takeanumber

I don't know. Who are you implying?

See: no response.

Criminals get caught. If you're pulled over for a routine offense, and the officer finds a gun in your car, you're thrown in prison before you can commit a really serious crime.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus...50_cover-E.html HERE Read 2 section b

Says me. Nobody has offered another arguement since I pointed out that C-250 protects freedom of religion. Not a single reply since. So, secret feelings are exposed.

They do have basis in reality. You know I'm in Calgary West. You know I'm a graduate of the U of C. You know that I'm an economist. So you know the type of profs I've had, who I hung with. Hello. The Conservative Elite are here. Don't be so dismissive. I know a lot more about the party than most people do. Maybe even you (!!)

More wisdom from the Argus.

Good reply. I think in total, it would be cheaper than the gun registry. And more democratic. Besides, there's already regulation for gun shooting ranges. There wouldn't be a need for more specific regulation. Just banning guns in the urban areas that want to ban them. It's like VLT referendums. Let the community decide. This way, farmers don't need to be bothered.

There you go. There isn't a valid arguement for being anti-250.

If you're against C-250, you're anti-Homosexual. THERE EXISTS NO VALID REASON FOR BEING AGAINST C-250. And you know it. I've called you on it repeatedly, and you havn't been able to offer a single, VALID reason for being anti-250. Conclusion, you must be anti-Homosexual. I cry fascist whenever I see a parrallel with fascism. I know that you lean towards authoritarianism. That's your right. I'm a strong Libertarian (with a strong Anti-liberal bend on hate laws), so naturally, we're going to clash. If you can't handle the company you're associated with, then might I suggest you change your thinking? I'm not a leftist. I'm a strong supporter of the free market. Alliance Fanatic: if you can't take the heat, get off the porch.

Gun Control A semi-Authoritarian, semi-Libertarian Approach. Assumptions: 1. Guns are a vital part of rural life. 2. Guns are not a vital part of urban life. 3. Canada is a the type of society where you should not need to own a gun to feel safe. 4. Guns, in general, are responsible for more deaths by accident than they prevent. 5. The Urban need for enhanced security should be accomodated by alarms and lighting, not with guns. If you wish to challenge any assumption, you may do so. The debate over gun control has a distinct urban-rural flavour, where the urban distate for crimes committed with firearms and gun violence in general has caused solutions to be imposed on rural populations who do not share the same concerns. One possible resolution: 1. Abolish gun registry. 2. Referendums to be held in every urban area with populations greater than 100,000 people to ban guns in their cities. Smaller communities may opt in for similar referendums. 3. If the referendum is passed, all firearms are to be removed from the city. Anybody caught with a gun, trafficing or holding a gun in their home, will be charged with a severe criminal code offense. 4. If you love guns, they are to be stored at shooting ranges that the market will create in the outskirts of the city. 5. If you feel that unsafe in a city without carrying a handgun, or having a loaded gun in your home, find a community that shares your values. (Majority decides in a referendum.) 6. If you reside in a rural area, and wish to transport your handguns through a gun-banned area, you are to make arrangements with the RCMP to get them transported through the said areas. The logic being: if you have a gun in a community/city that does not want guns in their community/city, you are a criminal for not respecting those local laws. "only crimials will have guns" That's a fear induced response. If you're scared, vote NO in the referendum. That's my solution. I think it's a different way of going about it. Might not please everybody, but at least I tried to think outside the box. Like I said, it's semi-authoritarian, semi-Libertarian. Regards, Takeanumber.

Well, gosh darnit. Seems somebody doesn't like me much. Well, let's talk about personal attacks. When I first started posting here, I found that Argus and Alliance Fanatic would attack my ideas first (which was good), but then, after my third replies, they started attacking me personally. So, after my 'eat meh' reply, I backed off. I started pointing out whenever they personally attacked me. Of course, everybody jumps down my throat for a statement, and not them. But whatever. I realize now maybe everybody expects that kind of behaviour from them. I believe that the quality of the arguements has definetly gone up since we have more small 'l' liberals, and more Libertarians on the board. I think the loudest people--the Authoritarians--who were the cocks of the walk for so long, are complaining about the lack of quality in their arguements when they stack up to Libertarian ones. On a personal note: To the Argus: Don't make Nazi-esque statements, and I won't infer that you should consider moving to Austria where you'd be much, much more happier. Continue to post your usual veiled anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant tripe, and you will continue to get flack from myself. To the Alliance Fanatic: Same goes for you. Don't be making personal attacks against me and expect me to be gratious in accepting them. You bite me, I'll bite back. We clear?

It's the same thing, August, and you know it. There is no just, valid arguement against allowing same sex marriage just as there was no just, valid arguement allowing inter-racial marriage. You're just using the issue of same sex marriage as a front to attack homosexuals in general. It's akin to using 'right of religion' to attack C-250 as a method for attacking homosexuals. You know the arguement isn't valid because the legislation explicitely protects religion. (If you've bothered to read the act, that is. If you're just buying the Alliance line, then you really are ignorant.) Then you gripe about judicial activism. C-250 took 15 years to pass, by the LEGISLATURE, and you're against it. NOT a court. A Legislature. It's Legislature made law, passed with support of 4/5 parties, everybody was satisfied, except the anti-homosexuals in the Alliance benches. Go through line by line and attack the arguement August.

You can't prove your statement, and you know it. YUO=PNW3D!1!1!!

Uber. It's usually around here: when you can't correct the arguement, attack the writer. I'm returning the favours from now on.

Iraq. Missile defence. Immigration. Reagonomic tax cuts. Restricting a woman's right to choose. Banning same sex marriage. Need I go on?

I said Christian zeolots. I didn't say 'all Christians are zeolots". I was referring to a single subset of the German population. This has been my third clarification. Unless you're a Christian zeolot who agrees with the Nazi actions of 1933, you should not be offended. If you're a bad Christian who believes that Nazi policy in 1933 was a good thing -- you're the type of person who needs to consider moving to Austria where you'd be more happy; because we won't allow a Conservative government to ever enact such a law. Same goes for ressurecting the old RCMP death machine and making it secret. Does anybody here know why CSIS was seperated from the RCMP in the first place? Does anybody want me to tell them?

A Con-Lib alliance on a bill by bill basis could work until budget time. It keeps Harper from humiliating himself with an alliance with the Bloc.

@August: Forgot to include China (ongoing) in there. Yeh, I know the reason. An enemy of an enemy is a friend. In this cae, a repressive regime is threatened by terrorists, who are also American enemies, therefore, the repressive regime becomes a friend. So yes, we know why. I'm closing the Christian debate. It occured to me that the initial sentence was being read as "all Christians are zeolots" when the intent of the sentece was "Christian zeolots". Despite a clarification two posts back, some panties are being knotted. The continued insistance by some that C-250 violates their religious rights, when the bill clearly exempts religion, is just gay-bashing. There's no other word for it. And I think Harper et al (especially past Day supporters) are more than willing to combine a secretive CSIS with a repeal of C-250 to come after homosexuals. You know why CSIS was seperated from the RCMP in the first place? I'll let you do the research that way I don't get accused of not doing mine. The RCMP went after homosexuals during the cold war when nobody was looking. What's to prevent them from doing so under a Harper regime that inherently hates homosexuals and hates the Charter (which is Trudeau-iste)? Nothing. And that's what should scare Canadians. It won't scare many Cons though, because I'm sure they'd like to see homosexuals get fired right out of the public service at best, harrassed, or shipped off to camps at worse. @August: I'm just as distrustful of the state as I am of the Church. I'm even more distrustful of a Conservative headed state than I am of a Liberal one.

I'm not preaching hatred. I'm pointing out that the persecution of homosexuals by Germans in 1933 has its roots in racial purity and christian zeolotry. Truth hurts. Is your God the same one responsible for the residential schools? How about those churches in Rwanda with the complicit priests and nuns? Such a short memory. I suppose you're going to tell me that the persecution of Jews, Homosexuals and Aboriginals all falls under your religious 'freedom'. Please don't.

My proposal for reforming the Canadian electoral system along more democratic lines was dismissed as 'lunatic' a few months ago. (Which I took as a good sign) Anyway. I know the personal views of my current MP, and I don't agree with most of them. My Liberal candidae sucks. My NDP choice blows. So dunno. That leaves the Greens. That candidate is pretty nice. She's a moderate. But donno, I might have to hold my nose and vote Liberal. Imean seriously, between an aparteid-supporter and a corrupt Fiberal...which would you choose?

Congrats on developing wit.

Truth hurts, don't it? Unless you're a Christian zeolot, you shouldn't be offended. To relate this back to Jim Pankiw, Harper, Anders and Stockwell day...do I think they could perpetuate a repeat of 1933? All the way. Repeal of C-250 is just the first step for what they got in store.

Just because men and women are different doesn't mean they can't fill each others roles. What's going to be your next arguement? That women can't be police officers? This isn't the 19th century.

They're not delusions. The pure Cons really are that bad.