[Marcarc]

I quite agree, though we could do without the gutter talk and asininity. Even that great canadian christian pseudo pacifist Bruce Cockburn came out strongly against the gun registry.<br /> <br /> If anything, history has taught us the huge mistake of making sure only one section of the populace is armed. Mr. Cockburn had quite a bit of experience in Central american countries where he learned the reality that exists when civilians are helpless and the state has all the weapons. There are, unfortunately, many who think 'that can never happen here', showing that they have little historical knowledge.<br /> <br /> There will always be ways to get illegal firearms, there is no question about that, just as there is no way of getting rid of drugs-if people WANT them, they will find a way. The 'crackdown' routine only works on people who really haven't the time to be invested.<br /> <br /> I don't agree about the inhumanity of criminals, that also disregards the society we live in. However, it is true that MY most pressing right is the right of self defense. Ironically, a woman can be justified in killing somebody who is attempting to rape her, yet will summarily be arrested for using a weapon to do so. So you can protect yourself-you just aren't allowed anything to protect yourself WITH. If I"M not mistaken, even tazers are illegal in this country.<br /> <br /> I don't think I'd suggest we dive in with the american model, the americans have a long history of responsibility with weapons which canadians don't. I'd instead use the model of Switzerland, where every single person of a certain age is TRAINED in use of weapons, and is taught to USE those weapons in time of war for defence of the country. They also POSSESS these weapons, they say there is a rifle in every house in Switzerland, but though they have huge immigration and three disticnct cultures we don't see them with a higher murder rate than canada. This was one of the things that saved the Swiss from Hitler who wanted to be known as "the butcher of the swiss". Fighting a standing army can be accomplished in weeks, as it was with France, but overcoming an entire country of people 'armed and dangerous' is something else entirely. In case of war, whether civil, government sponsored, or against a foreign power I don't want my only defense to be a kitchen knife.<br /> <br /> I also agree about the police, but am not sure having everyone armed is the best way to resolve that. If anything it guarantees that more people will be blown away after any sudden moves. People in fear, even policemen, can be pretty unstable. I think lawsuits are far more proactive there as well as a political situation where police are open to the scrutiny of the public and don't act in secrecy.<br /> <br /> I'd extend this to the armed forces as well, and am always disturbed by the 'elevated status' which soldiers recieve just as a matter of due course. Having served, and having grown up in a military town, I can tell you without reservation that a good chunk, and I"d hate to put a number on it, of military personnel hold civilians in utter derision. This is why soldiers are trained to fight for their units and to hold their comrades above all relations. The canadian public is a distant concern in that, particularly since Canada has never actually been attacked by anybody. Before the tirades begin I am not saying that military people are bad, I'm saying that the military is like all public systems and should be opened up to the public to be accountable and influenced by the public at large. More ROTC and enlisted reserves where the public are trained by those permanently in the military would increase familiarity and bring a measure of respect to both parties. Civilian and volunteer officers can do the same for police. Anytime you have concrete divisions between the state and its population you will see a recipe for disaster. <br /> <br /> It's fine for Martin and rich urbanites to inflict their liberal biases on the rest of us, after all, the heavily armed state exists to do THEIR bidding.

[Jesse]

[QUOTE BY= Rabblewatch] In a bullshit effort to gain Torontonian votes, Fuckface Martin[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Rabblewatch, just because nobody reads your little blog is no reason for you to post the same crap here. You've got all the free speech you could ever want on your blog; post a link, not the full text. I have edited your post down to a reasonable excerpt.

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= Rabblewatch] In a bullshit effort to gain Torontonian votes, Fuckface Martin[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Rabblewatch, just because nobody reads your little blog is no reason for you to post the same crap here. You've got all the free speech you could ever want on your blog; post a link, not the full text. I have edited your post down to a reasonable excerpt. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Do I go down to your workplace and slap the cock out of your mouth?<br /> <br /> keep editing away bitchboy. It's the only thing you do well.

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I also agree about the police, but am not sure having everyone armed is the best way to resolve that. If anything it guarantees that more people will be blown away after any sudden moves. People in fear, even policemen, can be pretty unstable. I think lawsuits are far more proactive there as well as a political situation where police are open to the scrutiny of the public and don't act in secrecy. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Criminals don't care about lawsuits. Cops also have unions to indemnify them from their actions. <br /> <br /> So basically you want Canada to assume a more 'American' solution when it comes to any problem? Sue the crap out of everyone? <br /> <br /> Law abiding folks with guns will remain law abiding. Criminals will always get their guns from the black market so that they are untraceable. <br /> <br /> But yeah, if it's Americanization of our Canadian legal system that you want, then vote for it.

[Marcarc]

It absolutely is, and perhaps if you'd watch the language then you'll be here far longer to espouse your point of view. I wasn't talking about suing criminals, but police when they are 'out of line'. Legislation can easily make the union powerless, as it is you can sue an individual, all the union can do is pay your legal costs. It's also a good bet that you won't be in their good graces anymore.<br /> <br /> As for legality, that is another propaganda tool used in Canada, as well as in the states. Lawsuits are supposed to be these horrible things with lawyers being singularly derided. However, where would american health care systems be without the billions they got from suing big tobacco, something that is out of reach of canadians. Most provinces don't even HAVE class action lawsuits. Yet how else do you deal with a federal government whose practises on its own citizens are at best often detrimental. <br /> <br /> What is wrong with being able to sue when your government covers your town with Agent Orange? What is wrong with suing when your employer fires you arbitrarily. It's not a coincidence that when canadians hear about lawsuits they hear about very specific ones-namely ones that seem absurd or incorrect. Yet many of these stories are simply 'urban legends' which are made up or completely taken out of context. What lawsuits do is put some power in the hands of people. Ironically, Canada goes the other way. It is exceedingly hard to sue here, yet here in Waterloo a woman is being sued because she took pictures of a developer who was breaking the law. <br /> <br /> It is the mark of very efficient propaganda that those who would most benefit from lawsuits (namely the population) are the ones more stridently against it. Just like democratic tools it always comes down to 'americanization' which is considered a bad word, even in a thread which basically espouses american forms of civil defense.

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Legislation can easily make the union powerless, as it is you can sue an individual, all the union can do is pay your legal costs. It's also a good bet that you won't be in their good graces anymore.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I got it, so you're basically anti-Union. I'm sure that's what most 'progressive' Pro-NDP'ers like to hear.<br /> <br /> Also, America is seriously pushing privatization of police forces and thereby union busting.<br /> <br /> Hm. Seems like you are for 'deep integration' with the Americanization of our Canadian police force. Police unions have bottomless pockets, political clout and the solidarity of all other unions (OPSEU, CAW, etc). <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As for legality, that is another propaganda tool used in Canada, as well as in the states. Lawsuits are supposed to be these horrible things with lawyers being singularly derided. However, where would american health care systems be without the billions they got from suing big tobacco, something that is out of reach of canadians.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Hey, if you're for pushing the American style legal system onto us, then I'm all for it. I do agree that class-action lawsuits and basically MORE lawsuits should be done in Canada.<br /> <br /> The first thing we need are MORE lawsuits against our corrupt/FAILED "healthcare system". The more lawsuits we have against public healthcare, the quicker we can cripple/hinder the public system in terms of endless legal costs.<br /> <br /> Eventually the public healthcare system would collapse under mounting lawsuits and they'd have to eventually capitulate towards what all of these lawsuits would demand for PRIVATE HEALTHCARE.<br /> <br /> So yeah, if you are for more American-style lawsuits in Canada, I'm ALL FOR that type of DEEP INTEGRATION.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Most provinces don't even HAVE class action lawsuits. Yet how else do you deal with a federal government whose practises on its own citizens are at best often detrimental. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Hey, I fully AGREE with you on this. I once argued with 'Jesse' about this, and his whole argument was that it was always better to 'sacrifice' the few to 'save the whole'. He literally had no problem with knowingly allow someone he knew to die thanks to innefective/obsolete Canadian healthcare, rather than send them to the USA to get state of the art/lifesaving treatment.<br /> <br /> 'Jesse' basically was cool with the fact that our current system is killing a lot of people out of complete and utter irresponsibility/bureaucracy and flat out lack of innovation in terms of modernizing healthcare. <br /> <br /> That's the type of Canada that 'Jesse' and other 'progressives' want, a Soviet era gulag-type healthcare in which amputation of damaged limbs are better than simply offering effective anti-infection treatment.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] What is wrong with being able to sue when your government covers your town with Agent Orange? What is wrong with suing when your employer fires you arbitrarily. It's not a coincidence that when canadians hear about lawsuits they hear about very specific ones-namely ones that seem absurd or incorrect. Yet many of these stories are simply 'urban legends' which are made up or completely taken out of context. What lawsuits do is put some power in the hands of people. Ironically, Canada goes the other way. It is exceedingly hard to sue here, yet here in Waterloo a woman is being sued because she took pictures of a developer who was breaking the law. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Hey, I'm agreeing here. Anything to cripple/deplete government's control over the individual and I'm all for it. <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Just like democratic tools it always comes down to 'americanization' which is considered a bad word, even in a thread which basically espouses american forms of civil defense.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This whole website is based upon anti-Americanism. You push any of these 'pro-Canadians' and keep asking questions beyond their canned talking points, and they all say the same thing:<br /> <br /> - Big Government<br /> <br /> - Little to no freedom for the individual<br /> <br /> - Communism. Communism. Communism.<br /> <br /> - Do what Big brother tells you to do. Question it, expect a knock on your door at 3am.