pipsqueak1984 @ northmaple1984 @lemmy.ca

Posts

79

Comments

241

Joined

1 yr. ago

At the end of the day it's not "the industry" driving trucks, is individual people.

1. There are tons of immigrant truckers here who shouldn't be on the road, so yes it wasn't intentional but it still might make people think about the situation (and potential liability) they are putting themselves in.
2. Who gives a fuck if it benefits the country or not, there's literally no reason for us to keep a convicted criminal (of any crime) if we don't have to. The real question should be "Why should a criminal non-citizen be allowed the privilege of staying?"

In theory wealth inequality can be getting worse as GDP per capita gets better, for sure.

But conversely, if wealth inequality is getting better while the GDP per capita is going down, most people will still be worse off which definitely isn't good.

Try millennia-old war, the last 50-60 years is only the most recent flare-up

Lol, "most documented genocide" where the civilian:combatant death ratio is on the low end compared to other wars and the population supposedly being genocided for the last 50-60 years has more than doubled.

Per capita GDP is far better than what the government is using, which is total GDP that is technically slowly rising but not faster than our population growth rate.

CPI doesn't give near a good picture as per capita GDP does. CPI increases can be at or below target levels but if per capita GDP growth is negative it's still very bad. Having good per capita GDP data and bad CPI data and way, way less common, I'm even actually sure it's ever happened in modern times.

That seems like an odd take. Literally any tax or incentivization would be "punishing" those who can't/don't use it.

Exactly. Treat people equally

Still not a big fan of this system as it effectively punishes stay-at-home parents.

If the federal government wants to fund childcare just increase the CCB from ages 0 - 4 and let parents decide what childcare works best for them.

So we're expexted to provide fully for any Tom, Dick or Harry that shows up?

My wife and I are providing for my MIL (aka she is living with us and not working) and she has barely cracked 60.

She does provide some childcare for us, but man is she lazy as shit while doing so... Just throws on TV and screws around on her phone. Somehow my wife can't even work full time despite the fact that her mother is home almost all the time, that's how bad it is.

None of the grocery stores or drug stores in my town are associated with Loblaws and the one grocery store on my way home from work is Costco, so I already don't shop at Loblaws 99%+ of the time.

However if I'm out and about I'm not going out of my way to avoid it.

Considering that we have protesters literally calling for genocide ("from the river to the sea") which way above and beyond what happened with the truckers... Yes, the government is playing favourites.

A lot of tough talk considering that the Liberals and their NDP enablers have also been hard at work accruing power and avoiding accountability:

• "Independent" senators (go look at the ISG's voting record)
• Massive backlog in appointing judges (legal system is a major part of government accountability)
• Dumping MPs who step out of line for the public good (JWR)
• Bills such as C-10 and C-36 (killed by the 2021 election), C-11 and C-63 that lay the groundwork for heavyhanded media control
• Violating / attempting to violate provincial autonomy (yes many of the provinces are doing a shit job but that's not a good excuse)
• The May 1 2020 OIC and C-21 (pretty common theme among countries that turn into dictatorships)
• Massively contributing to conditions conducive to crime in order to justify authoritarian legislation
• Being far more lenient on those with similar ideologies (ex. it's understandable that churches are burned down, all the pro-Hamas protests) and more heavy handed on ideologies they oppose (ex. truckers)

It seems like a poor policy to just trust that other people are dropping the guns off in a safe condition.

Guns shipped from retailer/manufacturers have a smaller risk of being improperly stored or loaded when shipped.

These concerns don't track with literal decades of experiences with individuals shipping firearms to each other and for factory warranty.

There is still a risk of a Canada Post employee realizing these boxes contain restricted firearms and arranging them to be stolen/stealing them themselves.

This is a much, much bigger concern. Canada Posts chain of custody is not the greatest on good days with mundane mail.

The article makes it sound like the guns will be dropped off by owners already packaged, it would be no different than guns that are already shipped through Canada Post. I think the danger is that post offices and vans will become gun loot piñatas for anyone that wants to give it a shot during the time frame that the confiscation takes place (unless the government spreads it put over many months, ex. people with PAL # ending in 1 go for three months, then people with PAL # ending in 2 go for three months, etc)

I don't think the issue is whether the guns are safe to ship or not, Canada Post figured out how to safely ship guns from both retailers and individuals years ago.

And the way I read this, it doesn't sound like the issue of conflict is from licensed owners either because it sounds like we'll be expected to simply drop off boxes with guns in them so those that don't want to participate simply won't show up to the post office (aka avoid the conflict all together).

If I'm wrong and the government actually expects Canada Post carriers to go door to door bringing people boxes and say "pack up your guns right now and bring the box back out to me" that's an entirely different story and way, way outside of Canada Post's regular duties. They definitely aren't equipped or trained for that sort of thing; that's the type of thing you'd expect police to do.

I think the fear of conflict is because everyone and their grandma will know when there are tons guns flooding into post offices all at once and both post offices and carrier trucks will become prime targets for criminals. The locations and vehicles aren't designed to resist that type of intrusion and the staff aren't trained or equip to deal with it (I'm sure there are a few locations/vehicle that are but not only is it a very large, spread out volume to begin with, it's not hard to find info from industry groups claiming that the Liberal estimate for the number of affected guns is quite low).

Based on past experience with various Canadian gun control schemes and schemes abroad on other Commonwealth countries, you can't say with certainty that most people, nevermind a commanding majority, will comply.

I don't know, they seen pretty effective at getting supremely dumb shit passed with the help of the other parties except for the governing party who simply wants their own version of the supremely dumb shit (S-210 and C-63)

It's pretty damn informative, that's why I encourage people who are interested in Arch to do it once.

I agree that if you are doing it several times it's a waste to do manually all the time.

Because it is literally the job of the Canadian Government to do what is best for Canadians.

"Canadian Government" refers to the executive (ministers and Cabinet) and the federal civil service. By definition, no party other than the Liberals is the government until the Liberals decide to add non-Liberal MPs as ministers or cabinet members. This is further supported by titles used, such as "His Majesty's Government" and "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" in the House of Commons or "the representative of the Government" in the Senate (who is responsible for introducing and representing Government bills in the Senate after the pass the HoC).

This is how the Parliamentary system we inherited from the British works. Perhaps you are confusing our system for a republic (like the US) where all elected members collectively form the government.

Anyone paying attention will know that the NDP is working to help Canadians

That's not evident given the current decline of the country during the time period over which the Liberals have required NDP support.