The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

Theoretically they could be very useful, we just haven't used them that way, so by custom they are useless.

I'm all for an apolitical GG appointed by the King, and a senate that takes their job seriously, but we don't have either of those things.

Agreed on all accounts.

If they worked I'd have no gripe. But they don't. So IMHO we fix them or ditch them. Because right now they just drain us for tax dollars as I see it.

 

[OldSolduer]

Agreed on all accounts.

If they worked I'd have no gripe. But they don't. So IMHO we fix them or ditch them. Because right now they just drain us for tax dollars as I see it.

Triple E Senate - you know like an equal number of senators per province so the tyrants in Toronto don't get their way all the time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Triple E Senate - you know like an equal number of senators per province so the tyrants in Toronto don't get their way all the time.

And make it small, like 3 per province. No need for hundreds. And make them a random draw of the Canadian population, with a selection process, who file an income of less than 100K per year. Set them on a 5 year term.

 

[desindarfur]

Like a lottery? Something you could buy tickets for. A new variation on Cash for Life.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Like a lottery? Something you could buy tickets for. A new variation on Cash for Life.

I wouldn't say a lottery. Something like a national selection.

 

[Haggis]

I'm curious, though, how many applications for a handgun freeze exemption for sport shooters have been received and have been approved since C-21 came into force. There has to be, at least, one worthy Canadian sport shooter.

 

[IKnowNothing]

And make it small, like 3 per province. No need for hundreds. And make them a random draw of the Canadian population, with a selection process, who file an income of less than 100K per year. Set them on a 5 year term.

Why would we ever want lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, small business owners, master tradesmen, heavy equipment operators, farmers, executives, or anyone that has shown a reasonable amount of success in private enterprise to bring that expertise to government right?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why would we ever want lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, small business owners, master tradesmen, heavy equipment operators, farmers, executives, or anyone that has shown a reasonable amount of success in private enterprise to bring that expertise to government right?

Is the key identifier to expertise and success income level ?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Is the key identifier to expertise and success income level ?

"The"? No. "An"? In a capitalist society? Absolutely.
What's your reasoning for wanting to disqualify all those people?

 

[Halifax Tar]

"The"? No. "An"? In a capitalist society? Absolutely.
What's your reasoning for wanting to disqualify all those people?

I would argue the HoC and the directors of society are already filled with those people, and to a questionable level of overall success.

Why not balance it out with a senate made up of the middle class and lower folks ?

A good why is in this thread:

"Secret RCMP report warns Canadians may revolt once they realize how broke they are" (NatPost/Postmedia)

Via the National Post (archived link also here) .... https://nationalpost.com/opinion/secret-rcmp-report-warns-canadians-may-revolt-once-they-realize-how-broke-they-are One take from the editors of The Line podcast (archived link to newsletter also here)...

army.ca

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think the Senate could only benefit from some farmer/ mechanic/ retired assembly worker wisdom for a change. Sometimes when people are being incompetent assholes, we need someone to stand up and say "you're an incompetent asshole. Sit down and shut up.. "

 

[IKnowNothing]

Why not balance it out with a senate made up of the middle class and lower folks ?

Non-representative, and completely anti-ethical to the ideals of both meritocratic capitalism and democracy.

It would be one thing to put in a measure to keep the lottery from resulting in an Senate that's overweight to any one income group, quite another to arbitrarily exclude citizens based on nothing but feelings.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Non-representative, and completely anti-ethical to the ideals of both meritocratic capitalism and democracy.

Is our current system work to the ideals that you lay out above ?

Three people from each province. How much more representative can we get, unless you want to go the DEI route too. Perhaps 1 PoC, 1 Indigenous and 1 Caucasian ?

It would be one thing to put in a measure to keep the lottery from resulting in an Senate that's overweight to any one income group, quite another to arbitrarily exclude citizens based on nothing but feelings.

Well the demographics that currently make up the establishment of the senate is entirely made up of people appointed by wealthy connected appointments of patronage and 'feelings' of loyalty. And that doesn't seem to be working out to a satisfactory level.

So its only wrong if we do it for the lower classes, my friend you are coming off very classist.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Three people from each province. How much more representative can we get?

Not excluding a non-trivial percentage of the population to satisfy a grudge.

Well the demographics that currently make up the establishment of the senate is entirely made up of people appointed by wealthy connected appointments of patronage and 'feelings' of loyalty. And that doesn't seem to be working out to a satisfactory level.

Which would be addressed by restructuring. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians above your threshold that are neither "wealthy" nor "connected" - that have shown no political ambitions, would never in a thousand years be considered for the current Senate. People who's experience and experience would be a boon to such a restructured senate.

So its only wrong if we do it for the lower classes, my friend you are coming off very classist.

I'm not defending our current system- I'm challenging a specific flawed aspect of a proposed change.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not excluding a non-trivial percentage of the population to satisfy a grudge.

Which would be addressed by restructuring. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians above your threshold that are neither "wealthy" nor "connected" - that have shown no political ambitions, would never in a thousand years be considered for the current Senate. People who's experience and experience would be a boon to such a restructured senate.

I'm not defending our current system- I'm challenging a specific flawed aspect of a proposed change.

According to this:

The Daily — Canadian Income Survey, 2021

The median after-tax income of Canadian families and unattached individuals was $68,400 in 2021.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

The average Canadian's income is $68k. Giving a limit of 100k goes well above and beyond the average Canadian.

According to this:

Canada: income distribution | Statista

In 2022, 22.6 percent of the Canadian population had an annual income of 100,000 Canadian dollars or more.

www.statista.com

In 2021, 21.2 percent of the Canadian population had an annual income of 100,000 Canadian dollars or more.

The top 21.2 percent already completely dominate the political landscape. Perhaps we can leave the senate to the those who earn less than 100k. And try to make our political system more representative of all Canadians and not just the rich and connected.

For the record I am in the 21.2 percent of Canadians. So I have no personal benefit in my idea.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The top 21.2 percent already completely dominate the political landscape. Perhaps we can leave the senate to the those who earn less than 100k. And try to make our political system more representative of all Canadians and not just the rich and connected.

Underline- Barring certain people from government based on their earned success in order to satisfy a quota? careful comrade. You sarcastically mentioned DEI, which is ironic because is exactly what this is. It's proof of the old adage that the political spectrum is a circle, because if someone posted a Huffpost article citing Jagmeet musing about such a policy it would be identified as leftist lunacy.

Bold - You're conflating "above median income" and "rich and connected/ political elite." The accountant at my local BDO, the millwright cranking out OT, the charge nurse at the rural hospital, good DZ drivers, the Farmer that's built his dairy herd over 30 years- all would have a pretty serious bone to pick with being described as "rich and connected." They are not the same people as the ones "dominating he political landscape"- they're just Canadians living their lives- and they'd offer value to a citizen's senate.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Underline- Barring certain people from government based on their earned success in order to satisfy a quota? careful comrade. You sarcastically mentioned DEI, which is ironic because is exactly what this is. It's proof of the old adage that the political spectrum is a circle, because if someone posted a Huffpost article citing Jagmeet musing about such a policy it would be identified as leftist lunacy.

Bold - You're conflating "above median income" and "rich and connected/ political elite." The accountant at my local BDO, the millwright cranking out OT, the charge nurse at the rural hospital, good DZ drivers, the Farmer that's built his dairy herd over 30 years- all would have a pretty serious bone to pick with being described as "rich and connected." They are not the same people as the ones "dominating he political landscape"- they're just Canadians living their lives- and they'd offer value to a citizen's senate.

All of the people that you mention are already represented, statistically, in the current make up of the Government. And would continue to be, in the HoC. If they want to get involved they can.

I don't care how pinko commie you think the idea is, the fact is our current political class has fully lost touch with the average Canadian, to the point the RCMP is warning about open insurrection could things get worse. So we either fix the system and try to make it more representative, thus engaging more Canadians; or we use the tried and true Canadian method and we stick our heads in the snow bank and assume everything is fine it will all work out.

Also I didn't sarcastically mention DEI, that was an honest input. If we want to DEI it lets DEI it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

our current political class has fully lost touch with the average Canadian

Don't allow that to be the narrative. "Deliberately ignores" and "actively despises" are in the mix, too.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Don't allow that to be the narrative. "Deliberately ignores" and "actively despises" are in the mix, too.

Fair point.

Back guns, if PP reverses these new regulations he will have my vote for a long time.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Fair point.

Back guns, if PP reverses these new regulations he will have my vote for a long time.

Yours won't be the only one. Increasing firearm restrictions is one of the many issues that is a "vote killer", not a "vote getter".