voluble @ voluble @lemmy.ca

Posts

5

Comments

143

Joined

1 yr. ago

Da comrade.

Have you filled your post quota for the day yet?

Fun fact, the H&K G11 is prohibited by name in Canada. Only 1000 prototypes were ever produced, exclusively for military trials in Germany, and the project was mothballed in the early 90s after the Warsaw Pact dissolved.

The more I learned about gun laws in Canada, the more I realized that the restrictions brought in by the Liberals have been legal theatre, rather than safety-driven legislation.

I agree with you fully on that point.

In my mind, the penalties for being caught with an illegal firearm should be far more severe. It should be a long, mandatory prison sentence. This seems like an obvious first step. I don't see how further restricting legal owners will solve the sorts of problems that we want solved when we think about gun crime.

If you have good reason to believe these people will harm someone with their guns, please report it to the RCMP, instead of wishing that their guns were a different colour.

Follow this link and use the contact information to file a report. Please do this immediately if you think someone is in danger of being harmed. https://rcmp.ca/en/firearms/contact-canadian-firearms-program

I take it they haven't harmed anyone? Are you concerned that they will?

Outside of a perfect world scenario, on a practical level, there is an argument that the issue of gun violence in Canada is best addressed by tackling illegal firearm smuggling, and making penalties for violent offenders more effective. Any sympathy to that angle?

It’s sort of amazing to think that this government could fail to do so for a second time after the way it went down last time.

I don't believe the Liberal government truly wants to make transformative change on this file, they're simply acting to balance optics and pressure from interest groups. With that in mind, it's not surprising that this current effort seems disorganized and destined to fail.

The notion that there are Canadians who own a gun simply because they think it's cool, is ignorant to the facts of what it takes to actually get a license to acquire and possess a firearm in this country.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the firearm regulations should look like in Canada?

I think I see your point, but, as a person with an RPAL, what does 'meaningful improvement' look like to you?

Even prior to the May 2020 OIC that reclassified AR pattern & other firearms to prohibited status, Canada had a pre-existing, highly restrictive system of firearm regulation. This system remains in force.

Citizens who want to purchase a firearm need to undergo mandatory education, and a rigorous, lengthy, and costly application process that obligates the applicant to list comprehensive personal details, including previous romantic partners, and multiple character references. Every applicant undergoes an RCMP background check, and restricted firearm licensees undergo daily checks. No license for firearm ownership is given in Canada without direct RCMP oversight. The RCMP can deny a license to anyone they see fit. Citizens can report problem firearm owners, and those owners can expect a rapid visit from the RCMP.

Restricted firearms are only allowed at an approved range, or trigger locked, in a locked case, and away from ammunition. Any other condition of storage and use is a crime.

You should know that, in Canada, it is absolutely impossible to buy or own a firearm on a whim.

For the record, I think this is overall a good thing, and was a system brought about as a result of Polytechnique in 1989.

Yes, this is what I'm saying. The federal government can do things to address these issues. I'm not a policymaker, I'm just some jackass sitting at a computer. A government with vision could make strides.

And to my initial point, a government that could build political bridges with the provinces would be even more effective.

Housing is not the responsibility of the federal government. Any support they offer would need to be handled by Provincial leadership and municipalities.

Better tax breaks and incentives for first time buyers, higher restrictions on foreign and corporate ownership of single family homes. Etc. There are plenty of things a motivated federal government could do. This government isn't motivated to address the housing issue.

As for “affordability”… that’s a very broad term. Are you referring to anything in particular?

Something over and above the toothless grocery code of conduct, which hasn't even been agreed upon? Lower tax rates on earnings for people near and below a living wage, which itself is indexed to inflation.

And you should also keep in mind that we have a minority Federal Government

Not while the Liberals held a majority from 2015-2019, and not during the supply and confidence agreement from 2021-2024. It's incorrect to argue that the Liberals have been hamstrung by a minority Parliament. They could have accomplished anything they wanted to.

We should demand more from our federal government. The Liberals have been bad, and I don't understand the view that they've done well under the circumstances. They haven't. I read your comment as apologism for the Liberals, and I genuinely don't understand that position.

I think it's cruel to wish ill fate on a fellow Canadian. Please consider that no province in this country, from east to west, is a monoculture, politically speaking. I say this as an Albertan.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm talking about things like housing and affordability, which affect people across the country. These things could be handled more proactively on the federal level, and with coordination between GoC and the provinces. A $250 cheque and a gst holiday in advance of an election is bread and circuses. There are real issues that the nation is far behind on. The current government has done a bad job with these. They've lacked the ability or will to even identify housing and affordability as matters for intervention.

Sorry, I just can't agree with anyone who thinks the current federal government has done all they could do to address these issues. The whole notion of "that's not the job of the federal government", it's mealymouthed, and I don't think it's an acceptable position.

The news also prompted a flurry of late-evening phone calls: between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trump, and between Trudeau and several provincial premiers, in an effort to defuse the danger to Canada's economy.

"It was a good discussion and they will stay in touch," a Canadian official said of the Trudeau-Trump call. The prime minister also spoke with the premiers of Ontario and Quebec.

I wish the other problems facing citizens of Canada were treated with this same kind of urgency from the federal government.

ITER seems interesting to me. What gets you excited about ITER? Seems to me that their operational timeline is so far in the future, and the outcomes are unknown. As an engineering artifact, I understand its boner factor. From a broader human achievement standpoint, I can't really see what all the buzz is about. I want to learn and try to understand.

Could be. Even then, it's still so odd. He's in this political win-win situation, where he has an advantage if Trudeau stays on, and he has an advantage if the Liberals make a last-minute change and roll into the election (that we all know is lingering) with an untested newbie.

Although, the CPC and Poilievre didn't earn this excellent spot on the chessboard by any strategic triumph, so maybe it's not so surprising that he appears to have no idea how to work the pieces.

Giving the highest possible benefit of the doubt - what could Poilievre's angle possibly be by saying this? What does he think it gains him?

Wouldn't a better political move be to say something like "run whoever you want. x, y, and z policies are what matter and that's what our party is going to fight for"? I mean, even if it's a lie, wouldn't that be a much more politically savvy thing to say? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 other angles to take that seem a lot better than "the Liberals have a moral responsibility to keep their current leader". That's like, high school debate level shit.

Poilievre has been on Parliament Hill for 20 years. I'm just continually baffled by what appear to me to be obvious blunders in a game he should know very well. Is there something I'm missing?

edit: Is it possible that this is an ego thing for Poilievre? Is there some thread here that, he wanted to be the one to take down Trudeau, and if internal Liberal party operations accomplish that instead, that takes away some kind of marquee victory that Poilievre wanted for himself?

Not sure where you are, but where I live, college and community radio stations are still old school, and very worth listening to. Most if not all now stream online too, so, they're around if you're looking for that hit of the olden times.