liberal leadership race

[killtrocity]

violence is caused by motivation, not weapons

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by gurr8

Trotskilicious: changing the world's vocabulary, one irrationally angry post at a time.

I'M NOT CHANGING ANYTHING I'M TAKING THIS SHIT BACK TO THE OLD SCHOOL.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Injektilo

I think you're gonna have to learn to live with it at some point.

NOPE. NEVER.

[pale_princess]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I believe in the right to own weapons for a multitude of reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that gun bans don't work, the fact that an armed populace discourages invasion and prevents government domination, and the fact that it's a basic liberty. I know most pansies like to pretend like violence and conflict can be avoided, but it can't.

i very much agree with this post.

[Rockin' Cherub]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Stop calling people who support public smoking bans, restrictions on guns, excessive sin taxes, and are against free trade and the lifting of tarrifs "liberals."

OKTHNX

seriously. nobody outside of north america does that.

[Trotskilicious]

I GUESS WHOEVER IS BANNING PUBLIC SMOKING IN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND ARE NOT SO-CALLED "LIBERAL" PARTIES.

[MrPantyFAce]

Belinda

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

the fact that an armed populace discourages invasion and prevents government domination, and the fact that it's a basic liberty.

haha what kind of nutjob thinking is this? i guess its safe to assume you've gone back to smoking weed seven days a week. this reasoning is straight out of the jczeroman sociopath playbook.

Tell me more about these "liberties" didn't you once oppose gay marriage?

[Trotskilicious]

LOL no I've never opposed gay marriage. I do oppose the idea that gays should have the right to be married at a church, which is ridiculous, but forbidding gays to apply for common law marriage, or marriage before the holy court of law, is equally ridiculous. I also think it's a smokescreen and a non-issue created by the Republican Party to take heat off of their poor governance.

Mayfuck, you are a chump. "sociopath textbook" you know for someone that wants to establish a leftist control state you should be a big fan of guns (but only in the hands of the government). I still have yet to see a convincing argument against the idea that weapons aren't a basic liberty or to prove that gun bans actually work. All you can say is that I'm stupid and I smoke too much pot.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

LI still have yet to see a convincing argument against the idea that weapons aren't a basic liberty or to prove that gun bans actually work. All you can say is that I'm stupid and I smoke too much pot.

what leads you to conclude that rifles and pistols are "a basic liberty" but, say, flamethrowers arent? this is assuming you do think flamethrowers arent. if you dont think that, then just replace flamethrowers with some other weapon that you think goes too far, that is unnecessary, that basically finds 90% of its use in illicit activity, that is too prone for misuse, that is too detrimental to justify its benefits, etc

what exactly do you mean when you say gun bans dont work? dont work in what specifically?

[Trotskilicious]

Gun bans don't work in banning guns or keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, sleeper. Most guns used in crime are illegally obtained. I don't know why I have to keep explaining simple statements to you.

[Rockin' Cherub]

not this argument again. can we have a poll and whoever loses is obliged to shut the fuck up

[Mayfuck]

There goes sleeper stealing my liberties-as-abritrary-terms line again.

I don't believe there has been a widespread and long term gun ban. One can point to the slight reduction of gun crime throughout the term of the assualt weapons ban, but that provision was riddled with so many loopholes that it doesn't demonstrate what a truly comprehensive assault gun ban might accomplish. By the same token you can't say that the free exchange of firearms has reduced crime. You'd have to start looking at handgun homicide rates in Japan, the UK and Canada, and compare them to the United States to get a picture of how detrimental to society the free exchange of firearms is. We are all familiar with the numbers by now. While those countries suffer from similar rates of non-gun assualt crimes, those with gun crimes are significantly lower than the U.S. And I don't think you could really consider those countries "leftist-control states."

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Most guns used in crime are illegally obtained...from people or dealers that had original obtained them legally

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

If you can find a flamethrower that works to buy then you should be able to buy one if you want to. You make too many assumptions that I'm not willing to take this to the fullest extent of the concept. I love the idea that 90% of any weapon is used illicitly. Well you know when there was an automatic weapons ban even someone shooting an uzi on their ranch in Wyoming is technically illicit.

Don't work in banning guns or keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, sleeper. Most guns used in crime are illegally obtained. I don't know why I have to keep explaining simple statements to you.

i was assuming that flamethrowers were banned. assuming they are, im asking you if you think they should not be

im not trying to put forward some serious statistic, "90%" was just to imply "a vast majority." im asking you to think of a weapon that should be banned, partly because it would end up being used illicitly (i dont mean just some letter-of-the-law infraction) the majority of the time and where its legitimate application wouldnt be valuable enough to outweigh that. dont think im using this as a byword for "firearms" just take this question at face value, if at all possible

keeping them out of the hands of people who misuse them? theres a ban on child pornography that, despite being a pretty great ban and pretty well enforced (i assume), still doesnt keep kiddie porn out of the hands of pedophiles. the point is that if a ban failing to prevent absolutely the acquisition of something is an argument for its scrapping or a fact that is used to outweigh what it does accomplish, then there are many other bans we should perhaps reconsider

if you think thats a bad comparison, just think of really anything else that is banned. a ban on guns doesnt really work pretty much to the same extent that a ban on anything doesnt really work. i dont think this is a valid argument

if you want to compare it to, say, prohibition, where the ban on something not only did not control it, but created more problems than it solved, ill just say preemptively that i think this is wrong. canada and the UK are good points of comparison in what intolerable havoc a gun ban does not wreak, theres no need for many hypotheticals here. fact: im safer here in canada than you are in the US. why? id argue that this is not despite gun control, but party becasue of it


"Most guns used in crime are illegally obtained"

is that a fact?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

There goes sleeper stealing my liberties-as-abritrary-terms line again.

you fucking cunt. you milk my material so much and you dare turn it around on me? wanker

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by sleeper

"Most guns used in crime are illegally obtained"

is that a fact?

Actually it is.

It's a fact in the same way that saying "most underage minors who have alcohol had obtained them illegally." is a fact.

[Trotskilicious]

I was under the impression that more Canadians own guns per capita than the United States, same for Switzerland, and that the murder rate is more a reflection of the violent nature ofthe country than it has to do with the availability of weapons.

[christian zombie vampires]

brendan, there are pro-gun arguments but thinking they will come in handy when your elected government turns on you is not one of them for like a gazillion reasons

sucks that this thread turned into Last Month's Gun Thread II: No One Learned Jack Shit

[wolfo147]

Fact: Guns make it easier to kill people.

That right there should be the end of the story. I mean really, what the hell excuse does someone have for owning a pistol or an assault rifle? Are you going to go out hunting with your AK-47? I don't think so. I would support a ban on hand guns 100%.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by christian ****ie vampires

brendan, there are pro-gun arguments but thinking they will come in handy when your elected government turns on you is not one of them for like a gazillion reasons

I'd rather go down fighting than surrender immediately, but really you're right. It's not like a militia is going to do much against tanks and tactical missile strikes. I'm trying to push home the invasion angle more. That much is true. From my understanding, most Axis contingency plans worried over the fact that America is armed to the teeth in some regions.

I just don't believe that the government has the right to take away things from people. Especially when it's something like rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Maybe once they ban all small arms people will take to using swords and blow guns to kill people.

Originally Posted by killtrocity

violence is caused by motivation, not weapons

Our culture is VIOLENT and when people start talking about gun BANS I start getting indignant, and perhaps as grr8 says irrationally angry. I'm not one to be against gun controls, like the Brady Bill or mandatory gun locks, but for fucks sake, I think I should have the liberty to purchase a 9mm for no other reason than for the fuck of it.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by christian ****ie vampires

sucks that this thread turned into Last Month's Gun Thread II: No One Learned Jack Shit

yeah. This is CAN thread: let's leave guns outside.

pale princess is a gun nut????????

[GlasgowKiss]

Perhaps folks should have thought an educated populace is most likely to keep a government in check. Because right now all the guns in the world arent stopping the bush administration running your country and your rights into the dirt.

[gurr8]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Our culture is VIOLENT and when people start talking about gun BANS I start getting indignant, and perhaps as grr8 says irrationally angry. I'm not one to be against gun controls, like the Brady Bill or mandatory gun locks, but for fucks sake, I think I should have the liberty to purchase a 9mm for no other reason than for the fuck of it.

I don't think it is irrational to be spirited about liberties at all. many people would call me a "liberal" but i think there should be a gun in every home.

[gurr8]

oh yah, if i may go back to the topic-at-hand before the train wreck...i'm not a Liberal so i don't really care about the Liberal leadership race. What i can't understand is how Bob Rae thinks he'll ever be elected. I was told in school that he overspent by something like $1,000,000/hr or something along those lines (hard to remember now). I realize it was a recession at the time (and don't get me wrong i rather like the guy) but i just can't see him getting elected with a record like that.

[lohengrin]

im always embarrassed as a gun-rights proponent when people start arguing against gun bans in terms of overthrowing an oppressive goverment. the army would make a spectacular mess of any civilian or group of civilians who tried to take up arms against it. also, there will never be the motivation that would mobilize a force big enough to contend with more than a hundred federal officers and a tank

[The Omega Concern]

Is there any way for you Nuck-loving maple-leaf freaks to expire Gary Bettman's term?

[Injektilo]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Is there any way for you Nuck-loving maple-leaf freaks to expire Gary Bettman's term?

It woulda been done about 12 years ago if it were possible.

He's american, you guys get rid of him.

[spring]

Originally Posted by phaedrus

as for the leadership race, i think you've all summed it up pretty well. i like all of the candidates, and would vote for any of them. no love for Rae out there?

lots of love for Rae out here, but not because i've been following the campaign too closely or anything. I heard him speak at this Policy Forum back in the spring, before he announced he was going to run. He was accepting a lifetime achievement award, or soemthing like that, and I really really liked the retrospective on his career, etc. and he just seemed a good man, overall. The Rae days were well before my time here (remember i've only been in Canada since '97), so I'm sure there's lots of criticism (possibly in this thread too, but I haven't yet read past the post I quoted).

another bit of trivia that i've heard in a policy course i took for work... his major problem when in office was that he couldn't say 'no' to anyone going into his office with a 'good idea'. more about this possible from Mr. Wayne Petrozzi who taught the course I'm talking about. Hmm...i should check to see if he ever wrote a book.


this is way too long, so i won't start with more useless 'trivia' like one of his daughters being in my sisters' calculus class, at the public high school we went to, and the fact that he spoke at my boyfriend's graduation at WLU in June and was super entertaining


but yes. Rae love. much.



edit: strikethrough above. please fogive me, i have stopped lurking the politics board and i've ventured to post a couple of times, but i understand i have to supress my 'personal experience' in order to be taken seriously.

edit2: Ignatieff. I learned more about him from what Injektilo posted here than what i've managed to gather from the little news coverage i've watched on the leadership race. I respect the fact that he appreciates the complexity of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I also think that the fact that he's a rookie on the political front is a bigger disadvantage than his intelligence and grasp on issues from an intellectual point of view. In my ideal scenario, Rae would win, an Ignatieff would occupy a very trusted and important position on his cabinet.