this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Canada

11805 readers
620 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Next, we really need proportional representation.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Proportional representation only looks good on a spreadsheet. It's terrible when you consider power dynamics, which you should when thinking about political systems.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Which power dynamics? Like, coalition building?

As if First Past the Post didn't have shitty power dynamics.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

You love to see it.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Please not another liberal government, getting tired of the restrictions they place on law abiding citizens.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which ones? Is it the "can't not pay for social services" restriction? The "can't secretly own a firearm" resteiction? Or the "can't overrule other countries' entry requirements" restriction?

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is it the "can't not pay for social services" restriction?

You mean unnecessary use of resources tax.

The "can't secretly own a firearm" resteiction?

Secret? The firearms bans are only affecting people apart of the Canadian Firearms Program, people who have gone through the CFSC and daily background checks.

You think criminals are actually going to follow the law and abide by these bans? It’s literal abuse of OIC just to take law abiding citizens property.

the "can't overrule other countries' entry requirements" restriction?

I assume you’re referring to the B.C women who was recently arrested over at the US border. Ultimately she went down there with incomplete documentation, like everyone else she should’ve sorted that out before even attempting to cross.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can literally see a direct link between difficulty of acquiring a gun legally and difficulty acquiring a gun illegally.

Statistically, majority of guns used in crime were legally purchased at some point in their existence

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Statistically, majority of guns used in crime were legally purchased at some point in their existence

That’s really not at all baffling? We’re talking guns over 100 years old ending up on these ban lists.

The recent public safety announcement they claim that the rifles banned were meant for war. Guns like the GSG (German Sports-Shooting Gun) were banned while not banning the SKS (Made literally for ww2).

The logic here is admittedly flawed and not enough Canadians realize that.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have a coherent point to make or was that the attempt?

Asking as an rpal holder who finds the new round of restrictions poorly written and ill-informed, but that isn't going to drive me to vote for an idiot like PP.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Asking as an rpal holder who finds the new round of restrictions poorly written and ill-informed, but that isn't going to drive me to vote for an idiot like PP.

That’s disappointing to hear. PAL/RPAL holders are a dying breed among Canadians and the liberals intend to solidify it.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So.. no coherent point. Thank you for clarifying.

Anyone can earn my vote by:

Prioritizing healthcare and social services (including education) Protecting basic human rights. Not being a shit-bag of a human nor tolerating them in government. Focusing on green economic growth.

I don't base my votes off who can get me the most irrationally mad about issues that are invented or overblown. And while I have a whole list of complaints about the uselessness of the changes to gun laws here, the biggest one is how effective it is at mobilizing otherwise happily dissconnected voters into actually taking the time to go vote. It's like 8d chess where the Liberals are looking for a way to get the Conservative vote out and found the key....

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

I'll be voting libs but man those firearm restrictions are straight bullshit.