Presidential Poll (Bush or Kerry)

Clark Kent wrote: Actually, as I understand it, Canada has very liberal gun ownership laws...

Unfortunately not at all.

Our latest gun laws are misdirected; as currently our government just wasted nearly 2 Billion dollars on a gun registry. As I understand it, current police force officers rarely do a look up on the registry and are generally upset that these funds could have been better spent in our police departments for training, equipment or personnel on the street.
--Heck it could have been spent on better border security with the U.S.--

I can only base this from conversations with friends in law enforcement in my local city, perhaps officers in Toronto have a different view, I don’t know.

Some registry problems are;

. Bad guys don't register illegal fire arms.

.Things such as nail guns are registered.

. Most of the registered guns are long rifles used for hunting, not hand guns which are generally preferred in crimes.

. Lately, there have been more signs of improvised guns/weapons, so I am told.

. The problem was never the guns laws, there are plenty of laws on the books (as there should be) prohibiting brandishing a firearm, improper storage, reckless usage, etc. The problem is enforcing the laws we have.

As I understand it, the initial reasons given for our over the top gun laws had to do with Quebec nationals/separatists about 30 years ago, and the law has gotten progressively sillier. Such as costly registration for sporting/hunting long rifles or for target/game shooting clubs, the goal was to price the sport rifles out of existence in Canada through "Yearly" registration fees.

Edited by Barretm82

Badsmitty wrote: Ignoring one's military advisors and experts in the field of terrorism and war in order to embrace the civilian advisors who tell you what you want to hear is not "learning the ropes," it is hubris.  Bush = guilty.

Which military advisors? I would like you to name them.

"Experts in the field of terrorism", the bureaucracy burden your experts have to navigate prevented them from making a coherent warning prior to 9/11.

That same bureaucracy burden tripped up experts who were not able to be definitive on the status of Saddam's WMD programs.

The bottom line is that there are fundamental flaws in the pillars that support corporate "type" organizations.

Large organizations will never be able to turn on a dime, rarely see outside the box without outside observers, and have great difficulty making quick adjustments when nessarary over an extended period of time.

It is not your expert’s fault, it is just the nature of cumbersome bureaucracy that encompasses every large mega company, one has to take this into account and understand its implications, based on your comments Smithy, I don't think you do. IMHO.



Edited by Barretm82

Barretm82 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Actually, as I understand it, Canada has very liberal gun ownership laws... Unfortunately not at all.

Huh.  Live and learn.

If I was old enough to vote Id vote Bush.

Banning all guns would be stupid. It would cause an uprising like nothing ever seen before. The government knows this, and that's why they haven't done it. They just make it a pain to get cool guns now. Personally I think the age to be able to own a rifle or shot gun needs to be raised from 18 to 21 just like it is for hand guns here in Texas.

 Why does nobody ever want the 3rd party to win. Nader is a good guy for the job. But i want bush and i will go insane if kerry wins