Molly

I can't speak for Ontario, but 'one party state' is pretty much how I'd describe Alberta. One of my brothers-in-law went looking for a PC federal nomination in Alberta--ooh, 3 times IIRC, and came within a recount of winning it. He ran PC because it was the only game in town, not because that party reflected his politics. (It didn't.)

In self defense: How about letting Molly tell the world what Molly thinks. She's much more likely to report it accurately. For instance, Molly knows that Saipan is very far from ignorant on this subject, no matter how blockheaded and ignorant he acts. After this many years of answering the same unfounded and illogical crud on the subject (this is 7, maybe 8 years of repetition that I've seen him perform, through 4, or is it 5 different forums) I don't really blame him for commenting as though he doesn't expect anyone to read it, and dismissing people with nonsense comments. ...But my 2 cents was really just intended to point out to Pinko how unreasonable- how obtuse- and how rude he was being. ...and, Molly made no such conclusion about your barking, and I have no idea how/why you came up with the idea that I did.

Well, we wouldn't want to leave you wondering whether you've managed to be sufficiently obnoxious to permanently alienate people from your position. Let me add my "yo' mamma.." to his.

The onus is on you to establish that long gun registration reduces injuries, like helmets and seat belts. Evidence to that effect is awfully lean, and usually drawn from the same error as the second bit that I quoted. The registry plays no role in 'making sure that the firearm is being sold to a licensed individual' that wasn't already well-accomplished well before the registry existed... so that 'underlying benefit' doesn't exist either.

By my count, Saipan is the only gun owner who has said a word today. (Unless, Wild Bill? IIRC you have none, correct?) You and him seem to be opposite sides of the same coin... except he's done some research.

TV and radio for headlines, but followed up on the net for substance. I'd like to say print, but we can't get a daily delivered, and if we're fetching it ourselves, the news is stale by the time it gets here.

Quick question to Bob and to Guyser... do you folks own/use guns/have much comfort level with them? Seems to me that it's a tendency for folks who don't have anything to do with guns to percieve guns as being for shooting at people, while folks who do have a high familiarity and comfort level with guns would mostly not think of it at all, and mostly be surprised/apalled when the prospect of shooting at people is pointed out. Gun users are mostly very well conditioned to the idea that you just don't point a gun at anything you don't seriously want dead, not even by accident... and people just aren't on that list. What say?

Now I don't have any problem at all with that. That's just using an appropriate level of care. Maintaining an entire (bloody expensive) beaurocracy for the sake of an incomplete and error-riddled list-- that's another thing entirely. Bludgeoning citizens with removal of normal rights, threat of criminal charges, and siezure of property for the heinous crime of not keeping their paperwork perfectly up to date... that's just not appropriate.

Betsy is still exercizing her Dawkins obsession? Still?!

Hint: There is no such thing.

I can't speak for gun nuts, but perhaps if you are one of 'most people', you could coherently explain what that value might be. Coherently, mind. Preferably without any name-calling.

Part of me feels sorry for this guy and his discovery of his own naivete. He was hired to be a talking head, not a thinking one. Obviously he either didn't understand the implications of that, or didn't realize the personal toll it would take on him. He wasn't paid the big bucks for his dashing good looks and lovely enunciation- that can be found for minimum wage at any 'Hooters'. The purchase of a soul is a little more pricey.

"In this race to the bottom, the less time and money the CBC devotes to enterprise journalism, the less motivation there is for the private networks to maintain credibility by funding their own investigative teams. " This is high on my list of reasons why the CBC is well worth the money spent on it, and more. And this: "Meanwhile, the people who are supposed to be holding decision makers to account are instead broadcasting useless tripe, or worse, stories that actively distract from the massive projects we need to be tackling instead of watching TV." has been leaving me queasy for quite some time.

I don't even know any more whether I could be convinced it has merit or not. I do know that I haven't heard a properly-founded reason yet for the long gun registry to exist, and I've pretty much quit bothering to peer through the smoke to try to see one.

How very simpleminded to insist that the only options are unrestricted, unlimited, unsustainable overpopulation and extinction. Ad absurdum. No such dichotomy exists.