It has been quite a while since I last posted anything on the topic of firearms. I would like to take the opportunity to debunk and set some records straight.
Why do firearms owners feel they shouldn't have to register their firearms, we register cars and dogs and land etc. etc. etc.?
What is the big bone of contention? simply put, Indeed we register a great many things. However you don't get sent to prison if you don't register your car and the plethora things you register. Also believe it or not there is not a single law that requires anyone to register those things.
Registering firearms make firearms accountable for their guns
That statement begs the question "Accountable for what?" We hold criminals accountable either by placing them on probation, parole or locking them up. Now this is where the debate becomes white hot for me. I am not a criminal and I refuse to be treated like one. Under Roman Civil Code which made its way into our system of law viz inheriting English Law etc. Criminals were given licences to stay out of prison provided they behaved themselves.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of CANADA made every firearms owner in CANADA a criminal, an outlaw without ever committing a crime nor having ever been before a court. One stroke of the Governor Generals pen 7 million people were made criminals. Now how do we manage to stay our of prison ,,,,We had to get a Licence. (which by the way only 2 million of us did,,,5 million of us said no)
There are about 8% of the 2 million that don't have a problem with that. They are of the opinion they will never need to worry. But,Think about it, How would you feel if you were all of a sudden declared a criminal?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry and say it is an important tool in preventing crime
A year ago CPAC was outed. Their support can be bought. The ethics advisor even resigned because of their "funding practises". They are a LOBBY GROUP. accountable to nobody, especially the public..
Lets use a bit of common sense for a minute. Does the registering of cars prevent drunk driving? If you answer yes? I just be polite and say you are not being honest.
seriously it can't do that. So how can a registry firearms prevent a misuse? It can't either.
As an FYI we in Canada have not been required to have licence nor register our rifles and shot guns for 135 years. In the 8 years that we have been required to have a licence and register our firearms we have seen a rise in criminal use of firearms. Why? Simply GUN CONTROL is a farce. But don't take my word for it here is an excerpt from an article published "Canadian Gun Control. (Gun Rights)." by Don B. Kates..
Over several decades Canadian gun controls have been a subject of study by criminologist Philip Stenning who is a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. His views should be of particular interest for he is not a gun owner and has scant liking for guns and their ownership. Nevertheless he is anti-gun control because he has concluded that it "just does not work." His findings severely undermine gun control proposals made in either the U.S. or Canada.
Prof. Stenning's first finding is that the evidence does not support the anti-gun faith that more guns will cause more crime or that fewer will result in reducing crime. That faith is refuted by the lack of correlation--indeed, the often NEGATIVE correlation--between how many guns there are in any particular area and how much gun misuse there is in that area. As Professor Stenning wrote in Gun Control - A Critique of Current Policy 15 POLICY OPTIONS 13 (1994): "The highest concentrations of firearms in Canada are in rural communities. Data from the most recent study on this matter... [1991] indicate that approximately 60 percent of household firearms in Canada are in non-urban households. Yet most firearms abuses occur in urban areas; in recent years, for instance, urban areas have accounted for about 65 percent of firearms homicides. While almost every household in remote Aboriginal [Indian] communities contains at least one firearm (and typically more), the proportion of homicides in these communities committed with firearms is no higher than the proportion in other rural and urban non-Aboriginal communities."
Genuine fear is settling in among Gun Control advocates, the level of deception they are stooping too is both amazing and frightening at the same time. It is frightening because never in Canadian history has so much hysteria been mobilized at one time. All aimed at people who really don't care one way or another about the issue, nor do they understand what they are being asked to support. I don't doubt that if you did ask the average Canadian if they support gun control the answer would be yes. However this support dwindles quickly when the costs start accumulating, when they realize that, it is money being spent that could be used better else where.
It is amazing in the sense these people are lying in the day and age of such things as the world wide web, the freedom of information act and statistics are readily available to the public. All because they benefit from the status quo.
I'll put it to you this way think hard now, in 143 years of CANADA how many people have lost their sanity and gone off on shooting sprees. Not many less than 10 by my count 7, in fact the worst mass murder in Canadian history didn't even involve a gun. Nope, just plain old gasoline. For the one is too many set I ask you this, If one is too many then are you prepared to make everyone that uses gasoline a criminal?
Though the question that remains unanswered is simply this. If Gun Control is such a positive thing and genuine benefit to society, Why do its supporters feel the need to lie about it?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Ann Comes to Ottawa...Almost
It became a non event, and a banner day for Canada.
Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.
Canadian Human Rights Act
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.
Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work
NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link
It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.
From the elder Bill of Rights
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
From the Charter
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?
Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....
As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....
In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons
Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world
Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.
Canadian Human Rights Act
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.
Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work
NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link
It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.
From the elder Bill of Rights
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
From the Charter
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?
Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....
As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....
In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons
Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world
Friday, March 12, 2010
Legal System 1 Rights 0
Lets be perfectly clear. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. That said, under such a system truth, rights, the long established common law mean nothing. The only ones safe from such a system are the common criminals themselves. Which is apparent with our current catch and release method of dealing with violent people. A ten year sentence for manslaughter can be served in less than 3 years with double and triple credit for time served awaiting trial and sentence.
This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.
If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).
I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?
If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.
Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.
Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.
This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.
If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).
I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?
If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.
Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.
Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Regressive Progressive
Call me strange but I happen to be a person that sees progress as having more than what you started with. Before the wheel we got every where by shank's mare (on your own feet) The wheel meant we could now ride every where or at least not have to carry everything on our backs. Domestication of animals meant we had beast power instead of man power.
As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).
We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.
For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.
Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.
The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.
Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.
It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.
It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.
As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).
We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.
For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.
Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.
The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.
Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.
It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.
It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Copenhagen And The Green Shirts
Carbon, public enemy number one today? I find it had to believe that the element every living thing is dependent upon is going to set the world on fire. At least metaphorically speaking. Indeed it has been said that this element when used as fuel becomes the evil carbon dioxide gas, a greenhouse gas...But wait a minute 97% of the CO2 is from natural sources including every living creature when it exhales. The remaining 3% comes from human activities.
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Dec 6 L'Ecole Polytechnique, emotional rhetoric to a political end
Today Dec 6th marks the anniversary of the shooting at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. My thoughts are with the survivors and families of the victims.
I would like to take some time to speak of "EMOTION" This event generates emotions, however it was emotion that created the tragedy to begin with. Indeed Gamil Gharbi(aka Marc Lepine) was a seriously emotionally disturbed young man, with a hatred of feminists. He took this hatred to its ultimate conclusion and committed the heinous act he did. In the end he took his own life leaving no one to be culpable for the crime, no one to stand trial and be held responsible.
I believe this created a vacuum in the psyche of the nation, and nature abhors a vacuum. To replace Gharbi we turned to the only tangible thing left behind, his gun. Guns became the focus of our outrage, emotion created a storm. The rational was if there were no guns in private hands this would not happen again. If only there had been laws in place controlling firearms this would not have happened.
There is a large problem with this, emotions are irrational, emotions get people into trouble more often than not. Spur of the moment emotional responses always have dire consequence. It causes people to do things that in sober rational second thought to say things like "I wish I hadn't done that" or "I should of thought before I acted.".
In this instance in light of the events of L'Ecole Polytechnique cause the then Government of Kim Campbell to amend existing law. Only one act of these amendments made any rational sense, the requirement for safety training. The rest were mere feel good accomplish nothing regulations. Enter Wendy Cukier and the Coalitions for Gun Control. They were behind the scenes lobbying, their ideas were given fertile ground with the emerging reorganized Liberal Party under Jean Chretien.
The opportunity not being lost on him campaigned on a strong gun control platform. Using L'Ecole Polytechnique to their advantage and the public disgust in the Mulroney Governance of the Country. This was enough to cause women and feminist not to vote for and elect Canada's first woman Prime Minister.
Moving on to ethics and morality. In a nutshell is the difference between right and wrong and knowing it. In a rational objective way using reason and logic. Is it right to punish someone who has committed no crime or done no wrong? .. Is it right to push your beliefs on others? ... Is it right to continually support something that you know has not solved the problem but if you admit you are wrong you will look bad? tougher question eh? Is is right to lie in order to support this, is it right to lie to others? If you have answered "Yes" to any of those questions, it is a safe bet you slither rather than walk upright.
It is immoral to punish people that have done no wrong, it is equally immoral to blame them for something they did not do or had anything to do with. It is immoral to cast a wide disparaging opinion on a community because you disagree with their lawful past times and pursuits. It is most immoral to lie to people who have put their trust in you in order to save face.
That is pretty much what the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien and CFGC did when they enacted the Firearms Act(c-68). In fact the Liberals knew it was their 1977 law that made sure no one could stop Gharbi. They(the Liberal Party) and the CFGC continue to lie about it. You would have to be lying to say that a mere law can stop an insane act. Worse still the law they enacted guaranteed it would happen again..Another emotionally disturbed fellow did attempt to repeat L'Ecole Polytechnique.
Kimveer Gill went to Dawson College he had a licence and he had registered firearms. He then broke every regulation in the firearms act and opened fire on students there. What stopped the repeat of Polytechnique was 2 ARMED Police officers who just happen to be there. That is correct it requires a gun to stop a gunman. Dawson College is positive proof of the failure of Gun Control. I notice it is rarely mentioned..
I would like to take some time to speak of "EMOTION" This event generates emotions, however it was emotion that created the tragedy to begin with. Indeed Gamil Gharbi(aka Marc Lepine) was a seriously emotionally disturbed young man, with a hatred of feminists. He took this hatred to its ultimate conclusion and committed the heinous act he did. In the end he took his own life leaving no one to be culpable for the crime, no one to stand trial and be held responsible.
I believe this created a vacuum in the psyche of the nation, and nature abhors a vacuum. To replace Gharbi we turned to the only tangible thing left behind, his gun. Guns became the focus of our outrage, emotion created a storm. The rational was if there were no guns in private hands this would not happen again. If only there had been laws in place controlling firearms this would not have happened.
There is a large problem with this, emotions are irrational, emotions get people into trouble more often than not. Spur of the moment emotional responses always have dire consequence. It causes people to do things that in sober rational second thought to say things like "I wish I hadn't done that" or "I should of thought before I acted.".
In this instance in light of the events of L'Ecole Polytechnique cause the then Government of Kim Campbell to amend existing law. Only one act of these amendments made any rational sense, the requirement for safety training. The rest were mere feel good accomplish nothing regulations. Enter Wendy Cukier and the Coalitions for Gun Control. They were behind the scenes lobbying, their ideas were given fertile ground with the emerging reorganized Liberal Party under Jean Chretien.
The opportunity not being lost on him campaigned on a strong gun control platform. Using L'Ecole Polytechnique to their advantage and the public disgust in the Mulroney Governance of the Country. This was enough to cause women and feminist not to vote for and elect Canada's first woman Prime Minister.
Moving on to ethics and morality. In a nutshell is the difference between right and wrong and knowing it. In a rational objective way using reason and logic. Is it right to punish someone who has committed no crime or done no wrong? .. Is it right to push your beliefs on others? ... Is it right to continually support something that you know has not solved the problem but if you admit you are wrong you will look bad? tougher question eh? Is is right to lie in order to support this, is it right to lie to others? If you have answered "Yes" to any of those questions, it is a safe bet you slither rather than walk upright.
It is immoral to punish people that have done no wrong, it is equally immoral to blame them for something they did not do or had anything to do with. It is immoral to cast a wide disparaging opinion on a community because you disagree with their lawful past times and pursuits. It is most immoral to lie to people who have put their trust in you in order to save face.
That is pretty much what the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien and CFGC did when they enacted the Firearms Act(c-68). In fact the Liberals knew it was their 1977 law that made sure no one could stop Gharbi. They(the Liberal Party) and the CFGC continue to lie about it. You would have to be lying to say that a mere law can stop an insane act. Worse still the law they enacted guaranteed it would happen again..Another emotionally disturbed fellow did attempt to repeat L'Ecole Polytechnique.
Kimveer Gill went to Dawson College he had a licence and he had registered firearms. He then broke every regulation in the firearms act and opened fire on students there. What stopped the repeat of Polytechnique was 2 ARMED Police officers who just happen to be there. That is correct it requires a gun to stop a gunman. Dawson College is positive proof of the failure of Gun Control. I notice it is rarely mentioned..
Sunday, November 15, 2009
2012 Count Down to Doomsday
I have resisted writing about this for some time, now I am giving into it with the release of the blockbuster Movie 2012. What is the fascination with the end of the world anyway? It is nothing new, people have been telling us the end is nigh for some time. Y2K was supposed to be the year the last trip round the doomsday clock. Now the date from the Mayan calendar is the new doomsday. Every prophet or prophecy I have encountered over the years never has any good news. Is it a case of collective guilt and collective bitterness between the haves and the have nots of the world? A “We don’t deserve our good fortune.” Coalescing with “You SOBs will get yours” perfect storm? I don’t know really but we seem to get preoccupied by doom every now and again.
According to the latest round the doomsday prophets the clock is set for December 21, 2012. This date is taken from the Mayans, a stone age civilization of pre-Columbian North America. The Maya were advanced for their time they developed a system of mathematics and conceived of numbers less than zero. However they built everything out of stone and obsidian they were not the most technologically advanced. They believed in a Pantheon of Gods which resembled animals natural to their environment and fed these gods with an endless line of human sacrifice. Not exactly a civilization I would hang any predictions on.
According to those who have studied the Maya they did not predict the end of the world. The mystery if you will is around the question of why the calendar ends when it does. If they were the great predictors as they are made out to be why didn’t it end when their civilization ended in 900 ce. Guess they didn’t see it coming.
They were the top tribe in the area if you will, if you were Mayan you were tops. Not likely to be the sacrifice. Perhaps it was their arrogance that produced a calendar that went so far into the future, more years than anyone could count was impressive. Perhaps being the regions master race they like our modern Nazis types(the thousand year Reich) were showing their superiority by stating that they would be around forever. In any case I haven’t met any ancient Mayans to ask them.
The truth is the world has ended thousands of times in our recorded and unrecorded history. We modern types seem to view the world as being the whole planet since we have knowledge of its totality. However many ancients only had concept of the world as what existed in the area that they could walk. What existed beyond that was terra incognita and was left to the imagination of what lay beyond that. A devastating earth quake or volcano could end the world they knew. So why would it be any different for the Maya.
So I will be bold and make a prediction, December 21st 2012 will come and go like every other 21st of December. Maybe with a little more fan fare than others. We also need to realize that a calendar running out is not cause for doom it just means its creators were not around to update it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)