D.B.

Great info Storm. I think we can find a lot of common ground on both of these statements, because you've expressed exactly what I think the CPC should do with the registry. My only reservation is that it's a hot political topic and I hope Harper moves forward with sound decisions instead of political ones. I don't think the 'unarmed urban masses' that FTA was refering to have any problem with people buying guns legitimately and don't want to make that more difficult... we just want a solution that stops guys from comparing their pieces in the men's room and little girls from getting shot on the street.

Great post FTA! RACK it. Never realized Allan Rock was such a quack. But then he is a hippy, so I shouldn't expect his personal view to be much different. I just can't see this as a reality in Canada... well not until the deer, the moose and the forests are all gone. So hopefully not for a little while anyway. There are too many legitimate uses for them. I am curious to hear your take possibiltiy of a hand gun ban. Maybe the sinister first step To me, fear of a complete gun ban does sound a little tin-foil hattish. But governments are all about holding power so I don't doubt they'd make use of such a registry if it was in their best interest. I definately have to concede your point here. Ouch. And we don't even have any ammo to fight back with.

Storm (great name by the way) that's not quite my point. Of course there are differences, but what I'm asking is why is it so oulandish to ask someone to register a gun when other private posessions are? And whether or not anyone can register a car is moot. Criminals shouldn't be able to legally own a gun so I would hope there are different standards in place. You making an really interesting point here. And I agree the car analogy falls apart. Let bring in another one though. How about exotic animals like snakes and tigers and whatever. People keep them in the privacy of their own homes but are still required to register them. I just have to point out that the right to bear arms has not been enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. So it's not a right to be taken away. Maybe confrontational is a better word. You have to understand the 99% of the people who have any support for the gun registry don't own guns. So, no they don't understand the ins and outs of the registry like a gun owner simply because because it doesn't apply to them, but they do understand the idea of guns, they understand what they can do and the idea of having them registered. And it doesn't sound so bad. You've got this blanket dismissal for any opinions that differ from your own. You say they're just plain wrong. Thesse people have an opinion and view of society as well... it may differ from yours but it isn't any less valid! You've got our ear and we're all hanging around waiting for you to make some sort of logical argument that gun registration (in the general sense) is a bad thing. No one is going to argue that the Liberal's gun registry was well done, but why are you opposed to the idea of gun registration in general?

Really? Cause when I register a car they have my whole driving record right there? If I've had my license suspended I can't register it. Any shmuch can't own a car... and should we really let any shmuck own a gun? You're absolutely right. A criminal would not register a gun. I've said it. I openly admit it. Is that what you're looking for. You keep coming back to the same tired arguments. Criminals get guns illegally... maybe by stealing it maybe it comes up from the US. Who knows. The point is with a registry of legal guns you know where it came from. You know who it belongs to. IF this 'criminals don't register; argument is so strong can you explain why the law enforcement is strongly behind the hand gun registry? Would a criminal with a hand gun suddenly feel obligated to register it?

I like that. That's really good. You call that a debate? Your using this message board as a soapbox for your personal opinions and anyone one that disagrees is dismissed because they 'don't understand the issue' or their arguements are 'illogical.' If you want to have a REAL debate why don't you drop the games and address some of the issues that have been brought up. Because so far all you've done is come across as one more angry, hot head gun owner that's making me think the gun registry is a better and better idea. Would you care to EXPLAIN why it doesn't hold any water?

You've got a point, except they were registering the guns, not the owners. It's like when you buy a car. You bring in the transfer paper and they switch the registration over to you. I don't know what it's like across the country, but in my province if I move I need to tell the government or I'm subject to a fine aswell. If we ask people to be responsible for their cars is it too much to ask them to be responsible for their guns? Geoffrey you're absolutely right about the criminal rights. It's a pisser because it would be SO sweet to be able to go and just round up the usual suspects... but you just can't do that. It would probably also make me question the fairness of our police system I think the root issue here is increased regulation of gun ownership. I think it's also safe to say those who own guns are generally not in favour of this. But the gun registry sounds like a nice idea to the rest of us. It really does. It's not hard to think of possible benifits to having a list of all the guns in the country. There's a murder and you've got the weapon... where to from there...? Is it so bad to require someone to have a licence to register a gun? In theory it's great. Problem is we live in the real world and theory doesn't always translate. It's been a cash cow and from what I understand a total pain in the ass to gun owners. To top it off, police forces don't seem to be using it. How's that for your money's worth? Problem is it's too late for a refund. The billion dollars has been spent... we aint gettin' it back. The question becomes do we continue with the registry, continue to work out it's kinks and treat guns like cars but also increase government bureaucracy or really throw away that billion, cut back on government and de-regulate gun ownership. For me, in my life it's not a big deal. As I said, I don't own any guns, or intend to for that matter. (You can save your sissy comments here storm, some of your posts can be pretty offensive for someone complaining about insults.) So if it went one way or the other I could really care less, but the logic behind it to me doesn't seem so asinine, if maybe the planning was.

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple. But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election.

So you're admitting that you use political labels like right or left to determine if an idea has merit rather than thinking about it objectively? :poke:

I think you're confusing things. Free votes and an open parliament are good things. I would argue being elected with one party and crossing the floor two isn't. It certainly isn't respecting the democratic process. Stephen Harper ran a campaign on accountability and ethics. How is this being accountable to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway?

I agree, I'm concerned this is a lesson for voters too and it's bad one. Voter turn out is low enough as it is and there's already a preception out there that politicians are lyin', cheatin', no good doin' crooks that are only in it for themselves. This only adds fuel to that fire. When a candidate runs for election they ask for the support of the people by presenting their platform. In Canadian politics, (I feel it's safe to say) the party plays a big role in that platform because of the strong party lines in Ottawa. The point is that he hasn't been honest . He sang one song to his constituents during the campaign then two weeks later completely changed his tune. It's no different that Belinda or Bryson. The timing just makes it more blatant. Arguments that their defections where based on the 'right wing agenda' are bunk. You can't make deals in opposition. The Liberals won the election but the Conservatives get the seat? This goes beyond partisan politics; it's just plain bad for democracy. What standard should we hold our politicians too?