CHP: Rod Taylor
CON: Mike Scott
GRN: Phil Brienesse
LIB: Gordon Stamp-Vincent
NDP: Nathan Cullen (Incumbent)
**
“The major danger of ‘democratic’ government is unstable, predatory mob rule. And the task of those who promote good government is to find ways of keeping it from getting too big. Naturally, an armed citizenry is an important part of this. Equally naturally, those who seek unlimited power for government fear a citizenry able to resist encroachments on their liberty.” (Mike Scott [2005 Conservative Candidate in Skeena], Hill Times, April 27, 1995)**
I agree with it to a point. We are talking about a democracy for one. If you start removing the rights of citizens then our democratic lifestyles are going down the toilet. If our government was to do something so far against what is good for the citizens to the point where we would need to protect ourselves and our way of life then I agree. I would protect my family from my own government if I had to. As a basic way of dealing with government to resolve disputes then no I don’t. I think to see his point you have to imagine the worst. If our government and way of life was declining to the point where we were dealing with a dictatorship such as Iraq was with Sadaam but yet the government had already previously removed our rights to weapons we would be in trouble. When it all comes down to it we have to look after ourselves. So to that end I agree with Mr. Scott’s comments.
**Equally naturally, those who seek unlimited power for government fear a citizenry able to resist encroachments on their liberty." **
If our ability was to protect ourselves was to be handicapped by removing the right to bear arms then I could see how we potentially could have a problem. Our government currently is not a threat to its citizens. We don’t know what the world or even our own country will be like in 100 years. If little liberties slowly get taken away one by one who is to say what kind of society we will leave for our children and grandchildren. Who can say that some politician or government will not take advantage of this in the future.
So with that in mind I think that Mike Scott is, with his comments, is trying to protect the rights of all Canadian citizens, not to have them engage in battle with our government.
Do you think having an armed citizenry is the direct the opposite of gun control?
Not necessarily. I think that you have to look at the nature of what the intention of the gun is. I’m not saying that everyone should have a loaded AK-47 in their home. I strongly disagree with that. I think we have to go after the criminals, the gangs, the drugs, etc. Criminals are going to commit crimes no matter whether the law says they can have a gun or not. I do beleive in Gun Control to the point where border security is tightened, availablity and access is tighter and possibly immigration laws are re-vamped. The crimes that are happening are not happening with hunting rifles, collectors guns or those of target shooters. The criminal element will always unfortunately be a part of our society. They will use what they need to do what they want. They will use a baseball bat or a knife. Granted these would not have hurt the girl in Toronto on Boxing Day but the point is that not every tragedy can be prevented. It’s terribly unforunate but that is life. We have to also be careful that when we are trying to make the country a safer and better place that we are not reducing the quality of life and taking away freedoms from ourselves, our children and grandchildren.
Let me give you a quote from another Reformer recycled into a Conservative.
"Really, 99.99 per cent of the shootings in Canada are done with handguns that are already illegal.â€
Actually, Harris’ point is not there and way off.
Check out gun death statistics in Canada on any web site and you will find the large majority of shooting incidents do not involve criminals and illegal guns, but occur in domestic disputes, suicides and accidental discharges. As well, most of the guns gained illegally by criminals are purchased from owners who bought their guns legally - and thus, if they are registered, can be held accountable for selling it illegally, especially it is later involved in a crime.
All stats and research prove what is only common logic: the easier access people have to guns (i.e, no registry), the greater the chance of gun-related deaths.
**Gun Deaths between 1979 and 2002
Suicide 80%
Homicide 15%
Accidents 4%
Total 100%**
If someone wants to kill themself no law is going to stop them. Domestic dispute shootings would be criminal.
I’m sure that if you look it up you’ll find that the same is true about cars.
I can’t say where criminals get their weapons. The accountability issue is a good one. The only problem is the price. $1 billion +. The money could have been better spent. No doubt about it. The Gun Registry is not stopping gun related deaths.
[quote]
Actually, Harris’ point is not there and way off.[/quote]
The Montreal Massacre that started this whole gun control craze was done with a weapon that was already illegal under the old gun laws. His point is valid although his figures are exaggerated.
fingahz, I was with you here:
[quote]Gun Control to keep them out of the hands of criminals and children?? Yes!!
$ 1 billion+ to have the average citizen register his hunting rifles?? No!!
[/quote]
But you lost my support here:
Hunting rifles are not meant for protection. Hunting rifles are for hunting. Period!
I want to live in a society where I know my neighbour can go hunting with his rifle but doesn’t feel that he needs to have a handgun for “protection”. Guns that are meant for killing people should only be in the hands of the police and the military. Period!
OK, I’ll let target shooters and collectors have some but with huge restrictions like the gun registry. If they can afford those guns, they can pay for the rights to have them and jump through all the hoops necessary.
The right to bear arms in Canada means we can roll up our sleeves.
I was having this very same conversation with a family member. I told him how many hunting rifles and shotguns I have in my house.
Then he asked what I would do if somebody broke in to my house. I told him I’d dial 911. I’m not about to kill someone for some redneck principle. I’m certainly not going to kill somebody to protect my laptop or iPod. Besides, my guns are so locked up (and the ammo’s on a different floor), that the mounties would be at my place much quicker than I could find the keys.
There’s no way my firearms are meant to be pointed at people, even if they are breaking into my house. Firearms aren’t for protection, except from grizzlies. That’s the basic Canadian principle. And that’s what seperates us from the USA.
If you have a need for physical protection, dial 911 and let somebody who is trained to use force do it for you.
I’m saying all of this as a gun owner, a former member of the armed forces, and somebody who is pretty comfortable around firearms of all kinds. Guns are dangerous, evil things when they are used for “protection.” They are wonderful, useful tools when they are used for sport.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but Mike Scott thinks that we need guns for protection. And that’s why he’s not getting my vote. I think we already have the RCMP for protection, thanks.
Using the Montreal massacre gun as support for Harris’ point?? That’s laughable and below you, Fingahz. It’s just as silly as those people who called for tougher anti-marijuana laws when that nut in Alberta killed those cops.
And you grossly simplify suicide. Being involved with youth and having taken a week-long certified workshop on the subject of suicide, I can tell you that having a gun handy in the house greatly increases the chance of following through with it. Studies show that, particularly where youth are involved, someone without a firearm in the home is more likely either to use a less lethal method or to not attempt suicide. It’s like any other problem: if you have an alcoholic, you don’t have booze around the house; if someone’s a diabetic, don’t bring home donuts to eat in front of them.
The same thing for domestic disputes. If someone is in a rage with their spouse, that gun in the drawer becomes awfully hard to resist, don’t you think?
Now, you do have a good point about the registry, in that it cost way too much. The government botched it, no doubt, and let costs spiral out of control. I still think the spirit of the plan and the reasons behind it are right.
There is not a single government in the history of man that hasn’t committed a considerable list of screw-ups in their tenure. The question we are posed with is: are the Liberal screw-ups big enough that we should turn the controls over to the Conservatives? I say no, at least at this point, because I’m still not sure that Harper and Co. have changed enough (from Reform/Alliance policies), despite their new populist stances.
I totally agree.
I don’t agree with you here. I usually carry a 12 gauge Defender shotgun to protect myself and my kids from bears and or other wildlife when we are out in the woods. If some guy was to threaten my family I’d use it on him too. I never want to use it that way but if some criminal threatened my family in any way I would use whatever force is necessary to stop him. The purpose of me having it though is for protection from wildlife but I can use it to hunt if I’d like as well. It is registered as are all of my hunting rifles.
I understand your points though…
[quote]And you grossly simplify suicide. Being involved with youth and having taken a week-long certified workshop on the subject of suicide, I can tell you that having a gun handy in the house greatly increases the chance of following through with it. Studies show that, particularly where youth are involved, someone without a firearm in the home is more likely either to use a less lethal method or to not attempt suicide.
It’s like any other problem: if you have an alcoholic, you don’t have booze around the house; if someone’s a diabetic, don’t bring home donuts to eat in front of them.
The same thing for domestic disputes. If someone is in a rage with their spouse, that gun in the drawer becomes awfully hard to resist, don’t you think? [/quote]
Good points…well said
I cannot support a government that has made so many costly mistakes and have not been held accountable.
[quote=“fingahz”]
[quote]And for another reason not to vote for harper here it is:
cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/Ca … 29-cp.html [/quote]
It is not the governments job to take care of our children. For someone who is going to vote “conservative” you sure want alot of government involvment in our lives. If he feels his 15 year old daughter should be allowed to screw some 18 year old guy thats his judgement call not someone in ottawa.
Seriously something is wrong with you if you think the government should be responsible for raising our children. Obviously if the parent is pimping out their child or otherwise abusing it the cops need to step in. Allowing your teenage child to make its own decisions good or bad should not be illegal. As any good parent would do he said he would deal with the issue himself.
People really need to get over the “wont somebody please think of the children” mentality.
My guns and ammo are stored in a similar manner to yours. Yet if someone is an imminent threat to my family I am going to act now and ask questions later. I am someone who has stared down the wrong end of the barrel of a .357 magnum, have had two knives pulled on me and have been stabbed once. I will NOT stand around waiting for the RCMP while my wife or daughter is being violated. Will I call 911?? God damned rights I will. And they better bring the Ambulance with them because it ain’t gonna be pretty. This isn’t as much about guns as it is about protecting ones family. I’ll use a gun, knife, my teeth, whatever I need to protect my family from a predator of any kind.
Judging by the polls, you may get a chance to see it. Hey, don’t get me wrong. I’ve been through tough times too. I’m not saying that the Liberal tax cut that you mentioned was a bad thing. Lets just see what Harper is offering.
If thats the case why not remove the age of consent?? If predators on the internet have consensual sex with an 11 year old is that ok in you mind?? Your comment is absolutely ludicrous.
See previous comment.
Conservative Cabinet Revealed
By Rick Mercer
Many sports fans spend their days building fantasy football or baseball teams. Likewise there are a handful of nerds out there who create fantasy cabinets. I do this all the time. I often kill time at the airport compiling my dream cabinet in the back of a scribbler. This week for example my dream cabinet would contain John Crosbie, Geddy Lee and Justin Pogge. Luckily for the Nation I will never choose a cabinet so we will never know what kind of damage I could wreak on the country.
I have it on very good authority however that Stephen Harper is spending a lot of time playing the game these days. Word is the back room on the Harper bus resembles the woodshed from A Beautiful Mind; the walls are littered with the names of potential conservative cabinet ministers. Luckily my secret mole in the Tory Campaign (Tom Flannagan) has been taking photos of the notes with his hand held palm device and forwarding me the information on a daily basis. This is what the Tory Cabinet looks like so far.
Stockwell Day – Minister of Foreign Affairs
Stockwell Day is perhaps the most experienced and most talented member on the Conservative front bench.
Stockwell is currently Foreign Affairs critic for the Conservative Party and he has done a bang-up job. When he was questioned as to why his party did not offer condolences to the Palestinians when Yasser Arafat died Stock responded by sending out a column by David Frum that speculated that Yasser died of AIDS.
With Stock representing Canada on the world stage can Peace in the Middle East be far away?
Jason Kenney – Minister of Health
Jason Kenney is an embarrassment of riches for the conservative party. He is one of Stephen Harper’s most trusted lieutenants and is experienced, well-liked and hirsute.
He is perfectly suited to a mélange of cabinet positions, and while he has a grasp on all the issues health seems to be his forte.
“I do support the idea of private health care.â€
[quote]
It is not the governments job to take care of our children. For someone who is going to vote “conservative” you sure want alot of government involvment in our lives. If he feels his 15 year old daughter should be allowed to screw some 18 year old guy thats his judgement call not someone in ottawa.
Seriously something is wrong with you if you think the government should be responsible for raising our children. Obviously if the parent is pimping out their child or otherwise abusing it the cops need to step in. Allowing your teenage child to make its own decisions good or bad should not be illegal. As any good parent would do he said he would deal with the issue himself.
People really need to get over the “wont somebody please think of the children” mentality.[/quote]
It’s a serious crime to pay for underage sex, and rightly so. And people are just completely dreaming if they think some 14 yr olds gonna give consent to some old fart! Lottery odds on that. The ‘stat’ rape laws mostly penalized younger people by forcing them into marriages that didn’t work or jail.
There is consensual sex between teens and adults of all ages everyday. Its not right at all but it does happen. And it’s not about 14 yr olds being with 80 yr olds. Obviously that isnt goingto happen very often if at all. There are relationships between adults in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s that should know better with teenage girls and boys who have not matured to the point to be able to make a proper adult decision.
[quote=“fingahz”]
There is consensual sex between teens and adults of all ages everyday. Its not right at all but it does happen. And it’s not about 14 yr olds being with 80 yr olds. Obviously that isnt goingto happen very often if at all. There are relationships between adults in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s that should know better with teenage girls and boys who have not matured to the point to be able to make a proper adult decision.[/quote]
Again, that is up to the parents to decide if their children are able to make a mature adult decision not the government.
If parents choose to neglect their kids and something bad happens to the child then the parents should be held accountable for their actions.
Harper doesnt know these kids how would he know if they were mature enough to make the decision to have sex?
How about we stop stripping away parents rights to raise their children as they see fit. Just because you disagree with the parents decision doesnt mean it should be illegal.
You obviously are not a parent.
[quote=“fingahz”]
You obviously are not a parent.[/quote]
You’re right I am not but thats how I was raised. If I made mature adult decisions my parents let me be. When I made shitty decisions I was punished by having my decision making privileges removed for a while (grounded).
How is this the governments responsibility?
The law books or Criminal book does say the legal age of consent is (14) now the way it is and I speak as a person with experience dealing with this piece of writing. Someone’s daughter may not come home tonight, she is fourteen and she has met some 36 year old or 40 year old male vulture. She is in his hotel room plus she has consented to be there in his bed. You as a father find out where she is and you as a good dad will go try and get her, as you go through the door with force, you may be charged for going through that door. Yes the Government should raise the age because where do we figure out when Sexual abuse or Explotation kicks in.
I was raised much the same way. These laws are not to tell someone how to parent but are in place to prevent predators from having a free-for-all with young kids. There has to be a baseline where you can say that a child is now old enough to make their own decisions sexually and if someone engages with them before that age then they are up the creek.