myata

And why would all the "cites" point to Gary's own publications, I wonder? (no, I don't care to sift through gazzilion of Gary's articles, I've better plans for my time). In any case, all this is beyond the point. Effective gun control is impossible while keeping loose ownership for some firearms (some pretty dangerous ones at that, as Dawson College or any number of other cases should have taught us). If we're are to have gun control in this country, then registry should be continued and problems with it - fixed. And if you don't want gun control here, then state it openly, as it is. What's it with switching the attention to unfortunate but all too common nonetheless example of government screw up? After all those ideas, they work so well down south, with greatest prison population in the world, and crime rates multiple of ours (which aren't anything like the smallest in the world in the first place, as one could readily see).

And couldn't figure out that the budget is for the entire CFC that does much more than registration (licensing, imports both individual and commercial)? The source has a lot of valuable information, let's just say that you got your numbers a bit wrong: One third (firearms other than handguns) of 8,100 would amount to near 3,000 (2,700) victims, annually. No it does not. There's no readily available way for police to find out if licensee has multiple (numerous) firearms. This information may be kept somewhere in the local office but wouldn't be readily available to police in another town across the country. It's hard to verify that all guns are removed if the license is revoked. In any case, we have two tier registration system for cars (owner and vehicle), and those are just innocent means of transportation, so I don't really see what the terrible whine is all about (other than to pull in the notion that gun ownership is a right). We cannot have meaningful gun control in this country and loose gun ownership, for that model look south:

No, nothing political, just an example from the most recent records. Of course, we, Conservatives would never dream of making such "political" statements. Did you forget to mention what you were reading?

Unless some of us want to define anybody who wouldn't fit their (arbitrarilty defined) standars as "security risk".

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers (and analogies). There was another thread on this topic where I posted a link, the annual cost of running the registry is $25 million. It comes to about a half of snow removal budget in Calgary. Our governments are routinely plagued with problems. It's their normal mode of operation. Again, nothing particular to firearm registry. The cost is known and it is negligeable on the government's scales of spending. The benefits are multiple and will expand over time, especially when this government finally stops compromising it in every way possible. For once, and over time it will create the notion in the public mindset that owning guns is not an automatic right for anybody and requires control and discipline.

Unfortunately, it seems the way our governments work that has nothing to do with the registry per se. Recall comparable examples of Conservatives IT boondoggle (over $1 billion) and Ontario's eHealth (close to billion). Perhaps in a more competitive and transparent governance system it could be different. Here, the government in power is unchecked in its running of affairs and such affairs come to the light too late with huge cost overruns. You surely understand the notion of one time cost? Looks like we are on the same boat here. But they cannot be saved now, anymore than IT or eHealth moneys. The only thing that could happen is that along with hugely overrun (no question there) initial cost, we'll now bury all the benefits of the up and running system. There're many registration system in this country (tax, birth, transportation), so there's no innate reason gun registration could not be made to work. Other than, granted, ideological dislike for any limits on guns.

At the time of introduction of mandatory registration in 2001 registration fee was $10 (per up to 10 guns). I'm not sure what is the current registration fee, but in all likelihood it's in the same range of peanuts for a law abiding citizen. Registration is a non issue for anybody (it's guns we're talking about, not cars, for which annual registration in Ontario costs from $75) other than super vocal gun lobby that wants to pull in the US-style idea that possession (and eventually carrying) a firearm is a right. Gun control is a must in a safe society and registration of guns is a necessary and even critical component of it. (For once) I applaud Iggy's decision to support it, unquestionnably and without confusion or backtracking. I'm not so sure about whipping the vote, I believe the distinction is artificial (if the government brings in a bill, it's OK to whip, but if it's one of it's MPs, it suddenly becomes a matter of democracy?). Sounds like another of any number of privileges, prerogatives and other weird convolutions we have in this system as an alternative to clear and transparent work of government and legislation. No you can't have yourself represented by your preferred party, forget that, but as a next best we allow MPs of the behemoth duo to vote their mind (on very special occasions couple of times a year).

Oh, so I can't claim any of those "services" while wearing sandals? Even in the dead heat of the summer? Is my open belly t-shirt OK, masta? And btw the "standard" didn't mention anything about the lower part of the body, does it mean that I can come in my "Speedos"? Or even without? Most certainly, with "clearly visible face" (and something else too). Wonder what other thoughtful norms for dress, wear (and maybe read, think, vote, in the next iteration?) we'll come up with, having taken that highly rewarding path of setting (our) standards for other's personal choices. Why I wonder every time this seemingly benevolent and thoughful argument is made, it would invariably reduce itself to either obvious stupidity, or something sinister (and on occasion, hideous)? Could it be indication of the mental state of its authors? Or some unknown fundamental law of human nature (oh yeah: don't judge and... we like to pride ourselves on that book.. sometimes.. when it serves our ends).

What better illustration do we need to see where these "well intended" policies are leading us to? "Strong" western women" against barbaric, week and incapable of making their own choices you know who..

And for some (yet unknown or unexplained reason), the only way we can "support" democratic developments in those strange and remote lands (inspired by projection of our military might) would be by propping corrupt, selfish, vote rigging, bizzarely behaving semi or even fully developed dictators ( examples are too numerous to list here). So far, I'm at loss to explain this mystery. But I feel that it's got something to do with "do as I say...".

Actually, with the level of "pragmatism" Iggy has been showing us, I can't bet that he wouldn't. "Stealth" is the big part of the problem in this system. In the 1.5 party democracy we have in this country, not all issues appear to be "convenient" to be brought out in public.

True. Let's remember that Liberal party has no official position on the issue. What would it take for our leading (ostensibly) progressive party to state clearly that it's a personal choice in which state has no business, just like in the "bedrooms of the nation"? And so, we have this bizzare situation where our leading (again, ostensibly) progressive party plays games around the issue, while the party advocating small government (other than in the matters of freedoms and personal choices) attempts to pull in some / any sort of anker notions to start restricting it. Or is it another sign of the stalemate we've been seeing in the federal politics for awhile now and that will likely exist till we finally find will and courage to kick the behemoth duo's monopoly on power?

I wonder if the fault could be attributed to regular MPs really. Other than being "nobodies" in their own caucus, they have exactly one choice: to go other to the "twin" and become a "nobody" there.

Let's recall how Harper's folks were all over at the times of Gomery inquiry. But of course it's not what opposition should be doing at the times of Conservatives own troubles. The standards: transparency, coalition with the "devil", fixed election dates, etc, they are there only for the others.

It does illustrate the view that people simply cannot be allowed to have full control of their personal lives and choices, and need that gentle guiding hand by otherwise "small" government.

As it appears, the Conservatives are not at all against the "big government". They only have their own ideas where it should be big. Like in your morals, personal choices, beliefs and so on.

That's right. Because in our rigid system, minority situation is the only time the party in power has any incentive at all to listen to the opposition and come up with projects and solutions supported from all sides of political spectrum. So, rather than wonder at this observation, why not make it a norm? Any one party would be a minority until it makes an alliance, a coalition to achieve common goal. It would actually be a practical, working incentive to achieve 1) common goal and 2) to ensure accountability and greater openness to the public. I share this observation, and again I tend to think that it's not an aberration, but more or less (as all things in a society) a logical development in what we may be witnessing the last phase of evolution of our binary political system. The first phase is (was) of course, the consolidation - in a majoritary system only the united opposition has a chance to break to the government; and it has to stay united to continue to govern; The second phase would be "cementation" or rigidity competition: the "twin" with a weaker inner structure aka party disciple finds itself at a disadvantage (losing votes; appearing less clear and constitent to electorate at election times) and has to adapt = strengthen, rigidify its structure and cement discipine. The final stage, the one we happen to live through, is the stalemate: both "twins" have grown rigid and controlled to the max, and the only possible i.e safest strategy for them is to wait for a gross fault by the opponent and then take turn at the power and do the same (i.e. and virtually exact same). Good luck trying to turn this development back, its approaching rock solidity at this stage. The only way it can be moved forward is from outside, ie.: stop voter participation in the duopoly spectacle; require representation of the entire political spectrum in the country legislature; which will make the "twin" duo, having lost their guaranteed power feed, to become more responsive to demands and ideas of smaller parties, and the population they represent. I agree. However like everywhere in life it's a tradeoff: change and less stability vs stagnation, rigidity and ultimately, halt of progress. As of now, it mostly exists only on paper. The government wields such broad powers, either directly or by proxy of unelected vice-Sovereign, that it is capable to control virtually every phase of political process. Yes, including judicial via unchallenged nomination of Supreme Court judges.

I doubt that going back in time is generally a good idea. Paries are here to stay simply because they are way, way more efficient in achieving their objectives than a random group of individuals trying to force their local priorities (for an example, just look at Ottawa City council, no need to go far). However, there's a way forward. It's called constitutional division of powers and proportional representation. The need to negotiate majority in coalition governments would make bigger parties far more open to a compromise than they have ever been, and will be in a duopoly we have now. And the risk to lose majority and with it the right to govern at any time would keep them in check much better than meek and disorganised attemps that can be thwarted by the all-powerful government in so many ways. The problem is not that we have parties; but what we have too few parties that have any possibility to govern and that stiffles competition, choice and therefore, progress. The simple question we need to answer is this: is our democracy there for the government to perform its duties? Or is the government there to operate strictly within its constitutional domain, in a transparent and accountable to people via democratic mechanisms manner? Our current answer still comes from the times colonial; If there's any hope for future progress in the democratic governance here, that view will have to change.

Ignorance is of course that astonishing inability to put two and two (actually, one and one) together. Opposition in the Parliament has exactly two possible courses of action: 1) Heroic (call the government on principle and call an election; with a risk, for every single oppositon MP to lose their seat; and with, nice pay; work schedule so full of breaks and holidays; pension; etc); or 2) Normal, i.e let government do what it does, and hope that it'll eventually screw itself up and the power could be picked up as that proverbial apple from a tree; and certainly enjoying all aspects of Parliamentary life in the meanwhile. These are exactly all possible avenues of political process in our country. Guess which one your average, less than exactly heroic MP (leader of party, leader of Opposition) is steered (i.e gently guided toward)? Inherent device being dissolving the Parliament and triggering election every time government has screwed up and needs to be held to account? Of course populace could hardly be expected to be more politically alive than its supposedly representative, representatives. Why did it come to this, I wonder? I mean there must be a reason?

Wow; all else failing, self cheering with a buddy could never go wrong; I mean the next best for a meaningful argument. Which still doesn't answer the question though, so one more time: Which politically phylosophical mechanisms do we have to prevent somebody (e.g. some PM?) who doesn't feel like observing "the contract" (that btw he has no obligation to observe really), from sending our supremacy holding legislation to rest whenever he feels like? E.g. to stall or delay or even to kill (surprise!) investigations he doesn't happen to like? Or for any other worthy reason. I'm sure you'll do better this time, having mastered all those countless volumes of philosophy. P.S. For the rest of us, not so deeply immersed into political philosophies as to prevent us from seeing what's actually going on around, it should be getting quite clear that the system has been created with the intent to give the government in power every mean, tool and instrument to dominate political process in the country; that the only check on this dominance is the risky and uncertain (and self destucting for the Parliament; and for that reason, counter to self interest for many of its members) ability to cause a new election. Would such an arrangement stimulate active, vibrant and transparent funtctioning of government and political system? Or its decomposition into groups of entrenched politicos intrested in little else but getting to the power and sticking to it as long as humanly and technically possible? Your (hopefully, educated in depths of philosophy) guess.

My kid just got that very dilemma in their history/philosophy project; would be interesting to hear their opinion. To me though the answer is directly linked to who's asking the question: someone who understands and values the principles they themselves declared and broadcast arount; or somebody who doesn't really give a darn about any principles as long as it serves their purpose.

OK, OK, I believe (that you can name one). And how did they (political phylosophies) help us with the fact that the government can suspend this (ostensibly) all powerful and quasi supreme Parliament in a flick of a finger (and for any reason; or lack thereof)? Please indulge yourself (with some original thought).

Er... read what, exactly? Forgot to mention, in our all-knowability? And of course, no knowledge would cure deliberate and entirely self imposed ignorance of reality, especially when it's staring, no glaring in one's eyes point blank (prorogation; access to information). But thankfully, there's always that easy-out (yes that one). Way to go!

Very thoughtful. Mercedes is a car and Lada is too. Why bother.

Most would agree that dropping a nuke on a city full of civilians is a terrible act. So? Faults and problems can be found with most cultures on this Earth. The point is what we do. We can change i.e hopefully, improve ourselves; or we could keep pointing fingers at others. Instead. No, it's not a defense, only a suggestion how shaky (and incredible) our (self assumed) position of moral leaders of the world would be. To me, both are wrong and inacceptable. Presuming that you actually defined that "culture"; it may not merit your respect, and that's fine, I do not believe they asked for it, or even care. The moment your "culture" starts to treat them without respect though, and maybe even with violence, it'll set itself on the way to losing all claims to moral superiority, and maybe self respect as well.