Which parts of Canada are pro-Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SomeKid

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
1,544
Location
FL
The constant talk about the Bloc Quebecois who want to leave Canada got me thinking.

What if the more Conservative parts of Canada (whatever they may be) left Canada, and joined the US? Possible? What American states would they be like?

http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/aminet/pix/map/Canada.jpg

From my readings, aside from Ontario and Quebec, most Canadian provinces would be like Montana. Sparsely populated, and rather conservative.
 
I know a lot of firearms owners back home in BC Canada, they are the non city dwelling types.

The Natives I know in BC are pro gun, as they are able to get food permits, I've been hunting with them on a food permit before.

The Inuit up North are pro gun for the most part, a fair amount of their food is taken with a firearm. (see Nunavut)

Most rural Albertans would probably be pro gun IMHO...


See the pattern forming here...Socialists want to cram everyone into Mega cities where it is easier to micro-manage and socially engineer people...most rural people do not drink the "guns bad" koolaid...

PS
here is a link to a modern map of Canada...

http://chm15127.usask.ca/canada.gif
 
I don't know a lot of Canadians, but all the ones I know from Alberta are pro-gun, and think their liberal counterparts in the east are daffy. Kinda like us Idahoans think about folks from Massachussets.

Having Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan join the US would be real cool. 53 states. 3 more conservative states. 106 member Senate, with a more conservative majority. Yeah, I could like that.
 
Is it possible then for Alberta, BC to leave Canada, and join us though?
 
Dave R said:
I don't know a lot of Canadians, but all the ones I know from Alberta are pro-gun, and think their liberal counterparts in the east are daffy. Kinda like us Idahoans think about folks from Massachussets.

Having Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan join the US would be real cool. 53 states. 3 more conservative states. 106 member Senate, with a more conservative majority. Yeah, I could like that.

Having Yukon and NWT join the US would be really be cool. Hunting and fishing (except for salmon) as good as Alaska's without having to get some infernal firearms license to cross the border.
 
No offence, but if my province seceeded I'd prefer we go-it-alone. We'd let other places join us, probably, though:) Just that some of the headlines of US feds are kind of disturbing, too big. That's the thing, we get a LOT of eastern culture broadcast, which is a lot like I guess your Boston culture is, and the rest is US culture, NY and LA. Some news from Spokane, but nothing significant. So cities are becoming, well, wuss-palaces.

Luckily, as far as I can decipher laws, the Province of Alberta is pretty cool with laws. They let municipalities make their own rules, so the big cities make more restrictive laws to suit their inhabitants, noise, traffic, all that. This way the urbanites can live in urbania, and the rest of us can dream of getting rich, and building a ranch somewhere with more freedom, where you can hang dice from your mirror, make noise after dark, and discharge firearms on your property.

In my province you really don't understand how big it is until you drive it. Last time we visited family further north we drove 6, 8, 10 hours, looked at the map, and this place is just over halfway to the way to the top of the map. Then took a double-take, and the map only showed the lower half of the province:eek: If you want to get away from it ALL you sure can!

But I secretly love it when my Grandparents would complain about the traffic, and it was a truck passing by every half hour.


P.S.
You can't ranch too close to the city, even almost an hour's drive away my cousin says rich urbanites are buying ranches, and sub-dividing them, and a bunch of wusses come out and our-number the original inhabitants. Then they out-vote and pass unpopular laws on traffic and noise and even cattle smells. I guess you could try to fight them, some places are making rules on sub-dividing and stuff, but they are rich and crafty.
 
I saw a newspaper report (in the National Post, a relatively conservative paper, unlike the leftist Toronto Star or Globe and Mail) indicating that only in Alberta is there a slight majority who would vote conservative. In every other province, when you add up the numbers who are for the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens, and the Bloc Quebecois, they are the majority. Leftist lemminghood must be induced from the water or something.
 
SomeKid said:
Is it possible then for Alberta, BC to leave Canada, and join us though?

Yes, they can opt out of the confederation...

But I can tell you straight out, there are too many liberals and socialists in BC...Been there, grew up there, didn't drink the kool-aid though...
 
MD_Willington said:
Yes, they can opt out of the confederation...

But I can tell you straight out, there are too many liberals and socialists in BC...Been there, grew up there, didn't drink the kool-aid though...

My bad, I kinda assumed that being where it was, it may be better than the rest. What provinces of Canada are worth making States?
 
utahminirevolver said:
I saw a newspaper report (in the National Post, a relatively conservative paper, unlike the leftist Toronto Star or Globe and Mail) indicating that only in Alberta is there a slight majority who would vote conservative. In every other province, when you add up the numbers who are for the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens, and the Bloc Quebecois, they are the majority. Leftist lemminghood must be induced from the water or something.


We have a riding system, much like your electoral college, except moreso. It's designed to form majority gov'ts, because it was a dominion far to heck and gone away from the King, and they needed a gov't to get stuff done and done quick. Not so relevant today, but you al know how likely electoral reforms are to happen...

Anyway, a riding is an area with a population, so rural ridings are larger and city ridings are smaller. A majority gov't means you win more than half the ridings, and it is taboo to vote against the party. So if you have over half the ridings = half the seats in the House, you always win every vote you propose. And it's convenient that there's no seperate election for a Prime Minister, they are just the leader of the party that wins the most seats. Not really even put in writing anywhere, just a tradition started in Britain when they had a king who lived in Germany, they sent 1 guy over to tell him what the ministers were doing. Now he has the same powers as a king.

Anyway, the point is that it's very rare that the ruling party has majority. We don't do majority rule. We do 'who has the most' rule. So if you have 3 or 4 parties competing in a riding, they get 10, 20, 30, and 40% of the votes respectively, the guy with 40% wins. Thus the gov't is almost ALWAYS elected without majority support.

So no-one needs majority anywhere, you just need more than the next guy.

Ironically, the Liberals were trailing the Conservatives for a while, and then they had a bunch of unethical business dealings, and the Liberals won, because everyone hated the conservatives so much at the time. And right now if the conservatives had been smarter they'd be set to reverse the tables, but they played their cards wrong, and tried to get the religious fringe votes, instead of stealing all the votes the Liberals normally get.
 
Lucky said:
Anyway, the point is that it's very rare that the ruling party has majority. We don't do majority rule. We do 'who has the most' rule. So if you have 3 or 4 parties competing in a riding, they get 10, 20, 30, and 40% of the votes respectively, the guy with 40% wins. Thus the gov't is almost ALWAYS elected without majority support.

So no-one needs majority anywhere, you just need more than the next guy.
Interesting. Lots of Americans think we'd be so much better off if we had more than 2 dominant parties.
 
Have wondered up & down this part not to see a word about the Handgun Ban as mentioned by PM Paul Martin who is in for possible re-election of himself & his party or NOT.

That was, I believe a week-ago last thursday when he was compaigining in Ontario & they are in deep trouble with all the shooting by criminals & gangs which does total up to quite a number of killings, bank or business robberies. He & others believe in the Utopia like Bill C-68 will stop all these wrong doings ONLY it will not.

They will have no trouble confiscating our h/guns for we were forced to re-register our h/guns as being Club members of target shooting Clubs. For every make, model, S/N, caliber, & bbl length are on their files along with our addresses.

Problem is those gangs & criminals, that use illegal guns to sub-machine guns illegally smuggled into Cdn, are not with a PAL or a registered h/gun so in taking away & destroying our h/guns will make no difference if the Lieberals get back into power.

Of interest the Minister of Justice was so sharp & wrong to point out that "taget shooters" will not be effected which was totally wrong YET she is in charge of the money being wasted on Bill C-68 & being over 2 billion dollars.

Wipe us out (of which most are in their 50s to 70s---not exactly the law-abiding citizens & tax payers that would be into the gang fights, hold-ups, shooting & such) & that will be the end of our Club which the long bbl people, like .22 target rifle, center-fire rifle, trap or even archers realize. The largest money comes from the h/gun target shooters & has been so since way back in the mid-70s when I joined the Club.

So some thought for others on this board if they have not thought about the above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top