Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Finally - gun registry is gone

[color:#33CCFF]"It's really difficult to pick who will become king of North America. There are several front runners. Some of the Canadian posters are leftists, so I think that the next king should be a woman. Justin Trudeau would make a good looking woman king, but since he's a male that disqualifies him."[/color]

My vote will be cast for non other than Shania Twain if she decides to move back to her homeland.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012...ugh-torture-csis-already-given-approval/
Other examples include using the RCMP as a personal guard, using RCMP to bully rival political parties, starting a RCMP cadet training and recruitment on Tax dollar dime. I've never seen a Prime Minister so chummy with the RCMP and giving them almost ghestapo type power and the ability to recruit an army of junior people to brainwash for their ranks. It's starting to look like a Germany under Adolf in the earlier years. We got a registry partially erased, but there still exists a registry of prohibited and restricted guns and at what cost? Back room deals with the RCMP is what the Harper government is all about.

Lest we negelect to mention Charles Krauthammer, perhaps the most ingenious selection of all.

If I'm voting for Queen of north america I'll vote for Shania as well..
If I'm voting for king and my choices are Barry from Illinios or Steve from Calgary my vote will go to Steve every time.He's a much better economist..Hell there's a debate I'd pay money to watch PM Harper kickin POTUS Obama's arse

Lawrence Martin


Published Tuesday, Jul. 31, 2012 02:00AM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Aug. 08, 2012 07:13PM EDT

Much has been made of the government�s muzzling of the science community, its low regard for statistics, its hard line against environmentalists.

Because Stephen Harper otherwise appears to be a clear-headed rationalist, there is some wonder about the motivation for these impulses, including the question of whether they are triggered by his evangelical beliefs. The Prime Minister is a member of the Alliance Church, more specifically the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Alberta journalist and author Andrew Nikiforuk, a Governor-General�s award winner, sees the evangelical creed as being at the root of much of Conservative policy-making in these areas � religion is trumping reason, he says. Mr. Nikiforuk is a conservationist and a Christian social conservative who has spent �many pleasant hours in a variety of evangelical churches and fundamentalist communities.� He recently wrote an analysis for The Tyee, British Columbia�s outstanding online newspaper, which garnered a huge response. Under the headline �Understanding Harper�s Evangelical Mission,� the article carries a subtitle reading, �Signs mount that Canada�s government is beholden to a religious agenda averse to science and rational debate.�

Mr. Harper is quiet on the issue of his religion, and the media have mostly steered clear of the subject. After all, religion is a personal business. Many of our prime ministers have been of faith, and it has not been in our tradition to pry. (In retrospect, it would have been right for Canadians of the day to know about Mackenzie King�s table-rapping s�ances and spiritualism � they certainly seemed to affect his policy-making. But Mr. King�s devotion to the deities wasn�t revealed until he was out of office.)

While religious privacy is important, the evangelical movement is not a typical religion when it comes to politics. Its aggressive propagation of social conservatism and biblical fundamentalism has had a significant impact on U.S. politics and presidents such as George W. Bush. In the United States, a politician�s ties to the religious right are fair game � evangelicals represent something like a third of the American population. In Canada, where that number is more like 10 per cent, evangelicals have achieved nowhere near the notoriety, and Mr. Harper, restrained by public opinion, has not pursued a strong social conservative agenda, undercutting the notion that his government is beholden to theocons.

But the Conservatives� positions on research, statistics, environmental assessment, pipeline opponents, climate change and so on leads many to wonder. In Mr. Nikiforuk�s view, �Republican religious tribalism is now Ottawa�s worldview.� He says Mr. Harper openly sympathizes with, if not endorses, evangelicals� climate skepticism, their distrust of mainstream science and their view of libertarian economics as God�s will.

Not long after the Conservatives were first elected, Mark Noll, a church historian and one of the most influential evangelicals in the U.S., said he thought many Canadians would be upset to learn about the conservative beliefs of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. �They certainly are far less tolerant than, say, the United Church of Canada.� But the Conservatives� image has not suffered much, if at all, from the affiliation.

Since Mr. Harper never speaks about his religious beliefs, much of what�s said about them is speculation. Just because he is an evangelical does not necessarily mean he holds to all evangelical teachings or even most of them � just as being Catholic does not necessarily mean one believes a communion wafer is literally the body of Christ. As for intolerant views, there are many religious denominations guilty of the same.

That said, given evangelicals� strong ties to politics, the subject should not be left unexamined. The Prime Minister is under no obligation to tell anyone about his religious convictions. But if his government�s policy-making in important areas like the environment is being motivated by religious faith at the expense of reason, it is cause for debate.

n007, thanks for this post .... Lawrence Martin, writing for the Globe, has been very clear and very precise about the dangers presented to Canadian democracy under the Harper Conservatives.
He is well worth following.

I agree with you that you cannot trust ANY gov't in all things they state publicly, but I thought we were talking about the gun registry here.

.

GRF:
I hope that this finds you and yours doing well this warm November afternoon and that you are at least beginning to adjust to the time change.

Thanks yet again for the kind words sir, I will do my best to deserve them here and in future posts as well.

As I try to make it a practice to not even attempt to persuade any other human to think the way I do, I'd offer the following thoughts on the subject with the standard warning that they are only worth what you are paying for them.

Viewed historically I'd suggest that the basis for any successful people group, fiefdom or country can be distilled down to a few basic components.

They need to be able to feed, house and meet the needs of the inhabitants and be able to defend themselves. I'd include health care, basic services/infrastructure and education in meeting the basic needs.

The further then that a country strays from those foundational necessities the more tenuous their future becomes.

In our current Canadian political system the party leader has a major say in the course the governing party will follow. We might debate whether this is good or bad, but I believe most would concede that point.

As no one thus far that I've seen is perfect, we hopefully then will vote for the leader/party that matches up best with our ideals for the future of the country. After that to some degree we are still able to work within the framework of local and provincial governments, political parties and special interest groups to attempt to sway the government to act in a manner that we think is correct. If all else fails we can also be part of a movement to vote them out next election.

Now on the surface that seems pretty straightforward or perhaps not, but it strikes me for any leader or party these days it would be a balancing act akin to the recent tightrope walk that made the headlines.

By way of example I'd suggest that in reading just the responses to this thread, although most of us here represent a fairly narrow demographic of Canadians there isn't much consensus thus far among us.

In all likelihood we here at this cyber 'Fire are of mainly or at least partially European extraction, have some Judeo-Christian background at least a couple generations previous to now and appear to be gun owners and hunters.

Despite all that common ground though I seem to understand that some desire a leader with strong moral fiber and firm leadership abilities, but are less than comfortable if the moral decisions are based upon religious beliefs or the leadership decisions don't match their personal vision of Canada.

For others the religious beliefs don't matter as much, but then if they happen to share the beliefs in question that would make logical sense I'd expect.

Some seem to find sinister intent in the actions of the leaders while others indicate incompetence is closer to their definition of what is happening - oh and some seem satisfied with it too.

The cool thing for me though - a fact that continues to give me hope for us - is that we still live in a country that is free enough that I can continue to worship what and where I want and others are free to publicly question my sanity because of it. By the way I'd defend to the death their right to do so - even if they do think I'm "intolerant".

Really that's not all that bad is it? Taken in a global context it's sadly not even that common.

Anyway GRF those are the criteria that I use personally to choose who I'll support and then by extension trust with my tax dollars and in many ways my future and my children's future as well.

All the best to you and yours GRF and good luck to you on any upcoming hunts too.

Dwayne

Good Morning Dwayne:

I really like this part of your post.

Have a great hunting season and all the best to you and your family.

In about a week I will be heading to the interior with my brother and nephew, hunting and camping with family is the best.

Nic

n007
Lawrence Martin is a Liberal hack, don't waste your time.

True, and he has been a radical, "anti-gunner" and a very arrogant and elitist urbanite, who thinks anyone outside of the "TO-OT-Mont." sacred circle, is somehow less a Canadian, that his ilk. In short, he is another much like Suzuki, a phoney, self-entitled, money-grubbing mouthpiece.

That said, the influence of his primitive religious obsessions has obviously caused Harpler,to attack the serious scientists and environmental regulations to Canada's great detriment. He is as bad a PM as we have ever seen and we NEED an alternative and very soon!

Harper is, as a man, an Ok guy, or at least that was the impression I got in the very short time I spoke to him.

He is however a politician. Sadly, in this country, it will always be a politician in control.

They always have that drive to be on top of public opinion, and ready for the next election.

FWIW, he's still the best man in Ottawa for the job right now IMO. Who would you suggest?