[Nickel]

Put up by the Liberals, apparently.

BushHarper.com

[Delphis]

Okay, that is pretty darn funny...or sad, depending on your bend.

Did you watch the debates in CA or US last night Nickel...

I particularly like the intro audio clip in the upper left corner, funny that it is located in the upper left and not the far right (LOL)

Cheers!

[Nickel]

Did you watch the debates in CA or US last night Nickel...

Didn't catch either, to be honest. I don't have the stamina nor the interest for that kind of thing that I used to have. I'd rather read about what their policies are and decide how to vote than get all worked about about whose egg wound up on whose face.

[Delphis]

Roger that,

I listened to our debate on NPR, purely for entertainment factor. It lived up to the hype. Which is more than I can say for the bailout...the market is not reacting well as the credit issues were not addressed.

Very funny website though, it's good to get a laugh in once in a while in the current climate...

I'll be in Canada all weekend actually. Look forward to it, I was there last week as well. I haven't planned it that way, but if TSHTF and I am in your country I won't complain...I sure wish you had better beer and wine though.

Cheers!

[ki11ercane]

Here is the plain and simple of it all:

If you want:

GST put back to up 7%

Harper Child Tax Credit reduced to $0.00

Every firearm (and I mean EVERY) firearm taken from the 5 million + gun owners.

VOTE LIBERAL!

Being a prepper, having to dole out more of my money for my government to waste it, have the government give me less back, and take my firearms, which are all important components to my continued PO prepping, not a chance. If sending troops to Iraq was Harper's biggest "possible" (he didn't end up doing it) mistake as our PM, that is simply Liberal reaching.

They aren't going to win anyway. No one wants another Chretian in power.

[RdSnt]

Ah yes, another weekend jarhead wannabe crawls out of his cave to spout the party lines.

Show me specifically where any of the party's have said GST goes back to 7%.

Show me where anyone has said the CTC goes to zero. Oh yes and please show me how it has improved anything. Harper says out of one side of his mouth the credit is wonderful and good for children and makes more daycare spaces available. Then it's how much more dangerous our children have become and 14 year old, savage, hardened repeat, monsters must be adults.
What do you spend your credits on, beer or bullets?

And it's handguns they are talking about, not ALL guns.

Bush and company are war criminals. If they set foot in this county they should be arrested, as is mandated in our laws.

Harper fully believes in the tragically failed theories of the Chicago school of economics. Tax cuts the rich, then de-regulation and no oversight for Wallthief, and now socialist , welfare rescue of those very same thieves. He's all for that.
It's worked out so well in the US hasn't it?

[Delphis]

Not real familiar with your politics up there guys but jeez it sounds like you have all the same issued we do...

I think if your even near a political bend that could, even someone's wildest dreams, compare you to Bushie, that's enough for me...

Besides you guys have lots of Oil right, LOL.

[ki11ercane]

Ah yes, another weekend jarhead wannabe crawls out of his cave to spout the party lines. Show me specifically where any of the party's have said GST goes back to 7%.
Show me where anyone has said the CTC goes to zero. Oh yes and please show me how it has improved anything. Harper says out of one side of his mouth the credit is wonderful and good for children and makes more daycare spaces available. Then it's how much more dangerous our children have become and 14 year old, savage, hardened repeat, monsters must be adults. What do you spend your credits on, beer or bullets?
And it's handguns they are talking about, not ALL guns. Bush and company are war criminals. If they set foot in this county they should be arrested, as is mandated in our laws.
Harper fully believes in the tragically failed theories of the Chicago school of economics. Tax cuts the rich, then de-regulation and no oversight for Wallthief, and now socialist , welfare rescue of those very same thieves. He's all for that.
It's worked out so well in the US hasn't it?

Sure dude whatever. You don't know me personally so I will take the first statement as a baseless "personal strike." Try sticking to facts rather than personal strikes. It makes you look weak minded. I use my jars for canning, not for headgear. Moving on.

Dion's position on the GST, CTC, and Extra Taxes through his carbon tax plan

Hitler's (Sorry, Dion's) Plan To Scrap the Already 2 Billion Over Budget Gun Legislation and Re-Write it (ie: if you own a Mosin Nagat made in 1940 or a Lee Enfield, both bolt action rifles, since they were involved in a war, it will be considered an assault weapon. The only place you'll be able to use them is at the gun range)

And we're already a socialist design country under democratic law. Works just fine for us. I'll also take our economic system and our strict bank laws over the U.S.'s mess any day.

[RdSnt]

You're right, it was too personal and I apologize.

If you can show me a third party, objective analysis of Dion's tax plan then perhaps I'll concede the point. But a link to Harper? Come on.

There is nothing in the proposed gun control amendments that even remotely makes a Lee Enfield qualify. They are talking about select-fire and semi's with military modifications.

It was the Weimar government that brought in gun control 1929, to bring some stability to the country by taking the guns away from the many private armies, including the Nazi's. The Nazi's 1938 amendments were quite pointless considering they already had dictatorial control of the country.

To be honest, I would prefer a different approach. I would institute laws to make the gun manufacturers responsible. They claim the guns are perfectly safe, if handled properly, but your daughter shoots and kills her brother by accident, then there must be a design flaw in the weapon.
Ford didn't intentionally design the Pinto to explode on impact, but they were responsible for the design flaws.

For all the things that "Ditto" Harper wants to do, we only have to look south to see how miserable those same policies have worked there.

[Dreamtwister]

They claim the guns are perfectly safe, if handled properly, but your daughter shoots and kills her brother by accident, then there must be a design flaw in the weapon.

Either that, or a flaw in the education of children of firearm owners. In your example, "handled properly" would include "not pointing at someone". I fail to see how it's the manufacturer's fault that the children in your example weren't properly educated.

I grew up with firearms in the house, yet I never shot anyone, just like I never ran anyone over with the car or suffocated anyone with a plastic bag. Because I was educated.

[ki11ercane]

You're right, it was too personal and I apologize.

If you can show me a third party, objective analysis of Dion's tax plan then perhaps I'll concede the point. But a link to Harper? Come on.

There is nothing in the proposed gun control amendments that even remotely makes a Lee Enfield qualify. They are talking about select-fire and semi's with military modifications.

It was the Weimar government that brought in gun control 1929, to bring some stability to the country by taking the guns away from the many private armies, including the Nazi's. The Nazi's 1938 amendments were quite pointless considering they already had dictatorial control of the country.

To be honest, I would prefer a different approach. I would institute laws to make the gun manufacturers responsible. They claim the guns are perfectly safe, if handled properly, but your daughter shoots and kills her brother by accident, then there must be a design flaw in the weapon.
Ford didn't intentionally design the Pinto to explode on impact, but they were responsible for the design flaws.

For all the things that "Ditto" Harper wants to do, we only have to look south to see how miserable those same policies have worked there.

1. From September 9/2008 - the closest I can get on a multi-linked article on Dion's position on GST.

2. I am totally a proponent to gun control, and my gun ownership is testament to that. And that alone is enough for 5,000,000 Canadians to be pissed as Dion's plans of divide and conquer Canadian Citizens the right to own firearms. His position tells those Canadians "I don't trust you, even though you are a trusted member of the community." The mere reality of being a "gun owner" requires you to be a non-criminal citizen, free of any criminal backgrounds, and to attest to your community that you are a gun owner. (when you own a gun in Canada, your neighbors can look you up) If you fall outside those guidelines, you lose your "privilege" to be a gun owner. Dion is another politician along a long line of them that still hasn't figured out that banning "legally owned guns" to "proper Canadian Citizens" regardless of the type of gun it is doesn't reduce the number of guns criminals can get or use. Bottomline, criminals don't register their guns.

Right in the Liberals bitch lecture on it's plan to rid me of my 65 year old bolt action Mosin (not semi auto or full auto) or Lee Enfield is their plan to ban all rifles with a bayonet attachment simply because "they were built with them in the first place." Same lecture will ban my pump shotgun I use for prairie chicken and goose hunting because I have a pistol grip on it because that works for me and I shoot more chickens and geese with it. And why place the "large cap magazine" comment in the same speech from the toilet when this issue is "already law" here? Again, had I been a hardened criminal, Canada would have not issued me the privilege to own firearms, yet if the Liberals have their way, myself and 5,000,000 other Canadians will be branded "Insta-Criminals."

As for the comment of one sibling killing another one accidentally, again under Canadian Law, all firearms must be properly stored (trigger locks, safes, etc.) to be owned, and again, failing to do that will have your license to own a firearm revoked. While I would LOVE to have a pistol in my nightstand with bullets in the magazine unlocked, it's simply not possible here. All firearms have to be locked up with ammo completely somewhere else. It totally defeats the purpose of "home defense" but that's not how the law is written here. By the law, we as Canadians are not allowed "home defense" like Americans are. I am still stuck having a disadvantage over the home invader that may enter armed, where I am stuck defending my family with a kitchen knife or baseball bat vs. a sawed off shotgun (which I am SURE the home invader registered) having to scramble with a trigger lock and having to go into another room to get the bullets half asleep in the dark. BUT THAT'S THE LAW IF I WANT TO BE A GUN OWNER!

[Dreamtwister]

2. I am totally a proponent to gun control

I think you mean "opponent". I don't normally jump on someone's misuse of words, but in this case it's necessary, since you used the antonym of what you were actually intending.

[ki11ercane]

2. I am totally a proponent to gun control

I think you mean "opponent". I don't normally jump on someone's misuse of words, but in this case it's necessary, since you used the antonym of what you were actually intending.

No, I am a "proponent" to gun control. The must be "level headed, reasonable, tacit, and common sense" gun control. Canadians don't need to be running around with fully automatic machine guns with 30 round banana clips to anyone who has a pulse. Conversely we don't need the government to tell me my bolt action 65 year old mulsurp rifle I converted to a proper hunting rifle with a scope that only holds 5 rounds is illegal because it was used in a war. (WWII Soviet) Both sides of the spectrum are un-reasonable.

Finally, I also don't need the government to spend another 3 billion dollars of my tax money on another failed gun program either. (the first one they spent 2 billion dollars on only to scrap years later because, and wait for it, IT DIDN'T WORK!)

[RdSnt]

Okay, I hear you. You are however mis-reading the proposed legislation. My Lee Enfield, which has not be converted to domestic use, is not in danger.

Here's the clause you seem to be mis-reading:

"Military assault rifles are defined as fully-automatic and selective-fire rifles along with selected semi-automatic rifles designed for military purposes and possessing military features such as: use of a large capacity magazine, folding/telescoping stock, a protruding pistol grip, a bayonet mount, or threaded muzzle or flash suppressor. It is these military features – features whose sole purpose is to render the rifle a more effective tool for killing other people – which make these rifles a threat to public safety."

Neither your bolt action or your pump shotgun can be included in this.

2. I am totally a proponent to gun control

I think you mean "opponent". I don't normally jump on someone's misuse of words, but in this case it's necessary, since you used the antonym of what you were actually intending.

No, I am a "proponent" to gun control. The must be "level headed, reasonable, tacit, and common sense" gun control. Canadians don't need to be running around with fully automatic machine guns with 30 round banana clips to anyone who has a pulse. Conversely we don't need the government to tell me my bolt action 65 year old mulsurp rifle I converted to a proper hunting rifle with a scope that only holds 5 rounds is illegal because it was used in a war. (WWII Soviet) Both sides of the spectrum are un-reasonable.

Finally, I also don't need the government to spend another 3 billion dollars of my tax money on another failed gun program either. (the first one they spent 2 billion dollars on only to scrap years later because, and wait for it, IT DIDN'T WORK!)

[ki11ercane]

Okay, I hear you. You are however mis-reading the proposed legislation. My Lee Enfield, which has not be converted to domestic use, is not in danger.

Here's the clause you seem to be mis-reading:

"Military assault rifles are defined as fully-automatic and selective-fire rifles along with selected semi-automatic rifles designed for military purposes and possessing military features such as: use of a large capacity magazine, folding/telescoping stock, a protruding pistol grip, a bayonet mount, or threaded muzzle or flash suppressor. It is these military features – features whose sole purpose is to render the rifle a more effective tool for killing other people – which make these rifles a threat to public safety."

Neither your bolt action or your pump shotgun can be included in this.

2. I am totally a proponent to gun control

I think you mean "opponent". I don't normally jump on someone's misuse of words, but in this case it's necessary, since you used the antonym of what you were actually intending.

No, I am a "proponent" to gun control. The must be "level headed, reasonable, tacit, and common sense" gun control. Canadians don't need to be running around with fully automatic machine guns with 30 round banana clips to anyone who has a pulse. Conversely we don't need the government to tell me my bolt action 65 year old mulsurp rifle I converted to a proper hunting rifle with a scope that only holds 5 rounds is illegal because it was used in a war. (WWII Soviet) Both sides of the spectrum are un-reasonable.

Finally, I also don't need the government to spend another 3 billion dollars of my tax money on another failed gun program either. (the first one they spent 2 billion dollars on only to scrap years later because, and wait for it, IT DIDN'T WORK!)

It's an open book statement, and it includes those components on purpose. It's called "divide and conquer." As long as those words exist in the policy, they can be added to the list.

So yes, my Mosin which was built with a bayonet mount, same as your Lee Enfield, and my shotgun with a pistol grip is in danger of being included, simply because those words are in the proposed legislation.

This also includes legitimate "hunting rifles" with magazines such as the ones made by Remington. All the government needs to do is include "high capacity magazines" to mean "anything that holds more than one bullet." Again, divide and conquer.

And there are no high capacity magazines in existence in Canada as they are prohibited to own, yet the Liberals saw fit to include them anyways. All magazines are pinned to 5 rounds. But again, the wordage is included so it can be built upon later. Same goes for automatic rifles. They too are as prohibited but again, they are in the list. This only shows that the Liberals are in no way in touch with how the current laws are written and are only writing broad strokes so everything including the grass you walk on can possibly be considered illegal later. It's another example of a political party drawing a circle around the whole issue and cherry picking what it wants to exclude later rather than defining it's policy on existing law and pinpointing specific problems. (they want to be sure everything is "fair game") And this is what the Liberals are saying in this statement, however you don't see it. They only wrote their perceived "definition" of a military assault rifle as being fully or semi automatic rifle (like me defining water is only wet and not solid nor a gas), then adding a colon, (definition of a colon is that it is used after a statement that introduces a quotation, an explanation, an example, or a series) then introduces and explains what they will quote as additions to their definition, namely:

"use of a large capacity magazine, folding/telescoping stock, a protruding pistol grip, a bayonet mount, or threaded muzzle or flash suppressor. It is these military features – features whose sole purpose is to render the rifle a more effective tool for killing other people – which make these rifles a threat to public safety."

Which my friend, puts your Lee Enfield, my Nagat, and my shotgun in the circle as a possible threat of being defined prohibited. By allowing the Liberals to be in power, expect the right to defend yourself and your family in an TSHTF scenario or even in a "daily life" scenario to be taken by force, and placed in the hands of a potentially non-functioning government if things go south. Liberal gun policy will render the existing gun control system "non existent." You Lee Enfield will be taken from you.

If you think I am full of $hit, just ask an Australian how wrong I am.

I also forgot to mention that flash suppressors for example are used on almost all legitimate "hunting rifles" to reduce barrel rise on repeated shots and to reduce turbulence on a bullet to guarantee a straighter shot. I don't really care of the deer sees my muzzle flash. I guess the Liberals want to make sure the deer have a fighting chance.