View Poll Results: Who are you voting for?
Liberals
11
25.58%
Conservatives
25
58.14%
NDP
3
6.98%
Green
1
2.33%
bloc quebecois (for Armen)
3
6.98%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll
Who are you going to vote for?
12-09-2005, 04:51 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 3,843
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
thats retarded .. why dont you leave ur gun at the range then ? speeding and owning a deadly weapon have nothing to do with each other... guns used in crimes are unregistered, but who says registered guns cant be used in crimes ? and even if the guy who used it ends up getting caught later .. that won't really help the fact that he could've possibly killed someone ..
I've seen how easy it is to buy ammo and guns .. hell we went together that other day ... any 19 year old can own a guy, get hammered and start shootin up the place .. yes there are plenty of stupid people out there .. I would feel MUCH Safer if people couldnt get their hands on guns as easily ... its like buying milk at safeway for f*cks sake ..
if you only wanted your gun for fun, you would've left it at the range, or just rented a gun .. or whatever the hell else .. not saying you will use your gun where its not supposed to be used .. but im sure some other 19 year old will someday. im all for the gun ban .. f*ck guns .. i dont see any point for owning one. not for your purposes anyway ..
on many occasions Ive asked you why you need a gun .. you didnt just say for shootin at the range .. you also mentioned protection ..
I've seen how easy it is to buy ammo and guns .. hell we went together that other day ... any 19 year old can own a guy, get hammered and start shootin up the place .. yes there are plenty of stupid people out there .. I would feel MUCH Safer if people couldnt get their hands on guns as easily ... its like buying milk at safeway for f*cks sake ..
if you only wanted your gun for fun, you would've left it at the range, or just rented a gun .. or whatever the hell else .. not saying you will use your gun where its not supposed to be used .. but im sure some other 19 year old will someday. im all for the gun ban .. f*ck guns .. i dont see any point for owning one. not for your purposes anyway ..
on many occasions Ive asked you why you need a gun .. you didnt just say for shootin at the range .. you also mentioned protection ..
12-09-2005, 07:32 PM
#17
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 1,241
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
if you only wanted your gun for fun, you would've left it at the range
just rented a gun
on many occasions Ive asked you why you need a gun .. you didnt just say for shootin at the range .. you also mentioned protection ..
Only 7 million out of an estimated 40+ million guns in Canada are registered. How does me having a legitamately obtained one make you uneasy?
12-09-2005, 07:51 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 3,843
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
criminals know where all the gun shops are .. they could easily break in there and steal their guns .. im sure the gun ranges can build the same if not better security for their gun lockers
what makes me uneasy is how easy it is to obtain a gun .. i couldnt care less about yours, but i could care about some other jackass 19 year old who isnt responsible for a deadly weapon but can get it anyday he feels like going to the store.
you have no valid points.. and have absolutely no need to keep a gun in your house. the fact that you said you would kill someone if you had to should be enough to have your gun and license taken away.
what makes me uneasy is how easy it is to obtain a gun .. i couldnt care less about yours, but i could care about some other jackass 19 year old who isnt responsible for a deadly weapon but can get it anyday he feels like going to the store.
you have no valid points.. and have absolutely no need to keep a gun in your house. the fact that you said you would kill someone if you had to should be enough to have your gun and license taken away.
12-09-2005, 08:21 PM
#19
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 1,241
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
[QUOTES]criminals know where all the gun shops are .. they could easily break in there and steal their guns .. im sure the gun ranges can build the same if not better security for their gun lockers[/QUOTE] gun shops have highly secured systems of survelence and security you have to bypass. Gun ranges because of the noise, are isolated and cops would not be able to respond in time.
It's not as easy as going into the store, there's bigger processes involved. Canada is a gun-happy Country...just not in the cities where the only exposure people get are the odd joe who uses one improperly. There's absolutely no way a law is going to revoke the guns off the street. No way.
It's within reasonable Canadian law that the use of deadly force is justified for death or seriously bodily harm. You're only basing upon what you hear in the media? 40 million guns, and very few murders per year?
what makes me uneasy is how easy it is to obtain a gun .. i couldnt care less about yours, but i could care about some other jackass 19 year old who isnt responsible for a deadly weapon but can get it anyday he feels like going to the store.
you have no valid points.. and have absolutely no need to keep a gun in your house. the fact that you said you would kill someone if you had to should be enough to have your gun and license taken away.
12-09-2005, 08:24 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lower Mainland BC
Posts: 222
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
Outlawing or even severely regulating guns is just stupid. I mean look at the Liberals gun control program spend 2 BILLION and have nothing to show for it.
Never mind that none of the provinces wanted this money pit program. They all voted against it, but it was rammed down their throats by the Federal Liberals. Also no one wants to even enforce the dumb thing. The provinces say they won’t, but the Feds say they have too. Nobody does anything about it, it’s a complete joke. There are less than 20 firearms enforcement offices in ALL OF CANADA!!! How the hell are they supposed get anything done when there is only 20 of them. It would be like one person trying to put out a forest fire by pissing on it.
Regardless if the gun is registered or unregistered and a crime is committed with it, it should be the person who committed the crime that should be punished. Not legitimate guns owners, but that’s what they seem to do. Just slap the criminal on the wrist, tell them guns are bad and send them on their way. Then bring in legislation that basically says only criminals can have guns. Absolute lunacy!! What is needed is a punishment that fits the crime. Now I’m not advocating the Death penalty or saying we should even consider it. I’m saying you can’t just let the person walk away with no consequence.
I mean give me a break firearm related deaths account for less than 3% of the total death rate in Canada. I’d be more worried about the other 97% than the 3%. You have a higher likelihood of getting hit by a car when waking down the street. And you know all those numbers they spout when they say that traveling by plane is the safest way to travel, well you have a higher percentage of dieing in a plane crash then of being shot by a gun.
EDIT: After doing a little research, firearms related deaths account for actually less than 1% of the total death rate in Canada.
Never mind that none of the provinces wanted this money pit program. They all voted against it, but it was rammed down their throats by the Federal Liberals. Also no one wants to even enforce the dumb thing. The provinces say they won’t, but the Feds say they have too. Nobody does anything about it, it’s a complete joke. There are less than 20 firearms enforcement offices in ALL OF CANADA!!! How the hell are they supposed get anything done when there is only 20 of them. It would be like one person trying to put out a forest fire by pissing on it.
Regardless if the gun is registered or unregistered and a crime is committed with it, it should be the person who committed the crime that should be punished. Not legitimate guns owners, but that’s what they seem to do. Just slap the criminal on the wrist, tell them guns are bad and send them on their way. Then bring in legislation that basically says only criminals can have guns. Absolute lunacy!! What is needed is a punishment that fits the crime. Now I’m not advocating the Death penalty or saying we should even consider it. I’m saying you can’t just let the person walk away with no consequence.
I mean give me a break firearm related deaths account for less than 3% of the total death rate in Canada. I’d be more worried about the other 97% than the 3%. You have a higher likelihood of getting hit by a car when waking down the street. And you know all those numbers they spout when they say that traveling by plane is the safest way to travel, well you have a higher percentage of dieing in a plane crash then of being shot by a gun.
EDIT: After doing a little research, firearms related deaths account for actually less than 1% of the total death rate in Canada.
Last edited by KrazyKamaro; 12-13-2005 at 12:24 AM.
LOL!! Why are there 2 votes for the Bloc????
12-13-2005, 12:53 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lower Mainland BC
Posts: 222
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
What I find so interesting is how the liberals are making this a hot political topic and trying to turn attention away from their whole sponsorship scandal.
When the program in question is about 1.8- 2 BILLION dollars over budget and was only supposed to have a maximum cost to the taxpayer of about 20 million. The rest of the money coming from the fees of registering guns.
And never mind that over a quarter of that cost is from the government switching back a forth between different computer systems, to just try and maintain a database. A database that kept on crashing, let some wack job register his Black & Decker heat gun and a glue gun. I wonder if the tech company supplying the computer systems was Liberal friendly!!?? Because it seems that they were totally incompetent of even setting up a computer, let alone a database to register firearms.
HMMMM this sounds familiar incompetent people trying to do a job, lots of money that seems to have just disappeared, and no apparent benefit from it.
I mean here we are worried about a measly 150 million dollars in the sponsorship scandal and this program has already lost 1.8 to 2 BILLION dollars. If you ask me it’s a bigger scandal.
I guess it’s just like the saying “One death is a tragedy, A million is a statistic” because it seems no one is even worried about it or even cares. :blah: Just imagine if the government had spent that 2 BILLION on more police, health care and other social programs. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the situation that we are in right now.
When the program in question is about 1.8- 2 BILLION dollars over budget and was only supposed to have a maximum cost to the taxpayer of about 20 million. The rest of the money coming from the fees of registering guns.
And never mind that over a quarter of that cost is from the government switching back a forth between different computer systems, to just try and maintain a database. A database that kept on crashing, let some wack job register his Black & Decker heat gun and a glue gun. I wonder if the tech company supplying the computer systems was Liberal friendly!!?? Because it seems that they were totally incompetent of even setting up a computer, let alone a database to register firearms.
HMMMM this sounds familiar incompetent people trying to do a job, lots of money that seems to have just disappeared, and no apparent benefit from it.I mean here we are worried about a measly 150 million dollars in the sponsorship scandal and this program has already lost 1.8 to 2 BILLION dollars. If you ask me it’s a bigger scandal.
I guess it’s just like the saying “One death is a tragedy, A million is a statistic” because it seems no one is even worried about it or even cares. :blah: Just imagine if the government had spent that 2 BILLION on more police, health care and other social programs. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the situation that we are in right now.
12-13-2005, 01:25 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Richmond B.C.
Posts: 2,002
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
well put
one thing for me is, i want to get into guns, i have always been facinated with them, i respect their power and also find them design masterpieces. for them to deny me a hobby that i like is rediculous. why dont they ban marbles cuz im sure theres a similar death rate to kids choking on them then people dieing from REGISTERED fire arms owners. the screening process is pretty tight as it is right now. if a criminal is gonna get a gun, he will. they dont buy guns from stores and register them
one thing for me is, i want to get into guns, i have always been facinated with them, i respect their power and also find them design masterpieces. for them to deny me a hobby that i like is rediculous. why dont they ban marbles cuz im sure theres a similar death rate to kids choking on them then people dieing from REGISTERED fire arms owners. the screening process is pretty tight as it is right now. if a criminal is gonna get a gun, he will. they dont buy guns from stores and register them
12-13-2005, 01:34 PM
#25
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,488
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
I really couldn't care less about guns.
Here's what I care about: The President needs to be a figurehead for the country. It is his duty to represent us. Most of the rest of the duties are proxied through assistants and experts. The only duty he does entirely on his own is stand at the podium (any podium) and speak to the nation and/or the world. The world's opinion of the United States hinges directly on the impression he leaves on his audience.
Our current president leaves a really crappy impression on the worldwide audience. Whether or not he's actually intelligent, he doesn't appear that way. He appears to be a rock-em-sock-em cowboy that's hell-bent on avenging his father and pushing his Christian beliefs on the world while denying that he's doing any of that.
It doesn't matter at all whether he's actually that guy. He seems like that guy, and that's all that matters.
The President needs to seem like someone who actually cares. He needs to seem smart. He needs to speak eloquently.
He does need to actually be smart, but I can't tell that without meeting him in person, and that's not going to happen for any candidates in the forseeable future.
Long story short: I want Clinton back. I'll settle for his wife.
Political thread... why hasn't this been closed?
Here's what I care about: The President needs to be a figurehead for the country. It is his duty to represent us. Most of the rest of the duties are proxied through assistants and experts. The only duty he does entirely on his own is stand at the podium (any podium) and speak to the nation and/or the world. The world's opinion of the United States hinges directly on the impression he leaves on his audience.
Our current president leaves a really crappy impression on the worldwide audience. Whether or not he's actually intelligent, he doesn't appear that way. He appears to be a rock-em-sock-em cowboy that's hell-bent on avenging his father and pushing his Christian beliefs on the world while denying that he's doing any of that.
It doesn't matter at all whether he's actually that guy. He seems like that guy, and that's all that matters.
The President needs to seem like someone who actually cares. He needs to seem smart. He needs to speak eloquently.
He does need to actually be smart, but I can't tell that without meeting him in person, and that's not going to happen for any candidates in the forseeable future.
Long story short: I want Clinton back. I'll settle for his wife.
Political thread... why hasn't this been closed?
12-13-2005, 04:35 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 3,843
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
I really couldn't care less about guns.
Here's what I care about: The President needs to be a figurehead for the country. It is his duty to represent us. Most of the rest of the duties are proxied through assistants and experts. The only duty he does entirely on his own is stand at the podium (any podium) and speak to the nation and/or the world. The world's opinion of the United States hinges directly on the impression he leaves on his audience.
Our current president leaves a really crappy impression on the worldwide audience. Whether or not he's actually intelligent, he doesn't appear that way. He appears to be a rock-em-sock-em cowboy that's hell-bent on avenging his father and pushing his Christian beliefs on the world while denying that he's doing any of that.
It doesn't matter at all whether he's actually that guy. He seems like that guy, and that's all that matters.
The President needs to seem like someone who actually cares. He needs to seem smart. He needs to speak eloquently.
He does need to actually be smart, but I can't tell that without meeting him in person, and that's not going to happen for any candidates in the forseeable future.
Long story short: I want Clinton back. I'll settle for his wife.
Political thread... why hasn't this been closed?
Here's what I care about: The President needs to be a figurehead for the country. It is his duty to represent us. Most of the rest of the duties are proxied through assistants and experts. The only duty he does entirely on his own is stand at the podium (any podium) and speak to the nation and/or the world. The world's opinion of the United States hinges directly on the impression he leaves on his audience.
Our current president leaves a really crappy impression on the worldwide audience. Whether or not he's actually intelligent, he doesn't appear that way. He appears to be a rock-em-sock-em cowboy that's hell-bent on avenging his father and pushing his Christian beliefs on the world while denying that he's doing any of that.
It doesn't matter at all whether he's actually that guy. He seems like that guy, and that's all that matters.
The President needs to seem like someone who actually cares. He needs to seem smart. He needs to speak eloquently.
He does need to actually be smart, but I can't tell that without meeting him in person, and that's not going to happen for any candidates in the forseeable future.
Long story short: I want Clinton back. I'll settle for his wife.
Political thread... why hasn't this been closed?
umm .. we dont have presidents in Canada .. and hate to break it down to you .. but your president doesnt count in our country .. so thanks for sharing your opinions
on another note .. I agree with the points you made .. your president is a ********
and I feel sorry for you on that !
12-14-2005, 07:50 AM
#27
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,488
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
Heh... sorry, I didn't notice that you guys were talking about Canada. I didn't realize gun control was a major issue up there!
Yeah, my president is an assface. I didn't vote for him...
Yeah, my president is an assface. I didn't vote for him...
12-14-2005, 04:44 PM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 1,241
Re: Who are you going to vote for?
Here's a political joke from another forum I am on. Enjoy. 
CLASSIC VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks
he's a fool,
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant
is
warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so
he
dies out in the cold.
THE END
THE CANADIAN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks
he's a fool,
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant
is
warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh?
The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know
why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others
less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving.
The CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering
grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm
home with a table laden
with food.
Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.
The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in
front of the ant's house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural
festival special
from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall
Overcome."
Sven Robinson rants in an interview with Pamela Wallin that the ant
has
gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate
tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".
In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the Economic
Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the
beginning of the
summer.
The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to
hire grasshoppers as helpers.
Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed
retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
The ant moves to the US, and starts a successful agribiz company.
The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of
the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the
government house
he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around
him
because he hasn't bothered to maintain it.
Inadequate government funding is blamed, Roy Romanow is appointed to
head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000.
The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star
blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root
causes of despair
arising from social inequity.
The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders,
praised by the government for enriching Canada's multicultural
diversity, who promptly
set up a marijuana grow op and terrorize the community.
THE END
CLASSIC VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks
he's a fool,
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant
is
warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so
he
dies out in the cold.
THE END
THE CANADIAN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks
he's a fool,
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant
is
warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh?
The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know
why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others
less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving.
The CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering
grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm
home with a table laden
with food.
Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.
The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in
front of the ant's house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural
festival special
from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall
Overcome."
Sven Robinson rants in an interview with Pamela Wallin that the ant
has
gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate
tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".
In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the Economic
Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the
beginning of the
summer.
The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to
hire grasshoppers as helpers.
Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed
retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
The ant moves to the US, and starts a successful agribiz company.
The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of
the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the
government house
he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around
him
because he hasn't bothered to maintain it.
Inadequate government funding is blamed, Roy Romanow is appointed to
head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000.
The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star
blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root
causes of despair
arising from social inequity.
The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders,
praised by the government for enriching Canada's multicultural
diversity, who promptly
set up a marijuana grow op and terrorize the community.
THE END