Even in 'gunz-luving' Texas, one has to be 21 and have gone through the proper certification. Now, if you are proposing it to extend the process similar to having a car, (some sort of insurance system for casualties, make each one purchased registered to an owner, etc) then I'd see nothing wrong with that. But nitpicking on whether something is too 'easy' to kill (and that goes by rather arbitrary standards), with I believe is counterproductive. Criminals often have the better weapons than police offers. O.o

Does any of the other Canadians think it's kinda lame that we're replacing the banknotes? It hasn't even been 15 years (which I thought was the time period for bills) and the designs are so amazing. I'd also say it has a classical feel but then that just becomes nostalgia or some bullcabbage.

Go down to the table to see the ones being replaced by clicking on the external images link


The new ones that were released last year. The 5 and the 10 are being released sometime this year.

I like the polymer. Counterfeit technology improves so fast, it's important to stay one step ahead.

Also, in 2011, we won Best Currency Public Education Program so i hope we take Best New Banknote for 2013.

When I go to pay for something, I feel like I'm playing Monopoly :o

I like them though. Although I wish they hadn't changed the scientist on the back of the 100 because she looked asian. We're a multicultural society. Why shouldn't we have an asian lady on the Canadian bill? So racist...

...Ugh. You've got to be kidding me...

And I thought I'd heard the worst of it when people started complaining about the Vimy Memorial being on the $20. "Because it looks like the twin towers and there's half naked people on it." These people need read some history. And while they're at it, grow the hell up.

Anyway, the new bills are cool even if I still miss the pre-2001 ones with the animals on them. So many stylish colours now though.

I hate how the nickel and the quarter are so similar in size

Didier wrote:I like them though. Although I wish they hadn't changed the scientist on the back of the 100 because she looked asian. We're a multicultural society. Why shouldn't we have an asian lady on the Canadian bill? So racist...

Yeah that was bullcabbage. A comment on the article pretty much summed up my thoughts.

"I thought this was an article from The Onion."

Nero wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/0 ... ht-defence

Hmmm

I'm on team Argentina.

Didier wrote:I'm on team Argentina.

Two questions:

1) Do you not recognise the inhabitants' right to self determination?
2) Are you aware of the history of the islands? Here's a nice, readable article on the subject.

For the record here, I think they're a miserable and inconvenient place which have caused entirely more trouble than they're worth, but the islanders have the right to stay British, and frankly Argentina invading was downright stupid when we were prepared to negotiate over them (on account of being a miserable and inconvenient place and more trouble than they were worth).

oh noes! not more articles...

Okay, here's the issue I have with "self-determination" The way to get around this is just to take over a region, flood a bunch of your own people in there, and then badabing badaboom "the people (who we strategically placed) have self-determined to stick with the mother country" Look at the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or Northern Ireland, or the West Bank.

Now to be fair, the Falkland islands were basically deserted before the British set up shop, and people have lived there for generations now and it isn't the people's choice where they are born and now the Falklands are home. I get that.

But Britain's empire is done. The Falklands/Malvinas Islands are geographically closer to Argentina than any other country. Especially not England. And for Argentina, the potential in resources of the Malvinas and the surrounding waters is valuable economically.

You see, in Canada, we have hundreds if not thousands of islands in the Arctic archipelago. Most of them are uninhabited. There's some fear here that other countries could essentially lay claim to some of our islands by populating them and then justify using the Northwest passage, which we want to control for environmental and other slightly selfish reasons.

So, we should hand over the islands, and never mind the wishes of the people who've been living there for hundreds of years, because.. we don't have many other overseas territories left and they're close to somewhere else? I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The status of our remaining overseas territories doesn't seem relevant in the slightest, and lots of countries own bits of land near other countries.

You then go on to talk about people appropriating Canadian islands by settling them, which is fine, except you just admitted that's not what happened with the Falklands, so I don't see how that's relevant either. (Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when the islands were initially settled.)

Sentynel wrote:(Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when the islands were initially settled.)

I don't think this should be in brackets. Why the hell has no one else mentioned this? No news article, no argument except here. This for me kills the argument.

I'm saying the Falklands were settled in an era of British imperial expansion, and when that era came to a close, Britain should have forfeited the Falklands to Argentina, because Argentina has a logical geographic argument to claim the Malvinas.

Speaking generally, I don't think non-native people should be able to self-determine the status of the land they colonized.

In the case of the Falklands, this is a sticky issue, because people have lived there for generations, and after such a long period of time, at some point perhaps the colonists have become indigenous?

I see both sides of this debate. I just sympathize with Argentina because the Falklands are so close to Argentina and a whole ocean away from Britain, and when Britain's empire ended, it should have ended in the Falklands too. It isn't like the Argentines are going to massacre all the islanders either. Worst case scenario: the Falklanders might have to pick up a little Spanish.

And also, if I don't sympathize with Argentina, I'm a hypocrite if ever Canada's arctic sovereignty gets threatened and I want to claim the arctic islands should be Canadian even if no Canadians live there and a handful of Danish people (for instance) do.

I think we should move the people off the falklands and then nuke them into dust so everyone shuts up about them :P

Nero wrote:

Sentynel wrote:(Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when the islands were initially settled.)

I don't think this should be in brackets. Why the hell has no one else mentioned this? No news article, no argument except here. This for me kills the argument.

I did some fact-checking

1840- when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony on the Falklands

1816- Argentine independence from Spain

Granted, you said "intially settled" but the intial settlement(s) aren't really relevant. Britain colonized the Falklands for real while Argentina existed.

*sits back, eats popcorn and hums "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"*

But yeah, the Arctic islands are OURS dammit.

Didier wrote:I'm saying the Falklands were settled in an era of British imperial expansion, and when that era came to a close, Britain should have forfeited the Falklands to Argentina, because Argentina has a logical geographic argument to claim the Malvinas.

Speaking generally, I don't think non-native people should be able to self-determine the status of the land they colonized.

This is a very difficult argument to apply consistently. How about we give the Falklands back to Argentina after they give Argentina back to the indigenous people? There weren't any indigenous peoples in the Falklands, so Argentina's behaviour re their indigenous peoples is much more egregious than ours re the Falklands (we didn't even evict anyone else's settlers). Where do you draw the dividing lines about which past behaviour is acceptable and which is cause for returning $land to $people? Naively, you should stop worrying about the status of Canada's islands and start evacuating all the Europeans and other foreign settlers so *your* indigenous people can have it back (and for that matter, Europe has one heck of a lot of cultural straightening out to do given the number of empires and invasions we've had over the course of recorded history). Obviously, that's an extreme argument and not one anyone is sanely making. But I can't come up with any way of consistently drawing the lines of acceptability that make the British control of the Falklands specifically unacceptable.

Yeah, basically Europe was one immensely egocentric jerk to the entire rest of the world.

Anyway, I disagree with the comparisons you're making between the Falklands and Canadians and Argentines and their aboriginal peoples. Because Canadians and Argentines,(specifically: white Canadians and Argentines) while once being colonists , are now the natives of their lands. Canadians are no longer British people (or French people). We distinctly identify as Canadian people. Same for Argentines. Not the same for Falklanders, who want to remain British. Sure, the Falklands didn't have any natives, but so what? It isnt like I can go to England, find some uninhabited piece of forest and claim it for Canada.

that's just silly

The residents of the Falklands identify as Islanders, they just choose to remain part of the UK too. (Fun fact: popular support for independence, as opposed to remaining part of Britain, dropped off rather after Argentina invaded.)

Can I therefore nab myself a nice formerly-Canadian island of my very own, as long as I declare independence and identify myself as a citizen of the nation of <random island>? Can I, for that matter, do the same to a habited region, as long as I outnumber the existing residents? This is exactly what you were complaining about re self-determinism earlier, but it's somehow okay as long as it's not happening on behalf of some other nation?

And this still doesn't address the question of what's so special about the Falklands, as opposed to any of the other overseas territories held by any number of nations, many of which are closer to some other sovereign nation than their administrator.

Sentynel wrote:Can I therefore nab myself a nice formerly-Canadian island of my very own, as long as I declare independence and identify myself as a citizen of the nation of <random island>? Can I, for that matter, do the same to a habited region, as long as I outnumber the existing residents?

Then it's settled. We need to claim an island for "The Glorious Republic of Bartiforums."