Remiel Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're the one trying to deflect attention from the real problem. The problem isn't Canadian gangs, it's American junkies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're the one trying to deflect attention from the real problem. The problem isn't Canadian gangs, it's American junkies. How do you figure that? A junkie isn't a junkie without a supplier. Canada was the biggest supplier of liquor during prohibition. Canada has always benefited from American prohibitions. Name the probitition, Canada has short circuited it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 You're the one trying to deflect attention from the real problem. The problem isn't Canadian gangs, it's American junkies. I don't see the significance of the nationality of either the gangs or the junkies. A creep is a creep as much as a proof is a proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 More or less, jbg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 A gang without a gun is just a mo-ped. Is there any body else you'd like to let into the country so we can trash some more of our culture. Who am I letting in to the country? I don't know that you personally let any body in, but the government certainly has and you want to blame US gun makers because these foreign thugs run around with guns. I say through the thugs out and entice the US gun makers to set up shop here. One interesting things about open forums, is we do get to hear some really BAD ideas as well as some good ones. Not to comment on the proliferation of criminal organizations or their origins, but to offhandedly suggest something as foolish as enticing US gun makers to set up shop here, is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted December 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Yeah but I think he is pointing out that while we have a drug problem here, and lots of meth labs, people are playing the ridiculous game of trying to pass it off on gun manufacturers. Guns isnt the issue at all. Its drugs. And another person here says "blame it on American junkies". I hope this guy is never in charge of law enforcement. His solution would be rather than enforcing the law in his own nation and cleaning up this mess, to clean up the junkies in the USA and put the Canadian gangs out of business with no justice for the years of dealing. This is crazy. I can't believe people are serious about this. Vietnamese gangs import shiploads of materials from Vietnam for meth production and all this goes on under our noses. Surely something can be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 I was trying to illustrate a faulty line of logic with that point. To say that Canadians are completely at fault for ecstasy coming from Canada, but Americans are in no way at fault for illegal guns coming from the U.S. is a complete crock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 I was trying to illustrate a faulty line of logic with that point. To say that Canadians are completely at fault for ecstasy coming from Canada, but Americans are in no way at fault for illegal guns coming from the U.S. is a complete crock. All you are doing is illustrating YOUR faulty logic. Your bias is quite evident to all, and your spin doctoring "trying" is poorly done. You need to read a few more political books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 I was trying to illustrate a faulty line of logic with that point. To say that Canadians are completely at fault for ecstasy coming from Canada, but Americans are in no way at fault for illegal guns coming from the U.S. is a complete crock. The difference is that guns are something that many law-abiding people want to own, and in the US own harmlessly. There is little lawful use for meth, or rather use that doesn't severely hurt overall society. Meth is inherently anti-social; guns are not always anti-social. Trust me, you'd rather a potential criminal worry that the bodega he wants to rob has a gun in the register, not meth in the register. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Well, jbg, since hand guns are made only for -killing people-, you're going to have a hard time justifying to me how they are not every bit as anti-social as ecstasy. And you are making a mistake if you think that your laws are somehow more important that ours in a bilateral issue like this. The only important considerations are that ecstasy in illegal in the U.S. and that hand guns are illegal in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Why can't governments in our supposedly 'free' societies just pack away the offensive and expensive idea that drugs should be prohibited. HELLO GOVERNMENT! IT AIN'T ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS IF SOMEONE USES EXTASY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Well, jbg, since hand guns are made only for -killing people-, you're going to have a hard time justifying to me how they are not every bit as anti-social as ecstasy. And you are making a mistake if you think that your laws are somehow more important that ours in a bilateral issue like this. The only important considerations are that ecstasy in illegal in the U.S. and that hand guns are illegal in Canada. "hand guns are made only for killing people"....Really? What about target practice? Guns are neutral , they are not anti-social, they cannot be anything but a gun. Perhaps used for anti-social behaviour, but then again so are a lot of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Think about it, guyser - What is the core principle of target practice? To get better at shooting people. How long have Canadians had to worry about American guns? How long have Americans had to worry about Canadian ecstasy? I don't understand why it is so hard for Americans to believe that we would be happy to help clean up the trade in ecstasy - if they would likewise extend the same consideration to illegal American hand guns coming across the border. You know, I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine. It's not exactly a difficult concept. If the original poster had been really, truly thoughtful, they could have started a thread about how we must work together to act on illegal smuggling. But they chose to attack Canada instead. Why did they choose to attack Canada instead of offering a more diplomatic solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Well, jbg, since hand guns are made only for -killing people-, you're going to have a hard time justifying to me how they are not every bit as anti-social as ecstasy. And you are making a mistake if you think that your laws are somehow more important that ours in a bilateral issue like this. The only important considerations are that ecstasy in illegal in the U.S. and that hand guns are illegal in Canada. Are you saying the small, struggling operator of an all-night bodega (independent grocery) is trying to kill people by having a gun in his register, or just trying to live through his shift, hopefully kiss his wife in the morning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Are you saying the small, struggling operator of an all-night bodega (independent grocery) is trying to kill people by having a gun in his register, or just trying to live through his shift, hopefully kiss his wife in the morning? I think every man, woman and child should have a gun strapped to their sides. It would be a lot safer out there, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Think about it, guyser - What is the core principle of target practice? To get better at shooting people. How long have Canadians had to worry about American guns? How long have Americans had to worry about Canadian ecstasy? I don't understand why it is so hard for Americans to believe that we would be happy to help clean up the trade in ecstasy - if they would likewise extend the same consideration to illegal American hand guns coming across the border. You know, I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine. It's not exactly a difficult concept. If the original poster had been really, truly thoughtful, they could have started a thread about how we must work together to act on illegal smuggling. But they chose to attack Canada instead. Why did they choose to attack Canada instead of offering a more diplomatic solution? The original poster---That is Me. I am Canadian. So it makes no sense to point out to me the problems with America as you see them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Agh... I apologize to you, jefferiah. After re-examing the original post and the link, I see now how well I delivered the next episode of Foot In Mouth: The Remiel Stories. I let the tone of the thread substitute itself in my memory for what you actually posted, and for that I am sorry. However, given the article mentioned that the authorities on either side of the border weren't necessarily blaming each other, why did you choose to subtitle your thread, " Canada Must Do Housecleaning " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 No problem Remiel. I didnt have to US in mind when I brought this up. I just had the meth problems I have been reading about. I didnt mean Canada as some external thing, but as our country, and that something should be done about this. So therefore "Canada must do some House Cleaning" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Guns are not the crime, they are a tool used by criminals. More lethal than most, but just a tool. The drug trade would not cease if all of a sudden there were no hand guns or other restricted weapons. There is so much money involved that the people fighting over it would just find other ways of getting rid of each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 But in that same sense, drugs are just a tool used to turn ones brain to goo, just like alcohol or nicotine. If criminal enterprises ceased to exist, people would still be using guns to kill each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 But in that same sense, drugs are just a tool used to turn ones brain to goo, just like alcohol or nicotine. But, But, But, there always is a But. In that sense, everything that is a tool is related to drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.