" weapons. That is one of the highest rates in the world but lower than the US which was in 2018 120 guns per 100 people. That does not break it down to specific weapons I am no gun lover. However I do also listen to certain hunting associations and gun club associations whose principal representatives understand different firearms and do NOT glorify them. They make two basic arguments to date Trudeau has ignored: 1-the ban Trudeau has been proposing for quite some time would not stop a mad man from obtaining the weapons being banned illegally; 2-the ban would not stop someone from taking a legally obtained long arm and re-calibrating it to become more rapid fire and as deadly as the ones that "might" be banned. Trudeau to date according to the gun club and hunting lobbies to date did NOT consult with them on such issues. So I want to now know, how did he come up with his list of 1,500, and how did he determine as he said, they can only be used to kill people. Until I see that list and how he rendered his conclusion, I do NOT simply take his word for it. I have only used a 22, and an Uzi. I have handled am M-16 and the damn thing was plastic and I would not use it. I also knew the Russian kalashnikov rifle was a favourite of many Israeli soldiers and others. I personally defer to someone like Army Guy or other military or police or gun club owners or hunting associations on actual rifles and which ones are more or less dangerous. Sorry do not ask me to simply accept what Trudeau says. The timing of this ban was clearly done as a reaction to the Nova Scotia murders. That timing smells of political exploitation of a tragedy to make political brownie points and policies based on fear and ignorance. While I like many personally think hand guns only belong at gun clubs and rifles should be an instrument of necessity for hunters and rural dwellers until I see better explanation than a vague statement that these rifles have no use other than for killing people, I will reserve judgement. Given the sheer volume of stupid knee jerk reactions Trudeau jumps on the band wagon to get brownie points from, I have stopped taking anything he says seriously. Having this man tell me what a dangerous weapon is, is a joke as far as I am concerned. He has zero credibility. He is a sheltered Mama's boy. Excuse me if I defer to others with actual expertise in weapons. That said, I hate assault weapons. I worry about police on traffic stops and on domestic conflict calls. I don't want them shot dead. I am just not sure this ban is anything but a feel good exercise.

With respect to your comments I agree. I do wish to expand though in regards to your last two sentences I too believe the sentiment behind the decision was well meant, but may I respectfully express why from a legal perspective it was ill conceived. I would contend it opens the possibility that ANY woman, as well as any Muslim woman in the world who disagrees with her parents and her parents views on how she should behave should be accepted as a refugee. I say this because the grounds why this woman was granted refugee status was NOT clearly enunciated except for a very general vague reference that invites others to try the same argument now. Making matters worse, the Foreign Minister personally interceding to say the young woman reminded her of her own daughter. That comment although probably unintended showed an unacceptable bias inappropriate for making decisions as to when someone should be eligibile as a refugee and it made it public making a mockery of refugee law. Under no circumstance can a politician claim they made a decision based on a personal bias, i.e, reminding Trudeau or his Ministers of your own children should not get you get special treatment. Good intentions when not thought out create legal conflicts down the road. That said yes we do have current refugee laws defined under two treaties, one for "protection" from unfair laws in other countries, the other from persecution based on political beliefs, religion ethnicity and/or membership in a social group includes gender). Our determination of who is a refugee is supposed to be based on evidence of such, i.e.., discrimination based on gender. That is a pretty broad concept and so I would caution if you do not clearly define it could be argued in theory by every woman on this planet to come to Canada as a refugee. What made this particular woman's case so much more important than any other woman's? Why was the Foreign Minister even involved? It was a refugee board eligibility issue that should should remain distinct and separate from any government influence. This just showed yet again Trudeau's givernment has no understanding of why the government of the day should never lend to the appearance or actively engage in any direct influence of a court or tribunal decision. We do have a category called humanitarian and compassionate grounds which is a vague catch 22 concept that allows anyone to argue they should come to Canada for pretty much anything they can argue makes it compelling to come here but that discretionary power if overly used undermines the rest of the immigration processes. So do not get me wrong, I support Godess on her comments and you, and I do not defend discrimination against women, but our system not can protect everyone on the planet. We have to draw a line and this case didn't draw a line, it opened up a poorly conceived loophole for entry. There are limits to the righteousness Canada thinks it displays in its refugee laws ironically created to try prove it is not racist.

No no..lol...I meant that as a complement..i.e., you heat me up...

Yah. I have read that and other bad things. Like many people who are ceo's I do not doubt he can be a ruthless sociopath.... Churchill was considered a rude man...but sometimes you need one in a crisis..if it's to save people not wipe them out. I do admit I know nothing about him but what I have heard in covid 19 interviews.

..may I say with utmost complementary respect....madam in my mind they are...

Either because he is genuine and trying to help or he's an illuminati disinformation agent. Depends on whether your episode is manic or depressive. I think he is genuine. Others do not.

I loved that response. As a Jew I also very much appreciate the point you made which when you think about it most religions teach. Your answer was excellent. Eye and I and everyone of us get hot speaking on this forum. We sound worse than we are. Had my share of exchanges with Cougar, BC, Betty, ths Godess, Eye, Argus, Wes, many more, etc. all good people but they give you their money's worth in a debate and why not. Don't worry...its just debate. The only polite ones on this forum are Michael Harder and Dialamah and that is cuz they are nudist colony supporters. Seriously welcome to the forum and keep writing away. Hey once we are on the topic back at 17 I was a real dickhead, not that I changed and I had this International Relations teacher called Peter Hidas. Our college was all communist socialist in those days in the 70's. He was a refugee from the Hungary 56 uprisin gHe had the decency to not take my anger at the world personally and taught me what happened in Hungary. It was interesting because he explained the Nazis, he explained the Russians and communists and to this day I remember his name. Over the years I met Poles, Czechs, Serbians, Sl9vaks, Croatians, Albanians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Estonians, who would explain their anti semitic histories, and the Russians. It was hard on them to come to grips with both. Maybe there was some karma in it who knows but to someone who comes out of a Soviet bloc state their stories are sobering. We all need the reality of that system explained in real life KGB, line up for your meat terms. In Canada we take a lot of things our soldiers died for us to have for granted. I think for me travel and life have slapped some humility into me. Still an ass though lol. I have embraced people whose parents may have killed or saved my relatives. That is the thing. From the very people that hated me came others that reached out making your point close to me. It's from our enemies we make peace not allies. I am the first to be a hothead so I salute your response.

Nothing a colonoscopy can't reveal. Genius... thinks proctology is mystical.

Political fishing spam. Its sent out to try incite responses from extremists who agree with it.

I defend no one but with due respect singling natives as the cause of this issue is illogical. I defer to Cougar's words.

Your Queenship. Sars mutated to be very difficult to catch. In return for that quality, it is actually more deadly if you catch it but much more difficult to catch...this iscwhat happens with viruses. Next most viruses never have a foolproof vaccine. There are vaccines for specific strains of viruses. Their being covid family viruses does not prevent a vaccine for them, just not all strains can be covered by one vaccine, so its not accurate to say all covid viruses can not have a vaccine, sometimes, some no. Next many viruses are invisible and show no early signs or signs all. Medicine knows this and creates tests to early detect before symptoms show. There is one for this virus, there will be now early testing in annual blood tests...it just takes time to implement and perfect. It's also very early to know how long anti bodies remain in the system. As a general rule there is no one rule for how long they stay in anybody. Next viruses mutate meaning with some we later on develop herd immunity we do not yet have seen th ed virus is new. You are making assumptions waybtok early to make. In fact everything you say applies to hundreds of viruses that now exist. A virus is not unique. Nothing unique has come from this virus. It appears deadly and unique because of how its presented to you and what you read. I could list hundreds of viruses more dezdly than Covid 19 that can kill you and are invisible. Start with West Nile, Ebola, Zeka, Henta, Spanish flu, influenza. Regards, Gomer Pyle, USMC, Sheriff A. Taylor's, Deputy Sheriff B. Rubble, Dr.'s Kildare, Casey, Welby, Seuss. I know this chick called Iris She frets over the covid 19 virus But what she really needs to worry about is this Her boyfriend just gave her syphilis Ain't no point worry about Chinese flu Just cuz it seems new We all carry virus gnomes Which causes me to write these friggin poems Stop worrying about disease And freaking out about a sneeze Yah stop bein so glum The cure for it all is any fruit juice with rum

? Why are you stating the above? The issues raised regard the intersection and coexistence of all homo sapiens with wildlife not just some homo sapiens. You want to start a thread blaming natives for failed government policies or being stinkers, start one. Also start one dividing who pollutes the earth based on their religious, ethnic, political, and sex preference. Knock yourself out. Crown land was not a concept created by natives, it was created in spite of natives. You miss that irony.

Matters little where a virus originates. What matters is how fast it travels if its contagious and if contagious how it impacts and how it mutates. Origin point is important to know spread pattern and speed but only with pathogens that cause serious medical harm. That is your point about travel and I think it's safe to say we all agree on it. In this case we do what we do second guess when we should have known. We have always known. We have always known fatal viruses exist and can jump from other species. We did not and do not need the specific virus structure to know that. Our failure to come up with proper pandemic procedures was not dependent on knowing about this particular virus. We humans need to die en masse in a first world country for anyone to take notice. Ditto what Boges said. Partial travel restrictions are a problem.

The only Yank I listen to is Jesse Ventura.

I agree with you. We need a world Muslim theocracy.

Some illnesses are self explanatory. We all live in la la land. We should all be kept away from anything with a point.

Try a bat cave eyeball, or a wet market not your bed room.

Can't shoot shapeshifters. You got to track the sobs to wear they feed and poison them with laughter. Only rifle I like is a Winchester and they are useless but they look nice on a wall.

Muskoka? No. It could be Muskoka but you choose hell.

I like you. But yer a commie bastard.

Look behind you.

I defer to you. Hey I can not grow a thicker skin, I am Jewish...but sure as hell defer to you. People like you taught me and will always..its your grin when I slip on the shit my ego makes...lol...yer grin says it all..part wolf part Beauceron. Regards, Canaan Dog

The closest might be Singapore in the future..but no guarantee even then. New York has a large invisible community of illegals, homeless, who do not exist in any census and die and disappear and no one knows. Just the people living in the sewer system alone consitute a large invisible no.

I am in favour of any law that prohibits YOU or Taxme from having any weapons. For other Canadians I will discuss it with Justin when I see him. Zip zap zam nyet...he can not understand Roger Ramjet.

To me the key is who owns the weapon and why. I can think of some idiots and nutcases who should not own any weapons....nuff said.